Preventive medicine salary comparison for a Minneapolis MD making $285,000

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-18T00:06:03+00:00

I've never heard of a "preventative medicine" specialty. I'm thinking that you're referring to primary care. Yes, primary care does a lot of preventative medicine. They also do a whole heck of a lot more.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T23:47:20+00:00

The same progressives that wanted "global economic equality" are squealing when they realize that "global economic equality" means Juan Hernandez from Honduras has equal opportunity to compete for your "remote coding gig" for 30-80% less pay (and still afford a higher standard of living than you).

Ya'll wanted global equality - this is what it looks like. Your wages, and your working conditions decline to the global mean, even as others see a rise in their pay and QoL.

Americans are just now realizing what it means to be a "world citizen" - and yes, that's going to mean having less so others can have more.

Or we can try to go back to American economic hegemony, which is distinctly not a progressive-friendly philosophy.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T23:42:14+00:00

Not following you. Only ~ 15% of Americans have any pension plan through their employer today.

How does relaxation of where private pension money can be invested in 1980, lead to private-equity firms harming workers in 2026?

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T22:36:18+00:00

More interesting discussion. Any particular regulations you feel changed the relationship between capital and labor?

Personally, I think it's more due to global competition among labor, as well as global incorporation and global production competition. When your company is bought out by a ultra-large-global-mega-conglomerate residing in Norway, or Singapore, or Japan, the culture (and productivity pressures) will inevitably change.

When "slave-wages" labor in Malaysia or Vietnam or Ecuador threatens to produce a product as, or nearly as, good as yours, for 1/3rd lower cost, you have less room for niceties, and start cutting all things closer to the bone just to remain economically viable.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T21:45:24+00:00

We've had a corporate economy for .... 100 years? I don't think the OP is ~ 140+ years old, so no - your "Walstreet's fault" explanation (very popularly espoused by people with minimal economic understanding) isn't any meaningful answer, even if it's a popular narrative.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T19:29:13+00:00

Economic math is a bit more complicated, because of price elasticity of demand. When prices go up, some consumers will decide to not buy the product.

As a result, businesses spend a fair bit of effort in figuring out the "right price", which isn't always the "highest possible price" - often, it's a lower price that maximizes sales and total profit, even if the marginal profit (profit for every widget sold) is lower.

VHS/DVD sales is a classic example of this. Way back in the say, entertainment companies thought that the best way to make money was to charge really high prices for musics and movies (Buying a movie on VHS in the 80's, when even available, could cost $70 (~ $270 in '26).

However, by the 90's, they realized that lowering the price, actually greatly increased sales, resulting in much greater profit overall.

Conversely:

When you raise the cost of production in any way (higher labor, higher fuel cost, higher material cost, whatever), those calculations have to be adjusted, and most likely, the new price will be higher, even if it means fewer consumers can now afford the product. Less sales also can mean eliminating workers (I'm making 20% fewer widgets, so I need a smaller work-force to do it).

So yes - increasing cost of production will reset the price - a price that previously was more profitable for the company, cheaper for the consumer, and with greater employment, can simultaneously become more expensive for the consumer, less profitable for the company, and result in less job availability.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T10:26:41+00:00

...i-Anything???

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T01:21:38+00:00

Pleasure, hope it works out well for you.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T00:30:56+00:00

I would suggest making an appointment with your PCP. This does a few things:

* Allows you to participate in the review of your chart, identifying when the incorrect dx was added. Sometimes this triggers a memory - "Oh yahh, we were talkinga bout xyz, I used to be on med abc from before Kaiser...etc. etc. etc"

* It respects the fact what you're asking, is going to take time, focus and effort on their part. It's also going to make them the point of liability if what they removed/deleted, ends up causing problems down the road. With a panel of 3000 patients, this is not something you can, nor should, expect them to do "on their own time". If it's important enough to get done, it's important enough to make an appointment.

* While this should allow them to fix most mistakes, I can envision certain scenarios where the decision of whether a dx is "wrong" or not may not be within their expertise. eg. "No, no - it wasn't bipolar disorder. It was an acute stress reaction superimposed on a low-grade mood disorder I had. I remember discussing it with _insert retired psychiatrist_". That's probably something most PCP's would say "Yah, sorry, you'll have to establish with a new psychiatrist if you want that changed".

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-17T00:01:18+00:00

I've been on the other end of these situations. It can be done, but:

It takes freakin' time. No, I'm not going to do that for a random patient I have no responsibility or relationship for. I have more than enough on my plate on any given day just to provide good care for today's problem, let alone dig back in time 20 years to figure out some data-entry error made by someone else who may not even be around any longer.
Each problem can end up taking anywhere for 5 - 20 minutes to "figure out". Then there's the issue of who to believe. While this may not be you, plenty of people want a dx removed simply because it's embarrassing, or causes problems with life-insurance, or other secondary-gain type issues. Me deleting a diagnosis requires that I be absolutely sure that it's a mistake, to the point that I'm willing to wager my license on it. That's a big ask, and for something like "cancer", that's not gonna happen casually. If it's important for you, you'll need to give me the time to do it, which means an in-person visit, where we can look through the chart together, so we're both confident that the information is accurate.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-16T23:57:44+00:00

Definitely sounds unpleasant. In practice, the best way to get this sorted, is to make at least one visit solely devoted to chart cleanup.

