3 ms·

I'm sure the high paid software engineers at boeing said something similar when jobs were being outsourced "we need more US engineers". Look at the software pro

I'm sure the high paid software engineers at boeing said something similar when jobs were being outsourced "we need more US engineers". Look at the software problems they had and tell me they were wrong. Just like software engineers are best qualified to evaluate software quality, doctors know medicine better than anyone else. Just because they are incentivized to protect their job doesn't mean they are wrong.

themitigating 4y ago
That's correct but I believe their bias makes them a untrustworthy worthy source
908B64B197 4y ago
> Just like software engineers are best qualified to evaluate software quality, doctors know medicine better than anyone else. Just because they are incentivized to protect their job doesn't mean they are wrong. It was rather trivial for Boeing engineers to show, without a doubt, that the cheap offshored programmers didn't write software as good as they did. The design simply spoke for itself and didn't perform to spec. Why not simply have doctors do the same? If their fellow medical workers can't deliver the same quality of care at the same speed and cost, then it should be trivial to show.
- oaktrout 4y ago
  With the Boeing engineers the outsourcing wasn't obviously an issue to individuals outside the system until the 737 MAX was grounded and 346 people were dead. Requiring such a sentinel event before the value of US engineering was known to the public suggests to me that it was not trivial for the Boeing engineers to prove their value. Doctors are at a greater disadvantage as there is not likely to be a sentinel event that kills 189 people at once. Nothing about the US medical system is trivial. Consider the private equity run emergency department in the article, I am sure that they could make more profit off of NPs and that doctors wouldn't save private equity costs. The article suggests that NPs are saving private equity money while costing patients and taxpayers more. Speaking of quality, why should private equity care about quality if it doesn't effect their bottom line?

themitigating 4y ago

That's correct but I believe their bias makes them a untrustworthy worthy source

908B64B197 4y ago

> Just like software engineers are best qualified to evaluate software quality, doctors know medicine better than anyone else. Just because they are incentivized to protect their job doesn't mean they are wrong. It was rather trivial for Boeing engineers to show, without a doubt, that the cheap offshored programmers didn't write software as good as they did. The design simply spoke for itself and didn't perform to spec. Why not simply have doctors do the same? If their fellow medical workers can't deliver the same quality of care at the same speed and cost, then it should be trivial to show.

oaktrout 4y ago
With the Boeing engineers the outsourcing wasn't obviously an issue to individuals outside the system until the 737 MAX was grounded and 346 people were dead. Requiring such a sentinel event before the value of US engineering was known to the public suggests to me that it was not trivial for the Boeing engineers to prove their value. Doctors are at a greater disadvantage as there is not likely to be a sentinel event that kills 189 people at once. Nothing about the US medical system is trivial. Consider the private equity run emergency department in the article, I am sure that they could make more profit off of NPs and that doctors wouldn't save private equity costs. The article suggests that NPs are saving private equity money while costing patients and taxpayers more. Speaking of quality, why should private equity care about quality if it doesn't effect their bottom line?