Stupid People.

[praspudi]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Are people that say doctors make too much and shouldn't complain about what will happen to, (ie. their income, # of patients they see), because of Obama's health plan just short sighted?

When I started undergrad, the Director of Biology came to our first class and asked all those who wanted to become to doctors to raise their hands. Then he said, good, most of you won't make it. After that he said, and for any of you who saw those people studying on the grass in their swimsuits, the liberal arts school is across campus - go get your major changed.

My friend who's becoming a lawyer tried to explain to me that doctors shouldn't be compensated as much as they are because they go into their profession knowing they're supposed to help people. - First. That's bullsh.t because I can go to the soup kitchen and help people for free without having to spend i don't know some $350,000 for schooling 1/5 life learning. Second. Lawyer's seem to be completely content with taking money away from other people until it comes to their own.

My question is..do most people not realize the amount of work that it takes just in the amount of schooling is needed to become a doctor? And, is that the reason why a lot of people just assume doctors to be greedy people, because they don't understand the work it took to get to their position?

 

[FIREitUP]

no, most people think that all physicians own mazeratis and "summer" in cabo. also, many people think that those who attend tea party rallies are patriots.

 

[avksx]

Are you actually interested in what anyone else has to say? Your question really just seems like a poorly disguised rant.

 

[Antibodies]

Yes, the average person doesn't realize the years of schooling and the amount of work that is needed to become a doctor.

 

[praspudi]

Are you actually interested in what anyone else has to say? Your question really just seems like a poorly disguised rant.

well it was a question...it was at the top. and then i kept typing and stuff kept getting added, so i decided to move it to the bottom.
i was just thinking about how many people have the impression that doctors don't deserve a higher compensation for their job because they feel they are entitled to having a doctor, when realistically they are privileged to have someone who put that much work into a career that aids their life.

 

[He2]

theres an element of human nature to it too. Doctors are leaders in the health profession, and thus they bear both the rewards and the blame. Unfortunately, rewards do not come infinite monetary increments; blame can come a bit more often. After all, who would start a campaign saying that doctors should be paid more for all the good they are doing?

the debt thing is probably #1 though

 

[FIREitUP]

people expect to make large sums of money in their field of work, but then when it comes to a physician making money, it is wrong because they are supposed to live off of the warm cuddly feelings of helping others.

 

[ilikekiwis]

i wouldn't mind a lower pay if in return med school tuition was eliminated. i think that and the hard work put in should result in being compensated well.

as for the healthcare debate:

seems like everywhere i go
the more i see, the less i know
but i know, one thing
i love you

 

[praspudi]

To me - medicine seems to be the profession where we would want the best and brightest to flock to. And because we are capitalists, we are able to motivate people with rewards, the rewards being money, in order to attract them to that profession. Now, I don't see why people feel it is smart not to offer the best rewards for the best and brightest when their job is to make sure your health (which is a very important aspect to most human beings) is top notch. It seems obvious to understand that by decreasing the rewards given to health professionals, the rewards for other non-health related professions will increase or be at a higher level than in medicine and therefore our best and brightest will flock to those professions because they offer the better reward and....motivation.

 

[He2]

to give my opinion on that: at a certain point, there cant be TOO much financial reward, because otherwise you get all the people who sell everything for money. Money can become too intoxicating and you simply end up with the most vain, most greedy people who want the most short term rewards as possible. See goldman sachs. They do some of the most painful stressful work in the world, just for a nice paycheck (well, i guess its technically god's work...so maybe not?)

i think a good mix of interesting work, instilled with professional and personal ethics, with a great paycheck is ideal.

As long as the most talented and hardest working are the most compensated.

 

[elektroshok]

to give my opinion on that: at a certain point, there cant be TOO much financial reward, because otherwise you get all the people who sell everything for money. Money can become too intoxicating and you simply end up with the most vain, most greedy people who want the most short term rewards as possible. See goldman sachs. They do some of the most painful stressful work in the world, just for a nice paycheck (well, i guess its technically god's work...so maybe not?)

i think a good mix of interesting work, instilled with professional and personal ethics, with a great paycheck is ideal.

