3 ms·
This article is political and can and should be ignored. Being a doctor is extremely difficult, and pays about as much as a sinecured, pseudo-academic "economis
by throwaway5752 3y ago
This article is political and can and should be ignored. Being a doctor is extremely difficult, and pays about as much as a sinecured, pseudo-academic "economist" who sells analysis and lightly dressed up op-eds in the Economist to the highest bidder. These articles get picked up by people who are predisposed towards the argument it is making because they have had a bad health care experience or want to take someone else down. It pits patients against doctors, when the real money is being made by the hospital systems and insurers who add little value but have massive influence over policy (much more than AMA).
The AMA should stop opposing single payer, though. That is the key difference in the US health system and other national health systems with better outcomes.
also: just look at the section of the Economist it is in: United States | Medicine’s gilded age - very professional.
also: What percentage of the total healthcare costs in the US are attributed to physician salaries? That is the theoretical maximum improvement to the cost of care delivery, if you dropped it to zero. And is that net or gross take home? Is the data before or after paying malpractice insurance of administrators to navigate the intentional bureaucracy created by providers?
- wife_is_md 3y agoSpot on
- throwaway5752 3y agoThanks. I'm arguing against the HN group think on this one, clearly. The antipathy to the medical profession here is odd and also a little gross, because it comes off as professional insecurity or jealousy. Most of what people say here about salaries could easily be said about most software development position and will be, probably in the same section of The Economist, before you know it.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoBeing a doctor is difficult, and doctors should earn a market clearing income. However, the market supply is excessively constrained by legal licensing requirements which exceed the public's best interest. There is a point where improving the education or quality of doctors is a net negative, because having a less competent doctor is still better than having no doctor at all. Of course the AMA looks out for the benefit of its own members, which benefit from scarcity, as is reasonable. It is up to the public and their legislators to act in their own interest to increase supply of medical professionals (which is counter to the interests of existing medical practitioners)