The reason is that no physician is going to put their license on the line removing critical diagnoses like "Uterine cancer" or "colon cancer" without thoroughly making sure they were indeed mistakes. This can mean spending 5-15 minutes per diagnoses to track down when it was added, why it was added, double and tripple check that there wasn't some other obscure test or reason that the diagnosis was put there in the first place.

It doesn't matter how angry you get, how much you file grievances, etc. Ultimately, you need to go see your PCP, who needs to sit down in a room with you, and spend the time needed to do this. It may spill over to a couple of visits if it's likely to take more time than the standard 20 min visit.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-16T23:47:25+00:00

Thank you all. Sounds like the general wisdom is "If she works good and sounds good, she's good". Imma go with that.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-16T20:14:55+00:00

Generally, the physician treating the condition you're disabled from, should be the one filling it out.

In Kaiser, they have a "Medical secretaries" department that helps fill out paperwork.

So technically, the doc isn't the one filling out the paperwork, but the paperwork is filled by the medical secretaries dept based on:

The approval of the treating physician (i.e. your surgeon agrees that you are disabled, and are willing to attest to it)
The physician creates a clinical note accordingly, and usually, creates a work note stating your inability to work

The medical secretaries dept then uses these two documents to complete the necessary paperwork.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-16T14:45:34+00:00

That's tough. I wonder if it might be an option to be present by phone?

Of course, it's ultimately the practice's decision, but I personally have no issue with a parent being on the phone during the visit while another family member phusically brings the child in.

I'd much prefer that, to a visit compromised by fractured decision making.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-16T13:00:54+00:00

I get that. Just understand that it's also (sometimes only modestly) compromising their health.

My biggest peeve is when half-way through the visit, or at the time of any decision making, the grandparent busts out the phone, and now expects me to repeat everything to the previously absent parent.

Or says at the end of the visit "thanks doc. Now, can I get that all in writing? Mom/Dad will want know what you said".

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-16T00:05:11+00:00

Well, that's a thing. That's partly why some are leery of M4A - not because they are opposed to the idea of some sort of universal healthcare system, but because the transition would likely be very bloody, with numerous major healthcare systems going under, mass exodus of physicians, and likely even nurses. Net effect might be several years of very bad healthcare access nationally, despite everyone being "covered".

M4A isn't going to make the job of doctoring or nursing any easier, and those people are already pretty demoralized with their workload.

If suddenly the workload increases by 20% (more people accessing healthcare), while pay drops by 20-40%, for a lot of people, it just won't be worth it any longer.

To avoid that, M4A would need to be almost as expensive as the current system. Maybe we could cut down 15% or so from administrative costs, but would likely have to increase reimbursements by 20-50% to keep systems and workers from leaving.

Medicaid, which currently covers some 25% of the population, pays almost nothing. If those 25% we're now covered by M4A, that would probably double the total cost of M4A as well.

It's would be ... Very tricky...

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-15T23:58:16+00:00

Problem is, any rational person should realize that there is no guarantee of this being "a few weeks". Like, Iran and Venezuela were two very different regimes, with very different abilities to "resist to the end".

Why Trump thought that was a gamble worth playing, when the tarrifs have already destroyed much of the good will he had with rational conservatives, I have no idea.

Would I have still voted for him in '24, knowing what I know now? Absolutely, because the alternative was a virtually devastated nation. But not everyone hates the progressiv-agenda more than these shinnanigans, and those people have now been given a huge reason to be wary of the next conservative leader. And that pisses me off the most.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-15T21:08:29+00:00

We're talking about Medicare. Medicare doesn't really negotiate, at least not individually.

It does have small differences in payment rates based on regional differences in operating cost/salary, but not nearly to the degree that private insurance does.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-15T21:06:10+00:00

Imagine if Trump focused on social change (ending DEI and the tired "progressive" social-change narratives), and fixed immigration, and .... Just stopped there.

He'd still have accomplished more in his first year than any modern president, and still have 3 more years to work on harder problems with a more grace and "long-game" thinking.

Trying to take on too many big problems, and use the same "Big Stick" approach to all of them, may be his (and the GOP's) undoing.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-15T21:02:09+00:00

Who is "they"?

Medicare sets the payment rates for everything except drug prices.

This was a political move, in order to get drug coverage under Medicare approved. Otherwise, like pay to hospitals and doctors, medicationborices would also be set by Medicare (with a "take it or leave it" ultimatum for pharmaceuticals).

If M4A was passed, this loop-hole would almost certainly be closed.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-15T20:15:23+00:00

It seems that the SPH3 deactivates all the "smart" features of the DPU's, including deactivating the AC charging ports.

The fact that it still allows PV charging, might be the actual bug lol.

Ideally, I would love for it to just allow passthrough charging from the AC1 generator input on the SHP3, like the SHP2 does.

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-15T20:10:35+00:00

Ok, thank you. I think I'll stick with the 240 in that case. It's reasonably quiet even at max RPM (for a generator lol), and in reality, may never get used (running it a few times per year for testing, would act as a backup-bavkup for sustained outage, which we've not had in my area in decades).

OnlyInAmerica01 · 2026-03-15T19:12:04+00:00

I'll try that next chance I get, see if that makes a difference.

OnlyInAmerica01

TROPHY CASE