3 ms·

I am not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that a higher number of medical doctors would improve the leverage of those doctors compared to hospitals. If

by generic92034 2y ago

I am not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that a higher number of medical doctors would improve the leverage of those doctors compared to hospitals. If anything the hospitals would be able to demand even more from their staff. Or do you think hospitals would just employ more doctors out of the goodness of their hearts?

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> I am not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that a higher number of medical doctors would improve the leverage of those doctors compared to hospitals. I Because you can only see this through the lens of your own politics, you end up very confused. Leverage might make things better for those doctors... but we're not talking about that. We're talking about making things better for the public. A greater supply of doctor hours are needed... no more can be squeezed out of the existing supply of doctors (not even if you paid them more). You start talking about this topic or thinking about it, and your brain goes immediately into the "oh noes, those poor doctors, they need more leverage or something, maybe they need a union!". All I see is that they are overworked because we have a very limited supply of man-hours. Truly, can you even force your mind to go to a place where you can think about how we might not overwork doctors? Do we just need to use medical treatment less? All those sick people are just greedy, but the doctors have to work 30 hour shifts during residency because they're shackled to the door handles or something? > If anything the hospitals would be able to demand even more from their staff. Yes, this would be true to some extent. But that's not the topic of conversation. It's not "how can we arrange these details so that doctors are compensated even more highly than they are now". It's literally "how can we arrange details do doctors aren't working 100 hours a week and killing people when they're falling asleep standing up". You've confused the two things, and you can't even tell. It's bizarre. I live in a world filled with p-zombies, I swear.
- generic92034 2y ago
  Sorry, but you are not considering that many (most?) hospitals are trying to optimize for profit, not for their employees' or their customers' well-being. In that scenario increasing the number of medical doctors does not help to improve the working situation for them, but it even endangers them, as they are easier to replace. Preventing overlong shifts and too many work-hours per week requires regulation. "The market" cannot provide this, unless there would be a miracle of medical staff unionizing to a great degree.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    > Sorry, but you are not considering that many (most?) hospitals are trying to optimize for profit, And, in the grand scheme of things, hiring two doctors for 40 hours per week instead of one doctor for 80 hours a week does not change any bottom line. If they pursue the latter over the former, it is because finding any doctors at all to cover shifts is difficult... doctors are in short supply. By design. I considered this, it just didn't matter. > In that scenario increasing the number of medical doctors does not help to improve the working situation for them Again with this nonsense. That wasn't what we were discussing. We didn't start off with "how can we make overworked Indian pilots' lives better". And we didn't end up in "how can we make overworked US medical doctors' lives better". If there were a solution that made things safer (in either situation) while making the lives of those workers worse somehow, it would be worth discussing because their job performance affects many lives beyond their own. > Preventing overlong shifts and too many work-hours per week requires regulation. This is naive at best, but it's probably unintelligent. For essential work, where there is a small supply of workers qualified to perform the work, making sure that people don't work overlong shifts and endanger the public *actually requires expanding the pool of workers qualified to perform the work*. Unless, somehow, you think the supply is adequate and people with $300,000 in medical school debt have just decided to sit things out and do Uber because the hospital's too stressful. Do you somehow believe that? What evidence led you to believing that? Is your comprehension of economics so flimsy that you just assume that all supply of qualified, highly skilled workers in effectively infinite or at least indefinite in quantity? I feel like I'm talking to a spider monkey or maybe a marmot or something. How is this not obvious to you? What cognitive defect do you suffer from?

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> I am not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that a higher number of medical doctors would improve the leverage of those doctors compared to hospitals. I Because you can only see this through the lens of your own politics, you end up very confused. Leverage might make things better for those doctors... but we're not talking about that. We're talking about making things better for the public. A greater supply of doctor hours are needed... no more can be squeezed out of the existing supply of doctors (not even if you paid them more). You start talking about this topic or thinking about it, and your brain goes immediately into the "oh noes, those poor doctors, they need more leverage or something, maybe they need a union!". All I see is that they are overworked because we have a very limited supply of man-hours. Truly, can you even force your mind to go to a place where you can think about how we might not overwork doctors? Do we just need to use medical treatment less? All those sick people are just greedy, but the doctors have to work 30 hour shifts during residency because they're shackled to the door handles or something? > If anything the hospitals would be able to demand even more from their staff. Yes, this would be true to some extent. But that's not the topic of conversation. It's not "how can we arrange these details so that doctors are compensated even more highly than they are now". It's literally "how can we arrange details do doctors aren't working 100 hours a week and killing people when they're falling asleep standing up". You've confused the two things, and you can't even tell. It's bizarre. I live in a world filled with p-zombies, I swear.

generic92034 2y ago
Sorry, but you are not considering that many (most?) hospitals are trying to optimize for profit, not for their employees' or their customers' well-being. In that scenario increasing the number of medical doctors does not help to improve the working situation for them, but it even endangers them, as they are easier to replace. Preventing overlong shifts and too many work-hours per week requires regulation. "The market" cannot provide this, unless there would be a miracle of medical staff unionizing to a great degree.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > Sorry, but you are not considering that many (most?) hospitals are trying to optimize for profit, And, in the grand scheme of things, hiring two doctors for 40 hours per week instead of one doctor for 80 hours a week does not change any bottom line. If they pursue the latter over the former, it is because finding any doctors at all to cover shifts is difficult... doctors are in short supply. By design. I considered this, it just didn't matter. > In that scenario increasing the number of medical doctors does not help to improve the working situation for them Again with this nonsense. That wasn't what we were discussing. We didn't start off with "how can we make overworked Indian pilots' lives better". And we didn't end up in "how can we make overworked US medical doctors' lives better". If there were a solution that made things safer (in either situation) while making the lives of those workers worse somehow, it would be worth discussing because their job performance affects many lives beyond their own. > Preventing overlong shifts and too many work-hours per week requires regulation. This is naive at best, but it's probably unintelligent. For essential work, where there is a small supply of workers qualified to perform the work, making sure that people don't work overlong shifts and endanger the public *actually requires expanding the pool of workers qualified to perform the work*. Unless, somehow, you think the supply is adequate and people with $300,000 in medical school debt have just decided to sit things out and do Uber because the hospital's too stressful. Do you somehow believe that? What evidence led you to believing that? Is your comprehension of economics so flimsy that you just assume that all supply of qualified, highly skilled workers in effectively infinite or at least indefinite in quantity? I feel like I'm talking to a spider monkey or maybe a marmot or something. How is this not obvious to you? What cognitive defect do you suffer from?