Opting Out

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I'm by no means an expert in international trade or macroeconomics, but even I know that your understanding of history and interpretation of current events would, at best, be ill-informed. Your ideology is the same ol GOP garbage that pretends that success is simply an effort of hard work and, therefore, that failure is simply due to not working hard enough. Any reading of history that is so dichotomous is immediately suspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't support the GOP at all. Show me one progressive economic movement that has been successful. For every one of those, I'll show you the 5 top economies in the world and what their system looks like.
 
I don't support the GOP at all. Show me one progressive economic movement that has been successful. For every one of those, I'll show you the 5 top economies in the world and what their system looks like.

I never said you did, but that doesn't change the fact the your ideology aligns with theirs. And no one would disagree with the assertion that capitalism is successful with respect to generating wealth. That's how the whole damn system is set up. What we are seeing more and more clearly in the US, however, is that we must also prevent our economy from arriving at the endgame that is inevitable with capitalism. This used to be starved off with smart regulation and appropriate government intervention - both of which have been steadily dismantled since the 70s but really ramping up in the 80s thanks to our good friend Mr. Reagan. The dismantling of unions and complete destruction of leverage on the part of labor also hasn't helped things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I never said you did, but that doesn't change the fact the your ideology aligns with theirs. And no one would disagree with the assertion that capitalism is successful with respect to generating wealth. That's how the whole damn system is set up. What we are seeing more and more clearly in the US, however, is that we must also prevent our economy from arriving at the endgame that is inevitable with capitalism. This used to be starved off with smart regulation and appropriate government intervention - both of which have been steadily dismantled since the 70s but really ramping up in the 80s thanks to our good friend Mr. Reagan. The dismantling of unions and complete destruction of leverage on the part of labor also hasn't helped things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh , have you ever been to or heard of the city of Detroit ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GUH
Huh , have you ever been to or heard of the city of Detroit ?
Do you actually believe that if unions had made no gains, that we'd all be better off? Really? Have you not seen how the American Hospital Association has tried to pull one over on doctors both in how they run their hospitals and with certain goodies in the Obamacare legislation? It's part of the reason why doctors are more and more becoming cogs in a machine.

You apparently have not seen how workers in China and India are treated, since you hold them up as what the United States should strive for.
 
Do you actually believe that if unions had made no gains, that we'd all be better off? Really? Have you not seen how the American Hospital Association has tried to pull one over on doctors both in how they run their hospitals and with certain goodies in the Obamacare legislation? It's part of the reason why doctors are more and more becoming cogs in a machine.

No of course not, but to say they have lost power is a joke in my opinion, when they basically ran a whole city out of business. As with anything, it's a balance. However if doctors ever unionize , I highly doubly that would ever result in any negative consequences to Obama and his health care intentions. King of the unions.
 
Ok Europe and Canada are the premier economic powerhouses of the world, while China, Japan and India clearly are slacking.
Glad we got that straightened out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/b...queezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House. If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.
============================================================
And this is what you think the U.S. should strive to achieve? No thanks.
 
Do you actually believe that if unions had made no gains, that we'd all be better off? Really? Have you not seen how the American Hospital Association has tried to pull one over on doctors both in how they run their hospitals and with certain goodies in the Obamacare legislation? It's part of the reason why doctors are more and more becoming cogs in a machine.

You apparently have not seen how workers in China and India are treated, since you hold them up as what the United States should strive for.

There is a difference between safety violations and what unions have become in the US recently.....union served a very good role in the past but have mutated and become parasites in many cases, demanding wages that price companies out of competition and protecting lower quality employees
 
Capitalism is really good when it's allowed to run it's free course and not be destroyed by sanctions based on pity and vote-grabbing. There's a reason as the US economy gets farther and farther away from true capitalism, that it's worldwide relative significance decreases . There's a reason these progressive movements have never been successful and led to the collapse of numerous nations.

Monopolies can only exist in markets with government intervention. They aren't possible in a competitive market free from intervention.

There's a reason the world continues to decline as the progressive movement takes hold. "You can't multiply by dividing " is a good place to start that criticism.

