Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: baggo who wrote (98697)	4/30/2001 7:58:35 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

Brice, I'm not unsympathetic on this. Medical expense dollars are getting eaten up by the skyrocketing expenditures on drugs and new technology, while the physicians component stays flat or declines on a real basis. The article points out that physicians incur massive expenses in training (which is often underappreciated by the public at large). If the U.S. public expects medicine to remain an attractive career choice for it's brightest young people, then it will either need to a) subsidize or underwrite costs of training to a much larger degree than they do now, b) find a way to reallocate a larger proportion of health care expenditures to the benefit of physicians or c) spend even (ever) a greater proportion of the GDP on health care. My point was that with debt loads like this, physicians (as a whole) are hardly overcompensated; it'll take these folks the rest of their lives to catch up, even with a combined annual income in the 300K area. Regards Patron