>>And these people are grossly underpaid- as well as our teachers with master's degrees. My professional choice had capitalistic overtones.<<
dr guckien, i do realize that this is a complex issue and it is easy for the gen'l public to jump all over you, but i have a few comments - representing both sides so please read all the way through before responding.
you asked who would work for 12 years and not make very good wages as though nobody would. well, it was pointed out that people do this all the time. why not admit that up front? it is obvious that this would not be in your financial self interest to do so. does that make you a bad person? no. the gen'l publics financial self interest is to vilify you for doing so well. this is an issue of competing self interests. since quality of life is at stake, it becomes a very complicated issue, imho.
one of the concepts of of straight capitalism, a major reason why you chose the profession you did, is to exact the most amount of dollars that a market will bear. the question is how much can a person bear when his/her health and well being is on the line? everything. when under duress and when the stakes are so high the element a level playing field does not exist.
so, should we rely on the good hearts of capitalistically motivated doctors who have a personal self interest in exacting the highest possible fees from the general public? i think the answer is no. on the other hand, do we let those who have a vested self interest in reducing you to poverty make that decision for you? absolutely not. hillary, get hence from thee ;-)
this is a complex issue and pat answers, on either side, do not do justice to it.
for example, would you fight as vigorously to open up medical admissions to allow ALL qualified applicants rather than having artificial limits placed on admissions?
it represents your financial self interest a little too much to be in favor of capitalism in the market in which you operate but not in the admissions to said market, don't you think? i do. limiting the supply of physicians so they can keep the price of care artificially high isn't capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. i assume that your capitalistic philosophy does cause you to fight as vigorously for stopping artificial limits in admissions.
however, as a patient, i want the best. if somebody is a book smart dope with a big heart (the one required to go through very vigorous training for so long and not make a lot of money), i don't want him. i want the guy that is very good and don't care what motivates him. i'll assume you are very good at what you do to be so successful.
my issue is not to jump all over you, though i did want to point out a couple issues that came to mind from your prior posts on this issue.
it is tough. reducing the pay of physicians will reduce their motivation. the physicians i see don't work 40 hours per week. more like 80 hours (i do know supervisors and managers in my industry that work 80 hours a week and don't do nearly as well financially. however, when you add up training, time at work, impact on lives and cost of a mistake, physicians have a LOT of responsibility that few outside the profession could realistically imagine). the stress is high. the outcome is crucial. any mistakes are amplified by a factor of 100. we already know the attorneys see deep pockets in physicians and so, it is in their self interest to sue physicians.
everyone likes their own self interest but not the self interest of others when it doesn't match our self interest.
so, what is the solution? i don't know (at least i'll admit it). it would take a lot of expertise, knowledge, facts and time that i don't have to devote to this issue to come up with a reasoned solution. of course, the outcome would be deemed fair to me based on my experience. people with other experiences and self interests may be thoroughly underwhelmed with whatever i came up with.
my point here? this issue isn't a simple one. for either side.
good luck. |