I'm not so sure about any of your...eh...analysis.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/b...queezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House. If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.
============================================================
And this is what you think the U.S. should strive to achieve? No thanks.

No. Apple doesn't compete in a capitalistic market. It competes in one we like to call capitalism to feel good about ourselves. This wouldn't happen in true capitalism.
 
No of course not, but to say they have lost power is a joke in my opinion, when they basically ran a whole city out of business. As with anything, it's a balance. However if doctors ever unionize , I highly doubly that would ever result in any negative consequences to Obama and his health care intentions. King of the unions.

That's the thing. As @NickNaylor mentioned, with the change in tax policies of the 80s, the balance has been thrown off greatly. Yes, initially there was an explosion in growth, due to such a drastic change in the top income bracket which feeds directly into the economy, but cutting taxes from 70% -> 50% -> 38.5% -> 28% had and continues to have deleterious effects over the long term, as demonstrated by its effects on other areas, education and thus tuition at higher institutions, etc.

Meantime, the population has grown immensely and our needs have changed.
 
No. Apple doesn't compete in a capitalistic market. It competes in one we like to call capitalism to feel good about ourselves. This wouldn't happen in true capitalism.
Ah, then please tell us how TRUE capitalism is supposed to work and how it's different from what Apple is competing in now.

I don't know about you, but most doctors went into medicine so they wouldn't feel like they were corporate drones. Now it seems that is more and more being the case.
Unfortunately due to powerful special interests, medicine has veered into the direction, in which very few specialties allow you the ability to not be a corporate drone (hospital employee) - i.e. Allergy, Derm, Psych, etc.
 
There is a difference between safety violations and what unions have become in the US recently.....union served a very good role in the past but have mutated and become parasites in many cases, demanding wages that price companies out of competition and protecting lower quality employees
Please see the NY Times Apple story I posted. I'm not talking about safety violations.
 
I'm not so sure about any of your...eh...analysis.
Yes: "Monopolies can only exist in markets with government intervention. They aren't possible in a competitive market free from intervention."

Yes, hence U.S. lawmakers were fools for having to make antitrust law to stop business collusion. Analysis, indeed.
 
Yes: "Monopolies can only exist in markets with government intervention. They aren't possible in a competitive market free from intervention."

Yes, hence U.S. lawmakers were fools for having to make antitrust law to stop business collusion. Analysis, indeed.
That entire post had to be trolling. It was like a page out of 1984...war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
 
That entire post had to be trolling. It was like a page out of 1984...war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
There are many people in medical school, who thrive on indoctrination and drink the Kool-Aid, both on left and right. For the more left, we call them national officers of AMSA.
 
Huh , have you ever been to or heard of the city of Detroit ?

Oh look, I found an anecdote of self-interested unions! All unions are bad!

Come on, man. You should have the cognitive skills to recognize that such a simplistic discussion is unlikely to be reflective of reality. But this is getting off topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's funny how med students like PL198 will argue that unions for physicians are worthless, and then turn around and bitch about the collective bargaining power of nursing unions insofar as their ability to secure high salaries and independent practice rights for CRNAs and NPs.
 
Oh look, I found an anecdote of self-interested unions! All unions are bad!

Come on, man. You should have the cognitive skills to recognize that such a simplistic discussion is unlikely to be reflective of reality. But this is getting off topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wouldn't give him too much credit. He also believes that "Monopolies can only exist in markets with government intervention. They aren't possible in a competitive market free from intervention." All that antitrust legislation (starting with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890) was so not necessary. Amirite? 🙄
 
I wouldn't give him too much credit. He also believes that "Monopolies can only exist in markets with government intervention. They aren't possible in a competitive market free from intervention." All that antitrust legislation (starting with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890) was so not necessary. Amirite? 🙄

What ? You assume what we had before that legislation was true capitalism. It still wasn't. For someone claiming to be so analytical , you aren't diving too deep. The basic concepts of capitalism aren't hard to understand. A monopoly cannot occur in a population unless regulation occurs. Funny how all of the antitrust things you state just make the "problem " worse. The more government is involved, the more easily one group can corner the market. I'm not sure how that's difficult to see. Do you disagree with this ? I would think the ACA would surely point out this fact to you.

