3 ms·
It's so hard to get good information on this issue because so many of the people we get our information from are themselves key stakeholders in the process. Of
by aneesh 17y ago
It's so hard to get good information on this issue because so many of the people we get our information from are themselves key stakeholders in the process. Of course the general public wants more doctors. That would generally mean lower prices, lower waiting times, etc. And of course the AMA will insist we don't need more doctors.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoThe article isn't exactly an AMA shill insisting we don't need more doctors. Rather, it's a guy pointing out that we have a shortage of medical services, and suggesting that non-doctors (e.g. nurse practitioners) can provide some of them. "Rather than calling for more doctors, which would have been difficult for the government to impact anyway, what the country really needs are policies that pave the way to more avenues of care, which is well within the government's control."
- johnnybgoode 17y agoThe issues are related, though. Non-doctors are banned from performing certain medical services, and the supply of doctors is restricted.
- tptacek 17y agoYou should re-read the article; it argues that we should attack scarcity directly, by removing doctors from the picture.
- aneesh 17y agoAh, okay. But I was getting at the doctors' reaction to this proposal. Judging by a few of the comments on the article, doctors don't agree with that proposal. But is it because they're concerned for their patients' well-being, or because they're concerned about the possible loss of income? Both are plausible reasons, but they each invite different counter-arguments. How are we supposed to know why the doctors oppose this, and how credibly should we take their argument?