5 ms·
I think the problem is not that they didn't recognize this fact, but that they intentionally ignored it in order to maintain an artificial scarcity of physician
by ssklash 4y ago
I think the problem is not that they didn't recognize this fact, but that they intentionally ignored it in order to maintain an artificial scarcity of physicians, thereby ensuring higher wages.
- wolverine876 4y agoDid it say that in the article? I didn't see it. Is there evidence of that?
- darth_avocado 4y agoIs there another reason why having a surplus of doctors a problem?
- mbg721 4y agoIsn't "the existing doctors would be displeased" reason enough?
- wolverine876 4y agoThere are many possible reasons. Do you want to seriously explore them?
- noyoudumbdolt 4y agoIt’s pretty obvious why the doctor’s guild would prevent more medical school spots from being available.
- wolverine876 4y ago> It’s pretty obvious why ... That's never evidence and a well-labeled gateway to our own fallacy. There's a reason serious examination of an issue requires factual evidence in any field, from medicine to law to science, etc. IME, in areas I lack expertise, the truth is usually intuitive but an unexpected intuition. The only solution, the only source of truth, is evidence. Do I need to say this on HN? Sadly, it seems like it.
- noyoudumbdolt 4y agoThis is how every guild in history has operated. Every profession when it controls the supply of its own members seeks to limit it. The AMA can only furnish the weakest of excuses for this practice. They say it has to do with federal funding for residency programs. But there's no reason for residency programs to need federal funding at all. They generate more value for hospitals than they cost to run.
- wolverine876 4y agoThere's a reason evidence, not fact-free theories, is required. But now I see the name of your throwaway account. It's sad that you can't talk to other people respectfully.
- noyoudumbdolt 4y ago:'(
- lazide 4y agoI would hope they’d be smart enough to not write it down if they did.
- strawhatguy 4y agoIt didn’t no, but that’s the effect, and why it was so slow to change: the existing members benefited.
- wolverine876 4y agoIt's an hypothesis that's worth exploring because of the apparent effect you point out, which is I think is fact. Based on this discussion, I suspect nobody here knows any evidence. The very sad and dangerous issue is, they don't seem to care or grasp the fallibility of their subjective judgment. Some even turn to ridicule as an argument, which of course is irrelevant and obstructs the search for truth. Without truth, we are doomed. We only spin our wheels, sometimes excitedly, sometimes frantically, sometimes confidently - but it's all a waste of time and labor. We go nowhere; we gain nothing; we are in the same place tomorrow as today (or we may go backward). We don't even know what problems there are or how to solve them. (The claim that existing members benefit also needs evidence: Existing members express feeling very overworked, which doesn't corroborate the claim, and most analyses I see say the the money is going to the insurance companies and the hospital owners and managment.)
- avmich 4y agoIt would be interesting to predict a surplus of software engineers and sharply raise the requirements for applicants to engineering departments. At least the prediction of surplus of VCs in all other countries except US seems to be working well. /s
- passwordoops 4y agoThis is a case where the act itself is evidence of the intent. I know how insulting this is, but asking this question implies either the one asking shouldn't participate in discussions of any kind, or is involved in the corruption
- downrightmike 4y agoThat there are thousands of graduated doctors that can't get residencies because they went to school in the Caribbean, needs to be resolved. Get them in residencies and we will be on an accelerated resolution path.
- maxerickson 4y agoThe way to do this is a modest hospital tax. That way the funding is scaled to the size of the industry without reevaluating it year to year.
- giantg2 4y agoWe already do this sort of thing via Medicare. It's simply underfunded. It seems it would be more effective to expanded and properly manage the existing tax than start a new one. In theory, this would scale well based on population.
- maxerickson 4y agoTaxing hospital revenues aligns the tax with what you want it to reduce. I suppose it would end up in healthcare organizations working to have care classified as non-hospital to avoid the tax.
- giantg2 4y agoHow would it reduce staffing shortages? Hospitals wouldn't care if they pass it on to patients. It would be cheaper to continue to understaff since they'd pay the tax either way.
- giantg2 4y agoEven many domestic doctors have had difficulty getting residencies due to the funding structure.