3 ms·

> Doctors without borders disagrees with your assessment in the USA. Not really - I didn't say that the barriers don't exist. I said that doctors aren't the o

> Doctors without borders disagrees with your assessment in the USA. Not really - I didn't say that the barriers don't exist. I said that doctors aren't the ones responsible for them. Requiring one year of residency in the US is not an unreasonable requirement, for a number of reasons. But the bottleneck in the number of residency slots is the funding for them (which is subsidized by Medicare), and doctors aren't even responsible for this requirement anyway. The AMA, by the way, is not a representative body of doctors - only 25% of doctors actually belong to the AMA.

nickff 10y ago
Saying that doctors are not responsible for restrictions on physician training and certification is like saying that banks are not responsible for credit card and payment processing restrictions and regulations. The government is enacting and enforcing the restrictions, but the doctors are campaigning for them (under many different justifications and tactics). The AMA is like many other trade organizations, in that it often acts as one of many lobbyists for industry interests.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > but the doctors are campaigning for them (under many different justifications and tactics). My point is that they're not campaigning for them. Either directly or indirectly. > The AMA is like many other trade organizations, in that it often acts as one of many lobbyists for industry interests. The AMA is not really a trade organization, because (a) only a small minority of doctors actually belong to it[0], and (b) they don't really consistently advocate for physicians' interests. Even the very article you link doesn't really implicate the AMA at the source (or even the enabler) of these restrictions: > Even if the AMA were to magically produce a few thousand more residency slots, it would barely make a dent in 91,500 projected doctor shortage. [0] and most that are members of the AMA aren't members because they want to receive any representation from them, but because AMA membership is required to gain access to the paperwork required for certain types of billing (AMA holds the copyright on the paperwork).

nickff 10y ago

Saying that doctors are not responsible for restrictions on physician training and certification is like saying that banks are not responsible for credit card and payment processing restrictions and regulations. The government is enacting and enforcing the restrictions, but the doctors are campaigning for them (under many different justifications and tactics). The AMA is like many other trade organizations, in that it often acts as one of many lobbyists for industry interests.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> but the doctors are campaigning for them (under many different justifications and tactics). My point is that they're not campaigning for them. Either directly or indirectly. > The AMA is like many other trade organizations, in that it often acts as one of many lobbyists for industry interests. The AMA is not really a trade organization, because (a) only a small minority of doctors actually belong to it[0], and (b) they don't really consistently advocate for physicians' interests. Even the very article you link doesn't really implicate the AMA at the source (or even the enabler) of these restrictions: > Even if the AMA were to magically produce a few thousand more residency slots, it would barely make a dent in 91,500 projected doctor shortage. [0] and most that are members of the AMA aren't members because they want to receive any representation from them, but because AMA membership is required to gain access to the paperwork required for certain types of billing (AMA holds the copyright on the paperwork).