Unions for doctors would be completely different than for someone like nurses. The nurses get public sympathy , doctors get public scorn. If doctors unionize ,the general public would throw a fit. Only way that'd be tolerated is if it was AMA like and basically controlled by Obama.
 
Ah, then please tell us how TRUE capitalism is supposed to work and how it's different from what Apple is competing in now.

I don't know about you, but most doctors went into medicine so they wouldn't feel like they were corporate drones. Now it seems that is more and more being the case.
Unfortunately due to powerful special interests, medicine has veered into the direction, in which very few specialties allow you the ability to not be a corporate drone (hospital employee) - i.e. Allergy, Derm, Psych, etc.

Read what you wrote here. Government intervention is only increasing, yet you seem to be saying that it is necessary to prevent monopolies... What you are talking about is essentially the prequel to a monopoly. It's not possible for people to do it on their own you say. But more regulation is the answer , right ? You're complaining about a problem and then advocating its cause.
 
What ? You assume what we had before that legislation was true capitalism. It still wasn't. For someone claiming to be so analytical , you aren't diving too deep. The basic concepts of capitalism aren't hard to understand. A monopoly cannot occur in a population unless regulation occurs. Funny how all of the antitrust things you state just make the "problem " worse. The more government is involved, the more easily one group can corner the market. I'm not sure how that's difficult to see. Do you disagree with this ? I would think the ACA would surely point out this fact to you.

Unions for doctors would be completely different than for someone like nurses. The nurses get public sympathy , doctors get public scorn. If doctors unionize ,the general public would throw a fit. Only way that'd be tolerated is if it was AMA like and basically controlled by Obama.
The AMA is quite impotent when it comes to defending doctors in the trenches. Hardly qualifies as a union.
 
Read what you wrote here. Government intervention is only increasing, yet you seem to be saying that it is necessary to prevent monopolies... What you are talking about is essentially the prequel to a monopoly. It's not possible for people to do it on their own you say. But more regulation is the answer , right ? You're complaining about a problem and then advocating its cause.
You said monopolies are caused by govt. Anti-trust laws were passed in response to monopolies that resulted when things were left alone (see the first law passed in 1890). That doesn't mean we go to one complete extreme.
 
Please see the NY Times Apple story I posted. I'm not talking about safety violations.

If your anger is the jobs leaving, of course they are...american's are more expensive, particularly in union strong states, but even so in non-union states.

All union discussion aside, another reason mentioned by the article in passing is that they can retool and build entire new supply lines almost instantly. Only part of that is their lack of labor protection, a good portion of that is their ability to streamline redtape when the government wants to do so. (let's be honest, the chinese government can decide if you are open tommorrow or never, so their system isn't exactly freedom). But if I was in material production, like apple, and all of their assesments are true....I wouldn't build my product here either.

(side note)While my bet is that china doesn't pay overtime like we do, I think these pieces can be a little misleading when they throw out, "these workers make $17 a day" and it sounds oppressive. In some of these areas, $17/day is a great job compared to the local market.
 
The AMA is quite impotent when it comes to defending doctors in the trenches. Hardly qualifies as a union.

My point exactly. I'm saying that any union of docs isn't going to be a union in the same sense for other professions. Why do you think lawyers or dentists don't have unions as well ? As one rises in SES the validity for a union declines. ( although professional sports are an exception to this )
You said monopolies are caused by govt. Anti-trust laws were passed in response to monopolies that resulted when things were left alone (see the first law passed in 1890). That doesn't mean we go to one complete extreme.

They weren't actually let alone though. Just because it was the first anti trust legislation doesn't mean it was the first intervention of the government into the private sector.
 
My point exactly. I'm saying that any union of docs isn't going to be a union in the same sense for other professions. Why do you think lawyers or dentists don't have unions as well ? As one rises in SES the validity for a union declines. ( although professional sports are an exception to this )

They weren't actually let alone though. Just because it was the first anti trust legislation doesn't mean it was the first intervention of the government into the private sector.
The American Trial Lawyers Association and the American Dental Association are quite powerful and have defended their members interests quite vigorously.
 
