4 ms·

The US purposefully lowered the amount of doctors in the 90s. If anything we should be creating more need schools and creating more doctors.

tharne 6y ago
That's a big claim to make without providing any evidence or even some context.
- wonder_er 6y ago
  I'm not the OP; when I read OP's comment, I thought "Oh, I think the AMA's been doing this since long before the 90's". Here's the article I read a few years back that made me think this is the case: I know it's mises.org, so hold the pichforks until the end. Even if they're way off base, there's got to be some value to be gleaned: https://mises.org/library/100-years-medical-robbery https://mises.org/library/100-years-medical-robbery
controversy 6y ago
The AMA corrected course on this. The problem is not a lack of schools. The problem is a lack of hospitals to train them in as part of the residency. As long as residency is a thing, we have an insurmountable bottle neck. Evidence to the limitations. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-ama-limit-the-number-of-doctors-to-increase-current-doctors-salaries https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-a...
- tesmar2 6y ago
  AFAIK due to regulation, hospitals can prevent other, new hospitals from being built and it happens often. Get rid of the regulation.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    In many places, the government prevents new hospitals from being built. The existing hospital doesn't have to do anything.
    - refurb 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Both are problems. Half the qualified med school candidates don't get accepted to any schools. Of course if we build more med schools we'd need more residencies too, but the government can just raise the subsidy they give residencies to create more.

4 ms·

The US purposefully lowered the amount of doctors in the 90s. If anything we should be creating more need schools and creating more doctors.

by dantheman 6y ago

tharne 6y ago
That's a big claim to make without providing any evidence or even some context.
- wonder_er 6y ago
  I'm not the OP; when I read OP's comment, I thought "Oh, I think the AMA's been doing this since long before the 90's". Here's the article I read a few years back that made me think this is the case: I know it's mises.org, so hold the pichforks until the end. Even if they're way off base, there's got to be some value to be gleaned: https://mises.org/library/100-years-medical-robbery https://mises.org/library/100-years-medical-robbery
controversy 6y ago
The AMA corrected course on this. The problem is not a lack of schools. The problem is a lack of hospitals to train them in as part of the residency. As long as residency is a thing, we have an insurmountable bottle neck. Evidence to the limitations. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-ama-limit-the-number-of-doctors-to-increase-current-doctors-salaries https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-a...
- tesmar2 6y ago
  AFAIK due to regulation, hospitals can prevent other, new hospitals from being built and it happens often. Get rid of the regulation.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    In many places, the government prevents new hospitals from being built. The existing hospital doesn't have to do anything.
    - refurb 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Both are problems. Half the qualified med school candidates don't get accepted to any schools. Of course if we build more med schools we'd need more residencies too, but the government can just raise the subsidy they give residencies to create more.