Pre-med students aren't doctors. Many people dislike pre-med students, so yes, if you think that doctors are all secretly pre-med students, mentally, you would probably hate doctors. A small minority of these overachievers are accepted into medical school, and then complete medical school and training.
As for this discussion of money, I noted that money is a factor, but not the root motivation. If you had the opportunity to make more money in the same career, making the same sacrifices in terms of time and energy, would you not make use of that opportunity to better provide for your family? Why is a doctor greedy for relocating in order to finance the education of his children? Also, if higher pay attracts more competent doctors, why would you push for reduced pay? Logic dictates that many good physicians would relocate.
The intelligence, time, effort, and raw devotion to an unforgiving career deserve modest compensation, do they not? Anyone who calls practitioners greedy is ignorant of the personal costs of a medical career, from trouble raising a family to the cost of education.
@ paragraph one: I don't think you read my post. I never said I hated doctors. I even said at the end I like my own doctor.
@ paragraph two: show me a doctor who has trouble providing for their family. Keep in mind that doctors in most "socialized" countries don't have to pay for medical school. I feel a "good" (as in motivated to help others) physicians would want to give back to the society that gave them the no-tuition medical training.
@ paragraph three: ignorant? Why? because I don't know that medical school in the US throws people in debt and residency has been equated to hell; and once you become a doctor you have to make decisions that could very well cost them their lives on your watch? Oh wait, I knew that stuff right off the top of my head.
By the way, good debators don't leave anything unanswered. So here's the rapid fire of stuff you ignored:
So I read these and the wiki article on the author. He seems like a respectable enough of a figure.
On the site, it had familiar names suck as Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, and Bill O'Reilly. Seems like it's pretty much a Jewish GOP supporting site.
Let's look at some quotes:
"The current "health care" bill threatens to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats." -- multiple democrats have continuously reiterated that the purpose of the current bill is to provide a public option. So, the competition will lower the cost of health care and improve the quality, thus giving those who are constrained by money choices. Explain to me how more choice takes life and death decisions away from us.
"if you preferred to have a nice hospital room with "amenities" rather than being in an unsanitary ward with inadequate nursing care, as under the National Health Service in Britain" -- As smart as this guy may be, he really can't say that without providing some sort of source. He's not a doctor, he's an economist and social commentator, so he can't use himself as a source
"it is as predictable as the sunrise that medical care for the elderly will be cut back under a government-controlled medical system." -- you mean if such a system focused on preventive care, which includes promoting a healthy lifestyle, they government wouldn't need to spend as much money on heart surgeries? okay, I buy that.
"It is part of a whole mindset of many on the left who have never reconciled themselves to an economic system in which how much people can withdraw from the resources of the nation depends on how much they have contributed to those resources." -- That's probably because that's not what the current economic system is. I don't pay fire insurance so that the trucks will come to my house, I pay taxes to contribute to the fire department, which services everyone, even those who would be unable to pay for fire insurance.
With regard to the first part (about the site), wikipedia actually quoted the founder. Yeah, pretty "unreliable"
About the second issue (medicare bill), let's go "trusty" news sources that say the same thing:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml (says drug companies influenced the bill)
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MMAUpdate/ (includes the text of the law)
quote from the summary of the bill: ( http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MMAUpdate/downloads/PL108-173summary.pdf )
"The Best Price section of title XIX is amended to exclude from the best price calculation prices negotiated from manufacturers for covered discount card drugs under a Medicare endorsed discount drug card" (near bottom of page 24)
The health care debate is supposed to be about identifying problems and fixing them, not making things personal.
One plan that is worth looking at is from the ever-so-liberal San Francisco. In San Francisco, I get healthcare for $84/year with copays of $5. Seriously. I got hit by a car, and the total cost for the ambulance and ER was five dollars. That's one step away from not costing anything out of pocket.
But oh yeah, that's San Francisco, so we can't do anything they do, right?
PS. I go to a doctor who practices in one of the pooer neighborhoods, and I feel that he knows that the way I heal is by understanding what's wrong with my body, so he takes the time necessary to explain everything to me.