You said monopolies are caused by govt. Anti-trust laws were passed in response to monopolies that resulted when things were left alone (see the first law passed in 1890). That doesn't mean we go to one complete extreme.

You have a good point here, and I understand the idea of anti-trust legislation. I think what the other poster is not articulating well is that at a certain point, government intervention can raise the bar required to enter a business trade and therefore ends up helping monopoly develop. This is evidenced in the difficulty of starting a small family farm due to the large amount of paperwork and record keeping, or the idea that all doctors would have to purchase an EMR to go private, or hire 3 staff just to navigate medicare/insurance claims etc....
 
The American Trial Lawyers Association and the American Dental Association are quite powerful and have defended their members interests quite vigorously.
I think it's important to note that some of what you all are discussing are trade/lobbying associations and not unions. Depending on how well you do it, a lobbying group is more powerful than a union.....but they are quite different
 
The American Trial Lawyers Association and the American Dental Association are quite powerful and have defended their members interests quite vigorously.

This I'm completely clueless about , so this is truly a question. Obviously defending their interest vigorously is relative , but I'm assuming the majority of attorneys and dentists agree with that statement ? I assume so, but just checking as I'm sure you could find physicians that feel strongly that the AMA represents them.
 
You have a good point here, and I understand the idea of anti-trust legislation. I think what the other poster is not articulating well is that at a certain point, government intervention can raise the bar required to enter a business trade and therefore ends up helping monopoly develop. This is evidenced in the difficulty of starting a small family farm due to the large amount of paperwork and record keeping, or the idea that all doctors would have to purchase an EMR to go private, or hire 3 staff just to navigate medicare/insurance claims etc....

This, along with others. More red tape = more barriers to entry. Which causes a cascade and company allowed to exponentially grow. In a true free market, if a company is screwing up and doing something unfavorable , a competitor that does not will emerge and if that screw up is to a large enough degree, the competitor will win out.
 
This I'm completely clueless about , so this is truly a question. Obviously defending their interest vigorously is relative , but I'm assuming the majority of attorneys and dentists agree with that statement ? I assume so, but just checking as I'm sure you could find physicians that feel strongly that the AMA represents them.
Considering how powerful the ATLA is over Democrats (with respect to tort reform) and how the ADA was able to extricate itself from Medicare and now Obamacare (with exception for children) - I'd say they're doing pretty darn good.
 
American healthcare sucks.
Yes, it does. I suppose there will be plenty of young docs exploring practicing medicine in physician-friendsly countries. We've entered the era of bargain basement, non-physician provider, cookie-cutter care. Out of pocket payments to noctors? I don't think this will go well for Americans. I remain gratefully retired from medicine. What a mess.
 
This, along with others. More red tape = more barriers to entry. Which causes a cascade and company allowed to exponentially grow. In a true free market, if a company is screwing up and doing something unfavorable , a competitor that does not will emerge and if that screw up is to a large enough degree, the competitor will win out.

This reads like something out of a freshman econ 101 class. Yes, in the theoretical perfect economics world with no information asymmetry, beautiful supply and demand curves and perfect market correction this happens.

In real life stuff like this happens...unfavorable things that nobody would have even known existed if there wasn't a government agency to report wage fixing to.
http://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsuit/
 
This reads like something out of a freshman econ 101 class. Yes, in the theoretical perfect economics world with no information asymmetry, beautiful supply and demand curves and perfect market correction this happens.

