FWIW- rollwithit is not a pathologist. Maybe he/she is a business type working for a corporate lab outfit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tissue issue
rollwithit- You have stated you are not a pathologist. What is your specialty?
This was his/her response:
Calling out bull****.
That's because I'm an evil pod lab CEO...muwahahaha!!!
Seriously though - my point was that it's ridiculous if you can't see the higher purpose of that letter. It was to petition Congress not to cut GME funding after them stating there could be cuts to GME (for all of Medicine, not just path) of up to 50%. Maybe pathologists don't need as much of the pie as they get now (good luck making that argument), but this letter was something submitted in defense of medicine to preserve the total pie.
Draw an analogy to yourself. Assuming you own a home, you are deducting mortgage interest payments on your tax return. There have been more than heavy whispers of taking away this deduction from homeowners. You, as a physician and a homeowner, probably aren't rich, but probably aren't hurting either. The government thinks you can do fine without that extra deduction and they are probably right in your circumstance - in the same way that pathology could possibly do without current levels of GME funding because of a presumed current oversupply. Maybe internal medicine should get that funding instead due to an undersupply of internal medicine residents? I get that, but in reality do you, in the interest of yourself and others that receive this benefit:
A) Call your representatives and tell them to take away that deduction because you don't need it. While you are at it, tell them to take it away from everyone else. You don't need it, why should anyone else?
Or,
B) Call your representatives and raise hell that they are going to effectively raise your taxes.
Now, some of you may answer A to stubbornly make a point, but remember that pathology faces uncertainty just as much as our individual economic futures face uncertainty. Nobody lobbies to be taxed more or to have their funding taken away - especially during time of economic uncertainty and likely future healthcare-related changes.
If you want to make a case that "less funding means better path market", go for it. Just be sure to detail what makes you confident that reductions in funding would mean a proportional reduction in residency positions?
I'm pretty sure that institutions would figure out a way to maintain or increase the level of positions they train (they need the labor, remember there is a factual undersupply of physicians) even with reduced funding. You know how they will manage to do that? Resident / fellow salaries & benefits will be slashed.