As long as the most talented and hardest working are the most compensated.

But medicine really has no short term rewards...
If those types of people wanted to do it JUST for the money and they are smart and motivated, then why should there be a cap on fiscal incentives?

 

[futureboy]

OP, your lawyer-to-be friend is clueless.

 

[praspudi]

OP, your lawyer-to-be friend is clueless.

hahah he was our high school's valedictorian but the same thing happens between my uncles. 2 are lawyers and 1 is a doctor. the 2 lawyers always talk about how doctors shouldn't earn what they earn and then my doctor uncle will begin talking about how lawyers should earn less. When he says that, my two lawyer get defensive about their paycheck.

 

[He2]

short term rewards=actions taken as a practicing physician. For example, if medicare/aid somehow reimbursed physicians $50,000 per procedure, and physicians could make millions of dollars be working 24/7 seeing thousands of patients for 15 seconds, this would probably be a bad thing. Extreme greed leads to things like this:

http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2008/03/20/news/cover/iq_20357759.txt

 

[elektroshok]

short term rewards=actions taken as a practicing physician. For example, if medicare/aid somehow reimbursed physicians $50,000 per procedure, and physicians could make millions of dollars be working 24/7 seeing thousands of patients for 15 seconds, this would probably be a bad thing. Extreme greed leads to things like this:

http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2008/03/20/news/cover/iq_20357759.txt

Let's be realistic though. That extreme will never be reached and one still has to go through college, medschool, residency before they see ANY reward - that's what I mean by the rewards not being short term.

And look at the advent of Lasik - that is sort of what you just described - bad thing??

 

[He2]

college+medschool+residency~12 years. That about how long it takes for a very greedy person to become very, insanely rich anyways.

but im lost. What are we talking about exactly? whats the point of the point/counterpoint that we just discussed?

lasik?

 

[praspudi]

lasik?

i think lasik eye surgery right?

 

[He2]

right but whats the implication here?

 

[cardinal2010]

short term rewards=actions taken as a practicing physician. For example, if medicare/aid somehow reimbursed physicians $50,000 per procedure, and physicians could make millions of dollars be working 24/7 seeing thousands of patients for 15 seconds, this would probably be a bad thing. Extreme greed leads to things like this:

http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2008/03/20/news/cover/iq_20357759.txt

Not to go all nerdy on you, but this seems way simplistic.

The incentive you described to work harder (see more patients) due to highe reimbursement is known as the substitution effect in econ. Seeing patients is now worth more, so you will see more patients until the value of the procedure is equal to your valuation of the lost time doing the procedure (opportunity cost).

On the other hand, there is the income effect in that higher reimbursement means that your overall income is increased, meaning that (assuming diminishing returns to money) the marginal benefit of monetary gain is now lower, meaning that you will work less to gain more leisure time.

Basically these two effects (work more because you get paid more per procedure and work less because you have a much higher income) are at odds with one another, and you can't really know which effect will "win" in all cases.

In general, the income effect seems to win, as shown by Medicare cutting reimbursements leading to increased procedures to regain lost earnings

 

[elektroshok]

college+medschool+residency~12 years. That about how long it takes for a very greedy person to become very, insanely rich anyways.

but im lost. What are we talking about exactly? whats the point of the point/counterpoint that we just discussed?

lasik?

Corrective eye surgery. Basically getting patients in and out super quick for high reimbersment.

I'm just saying that medicine is one of the most lengthy and expensive roads to a profession and there should not be a ceiling on salary. If someone wants to work their ass off and is not lowering the standard of care for their patients in order to make more money, more power to them.

 

[praspudi]

Not to go all nerdy on you, but this seems way simplistic.

The incentive you described to work harder (see more patients) due to highe reimbursement is known as the substitution effect in econ. Seeing patients is now worth more, so you will see more patients until the value of the procedure is equal to your valuation of the lost time doing the procedure (opportunity cost).