In real life stuff like this happens...unfavorable things that nobody would have even known existed if there wasn't a government agency to report wage fixing to.
http://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsuit/

haha, so it's cool if all the employees walk out to fix their salary demands, but not cool if companies talk about salary? both should be fine and the government shouldn't be involved
 
haha, so it's cool if all the employees walk out to fix their salary demands, but not cool if companies talk about salary? both should be fine and the government shouldn't be involved
I don't trust big business or government - they are in bed together. I think certain types of lobbies should not be allowed to contribute money.
 
wow, i hate o'reilly but this ezekiel guy is as big of a turd as his crappy name implies. just one look at his crazy eyes and excessive movements you can tell this guy is off. the ACA is trash and this doctor is suffering from so much cognitive dissonance it doesn't compute.
 
wow, i hate o'reilly but this ezekiel guy is as big of a turd as his crappy name implies. just one look at his crazy eyes and excessive movements you can tell this guy is off. the ACA is trash and this doctor is suffering from so much cognitive dissonance it doesn't compute.
And he's one of the authors of Obamacare. Doesn't practice clinical medicine, of course, even though he's an MD. Not much of an O'Reilly fan, but really liked him holding his feet to the fire.
 
And he's one of the authors of Obamacare. Doesn't practice clinical medicine, of course, even though he's an MD. Not much of an O'Reilly fan, but really liked him holding his feet to the fire.

Story of academia. Disconnect with modern world. Allow their "good intentions" to fuel their pursuits. I think there are huge amounts of jealousy towards practicing physicians as well that contribute.
 
How did this happen? The news starting to get out now. How is this Physician advocating for the destruction of physician led primary care. Why would any incoming medical student take 100k-300k of debt to practice primary care medicine when they could do the same as a NP with less training and debt? This is frightening.

The are two possible outcomes

1.) NP autonomy is a disaster
2.) NP autonomy is a success

At any rate, I think MD/DO led primary care should be reevaluated. The pressure to avoid primary care now is far beyond money. It's about relevancy.

I think medical schools should follow NYU's model and have a 3 year primary care track that is subsidized. After medical school, the physician would do a one year GP internship (e.g. Military) and be able to practice primary care. The physician after internship would be on a 10-15 contract to practice primary care. This way, you could have a practicing MD in 4 years instead of 7 and you would have an incentive against specialization.

I am out in the field yelling "the British are coming". So many pre-meds have no idea what is going on. Everyone going into medical school should watch that video. @DermViser should post in pre-allo. I am just blown away at all of this. I alway knew medicine was gritty going in but this is too real.
 
I don't understand why we have to "trap" people into it from the beginning. Why not just let it be an option instead of applying to enter the match?
 
I agree. Any misdiagnoses will be collateral damage. All it will take is for someone prominent to be gravely affected, and these CV and Walmart clinics will grind to a halt. Personally, I can't wait. What's interesting is when this was all being peddled to the public none of this was mentioned. It's all coming out now. I truly can't wait for the implementation of this - based on public reaction alone. Just on skyrocketing premiums and cancelled plans from people who had insurance, people are already hating it. Just wait when the "cost-saving" measures kick in.

Unfortunately, I don't see how anyone prominent will be misdiagnosed by a walmart clinic. Just a bunch of boring old poor people.
 
Unfortunately, I don't see how anyone prominent will be misdiagnosed by a walmart clinic. Just a bunch of boring old poor people.
Not at a walmart clinic, but misdiagnosed by an NP in general.
 
I don't understand why we have to "trap" people into it from the beginning. Why not just let it be an option instead of applying to enter the match?
Because as long as specialties are more appealing for pay and/or lifestyle reasons, it won't change much with regard to the percent of medical grads going into primary care. Even these short-term incentives aren't that effective. Just about everyone that gets into med school is type A enough to have a very strong grasp on putting off what's easier in the short term for future success. Trying to recruit more people that want to go into primary care just encourages applicants to work on being able to BS this better. People know how to play the game. If there is an admission route that locks you in to primary care, and maybe one in an underserved area, that means you went in knowing this is what you would be doing and that you wanted to do this at the forgoing of other possibilities. That way they will get people that know from the outset they are fine with that role. People that wanted to specialize/be in a city/etc. but end up in primary care in underserved areas because they just couldn't make it into a specialty/area are going to be miserable and that will likely affect the quality of their work.
 
But why force them? Why not just have every family medicine or internal medicine primary care track include full loan forgiveness? That way you include incentives to encourage the specialty, but you also are not trapping people into it, which then leads to later career resentment.

