The International Herald Tribune (I actually read it sometimes because it's on my igoogle page but this reference was from the ASA members section) had some... well, I'll let you judge what it was and what it wasn't. Make sure you at least start reading the second page. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/08/news/letter.php?page=1 The response from Dr. Lema was posted on the members only section, so you'll probably have to log in to read this: http://www.asawebapps.org/docs/internationalheraldtribuneMJL.pdf So, it has come to this. People suggest that doctors are unnecessary and they are the reason medical care is expensive. Yeah, makes sense. Doctors are a relatively new concept, and their appearance coincides with the skyrocket-type costs... Not as if doctors take an oath to do what's best for the patient or anything. Because, you know, insurance companies, pharm. companies, politicians, and lawyers all take such oaths, yeah? Doctors saw that and figured it'd prolly be a dood idea to follow suit. Ok enough sarcasm. This really irks me, though. It's not like journalism happens in a vacuum. People read this stuff. I should add journalists to the list above of people who act as though they take an oath for patient care. To be fair to the author, the question is an important one to raise if it has validity. What it comes down to is (from the way I read it) he asserts medical compensation is what drives up costs. I'm not an economist: anyone with more understanding want to comment on this issue? Is it really our greediness? He does mention that medical school wouldn't be worth it if there wasn't some benefit... to be frank, he's right. I wouldn't go into medicine if I didn't love it, but I also wouldn't go into medicine if I was going to be poor afterwards. Thoughts? I really would like to hear some discussion on this article because I think it is one of the BASIC things anesthesiologists face when competing with mid-levels.