3 ms·

> You would think that Hospitals would be able and willing to pay for residents. Why would you think that? Pay... out of their profit margins... to reduce thei

> You would think that Hospitals would be able and willing to pay for residents. Why would you think that? Pay... out of their profit margins... to reduce their profit margins? Or do you mean in la-la-land where American CEOs make investments that are likely to show returns only 10+ years out in the future?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I'm saying you think it would make money to pay doctors instead of not having doctors. Anyways, a huge number of hospitals are non profit and still have the residency issue. There is something systemically fucked going on if a hospital can't turn a profit on a MD with "only” 8 years of postsecondary education, and needs 4-6 years more
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Eh, hospitals are the practice location of last resort after they wipe out independent practices in their local areas. Doctors are totally fungible to a dominant health system. A dime a dozen. As a hospital, they also have no incentive to treat people earlier in disease progression with less expensive care or anything. Just let the ailments fester until they have to be rescued with the most expensive interventions on the planet. No one said anything about "not turning a profit." If you think a profit-seeking organization exists only to turn a profit, you misunderstand the enterprise.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think you are being intentionally combative, uncurious, and condescending. You are not engaging with the question posed, merely listing a number of cynicisms tangential at best, or factually incorrect at worst. Independent practices generally cant operate licensed residency programs. Similarly, your model of hospital behavior ironically requires them to forgo money could make today to cash in on expensive interventions decades in the future - exactly what you claim they are incapable of doing. Last, you claim doctors are a dime a dozen, yet hospitals pay 4, 5, or 600k to employ them, and frequently close due to an inability to secure them at reasonable costs.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I'm saying you think it would make money to pay doctors instead of not having doctors. Anyways, a huge number of hospitals are non profit and still have the residency issue. There is something systemically fucked going on if a hospital can't turn a profit on a MD with "only” 8 years of postsecondary education, and needs 4-6 years more

llamaimperative 2y ago
Eh, hospitals are the practice location of last resort after they wipe out independent practices in their local areas. Doctors are totally fungible to a dominant health system. A dime a dozen. As a hospital, they also have no incentive to treat people earlier in disease progression with less expensive care or anything. Just let the ailments fester until they have to be rescued with the most expensive interventions on the planet. No one said anything about "not turning a profit." If you think a profit-seeking organization exists only to turn a profit, you misunderstand the enterprise.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think you are being intentionally combative, uncurious, and condescending. You are not engaging with the question posed, merely listing a number of cynicisms tangential at best, or factually incorrect at worst. Independent practices generally cant operate licensed residency programs. Similarly, your model of hospital behavior ironically requires them to forgo money could make today to cash in on expensive interventions decades in the future - exactly what you claim they are incapable of doing. Last, you claim doctors are a dime a dozen, yet hospitals pay 4, 5, or 600k to employ them, and frequently close due to an inability to secure them at reasonable costs.