Everyone gets a fair shot at seeing what's out there, and people get rewarded for going into primary care.
 
But why force them? Why not just have every family medicine or internal medicine primary care track include full loan forgiveness? That way you include incentives to encourage the specialty, but you also are not trapping people into it, which then leads to later career resentment.

Everyone gets a fair shot at seeing what's out there, and people get rewarded for going into primary care.
It's not "forcing" if they know what it is before entering and agree to it. If they don't want to do primary care, they shouldn't apply to the program. Plenty of other regular med school programs out there if that's what you want. But if we need primary care physicians in underserved areas, the only way to ensure medical grads will do that is if they commit to it ahead of time, forgoing other options. Only the people that would actually want to do this should apply to that program, as it'd be stupid to do so if you didn't want that. It eliminates the "oh yeah i totally wanna do primary care" at interviews followed by "j/k i wanna do derm in socal" once school starts factor and streamlines the process. Just like how you shouln't go to med school if you don't want te be a doctor, you shouldn't go to a primary-care-only program if you don't want to do primary care.
 
Not at a walmart clinic, but misdiagnosed by an NP in general.
Important people don't get shuffled off to the NP's. Nor are they forced to purchase an Obamacare plan.
 
It's not "forcing" if they know what it is before entering and agree to it. If they don't want to do primary care, they shouldn't apply to the program. Plenty of other regular med school programs out there if that's what you want. But if we need primary care physicians in underserved areas, the only way to ensure medical grads will do that is if they commit to it ahead of time, forgoing other options. Only the people that would actually want to do this should apply to that program, as it'd be stupid to do so if you didn't want that. It eliminates the "oh yeah i totally wanna do primary care" at interviews followed by "j/k i wanna do derm in socal" once school starts factor and streamlines the process. Just like how you shouln't go to med school if you don't want te be a doctor, you shouldn't go to a primary-care-only program if you don't want to do primary care.

You realize there are postive incentives like reimbursing people in accordance to their skill, training, and importance to patients health?

You can't force people into any of these contracts, if you forgot we have a bill of rights and forced servitude violates it plus the 13th amendment.

Its unenforceable in court and people can do whatever they want, people put all types of crazy crap into employee contracts to try to squeeze people knowing they have no legal recourse if they violate

I'll sign my name on a contract right now for $500 and 10 years as your personal assistant. But when you come to collect I'm gonna wipe with it and show you the door.

Furthermore when people are under duress or not fully informed to consent a contract is unenforceable. It protects you from extortion, so when you are desperate loan sharks and others can't take advantage.

Quit thinking like such a obedient dunce and realize theres 2.6 trillion in healthcare spending. Wages for physicians is a nominal percentage that could be increase for society's benefit if they had any representation as citizens or employees

And don't worry about NPs or other workers as they don't control whats keeping physicians down like corporate interests and lobbying.

The knowledge base,clinical productivity, and ability to grow with the science of medicine is clearly more evident if you see mid levels and doc after pgy1. Patients see it too, maintain integrity and patient care as a focus and the public is the one friend physicians don't want to lose.

Nurses are more middle management and have great labor conditions compared to docs. They farm out duties to techs and administer some meds, break on the reg, get OT and all the other stuff a person should be entitled to. Hospitals still pay it out cause there bottom line works and nurse unions lobby to keep themselves relevant

State hosptial licensure, medicare payments and facility eligibility has specific nurse staffing requirements per shift, floor, unit, patient.

You don't see that with docs, the existence of a medical director for some places is it. They do have requirements like a doc has to do an admission, orders, discharge summaries, certain procedures, etc. But that gives hospitals the ability to spread MD labor as thin as they want and payment is based on billing alone. An MD doesnt make money till the hospital does. The nurses don't allow their labor the opening to be abused because they are there on their shift and can move as slow as they want or do as little as they want and clock out.

There should be a line between encouraging productivity (if patient care is in mind) and giving a worker some security and stability. As well as being foundation of healthcare that cant be worked around like nurses have. Or else they will find cheaper labor to do as much of the MD work as they can get away with, bill the same, and pay the MD less
 
Last edited:
Top