On the other hand, there is the income effect in that higher reimbursement means that your overall income is increased, meaning that (assuming diminishing returns to money) the marginal benefit of monetary gain is now lower, meaning that you will work less to gain more leisure time.

hahahah. Ch. 12 - Market Labor

 

[He2]

ok, sorry, my argument/thought track got totally spaghettied.

How about this, and i think we can agree: the incentive structure should be changed so that doctors who do the best job are compensated handsomely. Unfortunately, nothing in our system does that. We simply compensate for whoever does the most, and they get compensated handsomely. not the best system.

 

[elektroshok]

right but whats the implication here?

You talked about a procedure that was relatively quick and reimbursed very well. Modern lasik takes no time and is 1-2K per patient. I mean there is a doc in town who capitalized on this and is making a KILLING. Why is that bad?

 

[He2]

btw there isnt really a ceiling on salary. You could always go into private practice and not see medicare/medicaid patients. No one is forcing you to do this.

you could even run a very successful cash only practice.

 

[futureboy]

hahah he was our high school's valedictorian but the same thing happens between my uncles. 2 are lawyers and 1 is a doctor. the 2 lawyers always talk about how doctors shouldn't earn what they earn and then my doctor uncle will begin talking about how lawyers should earn less. When he says that, my two lawyer get defensive about their paycheck.

Ok, they're all clueless. Both law and medicine are helping professions whose practitioners work their butts off. Both doctors and lawyers deserve every dollar they earn.

 

[Bernoull]

Are people that say doctors make too much and shouldn't complain about what will happen to, (ie. their income, # of patients they see), because of Obama's health plan just short sighted?

When I started undergrad, the Director of Biology came to our first class and asked all those who wanted to become to doctors to raise their hands. Then he said, good, most of you won't make it. After that he said, and for any of you who saw those people studying on the grass in their swimsuits, the liberal arts school is across campus - go get your major changed.

My friend who's becoming a lawyer tried to explain to me that doctors shouldn't be compensated as much as they are because they go into their profession knowing they're supposed to help people. - First. That's bullsh.t because I can go to the soup kitchen and help people for free without having to spend i don't know some $350,000 for schooling 1/5 life learning. Second. Lawyer's seem to be completely content with taking money away from other people until it comes to their own.

My question is..do most people not realize the amount of work that it takes just in the amount of schooling is needed to become a doctor? And, is that the reason why a lot of people just assume doctors to be greedy people, because they don't understand the work it took to get to their position?

Without question, physicians should be well compensated. They are highly skilled and trained and carry a hefty responsibility. The real issue is what's the appropriate level of compensation?? Its universally agreed that primary doc are underpaid, specialists it's harder to say and there's quite a salary range across specialties, region, practice-type etc etc. I'm interested in a more philosophical question? How does one appraise a physician's worth? If compensation measures one's value, then clearly our society values singers, actors, pro athletes, bankers more than doctors.. Is this the right value-system?

Another point I'll make is that physicians are very different from lawyers, soup kitchen workers etc for the simple reason that patients entrust them with their health and lives. Yes docs should be wellpaid but compensation must not be the primary motivation. I strongly believe that compensation should be, as much as possible, divorced from decisions about patient care (reimbursement levels for various procedures etc etc). Patient first...

 

[praspudi]

Ok, they're all clueless. Both law and medicine are helping professions whose practitioners work their butts off. Both doctors and lawyers deserve every dollar they earn.

exactly. the problem resides in the fact that there are more lawyers than doctors, therefore there are more people to say doctors should earn less.

 

[elektroshok]

ok, sorry, my argument/thought track got totally spaghettied.

How about this, and i think we can agree: the incentive structure should be changed so that doctors who do the best job are compensated handsomely. Unfortunately, nothing in our system does that. We simply compensate for whoever does the most, and they get compensated handsomely. not the best system.

I don't think you can simply say that those who do the most get compensated (overall) the best. Looking at it oversimplified, to me, there are three big components: amount of patients seen, quality of the outcomes and patient retainability that all really work together.

If you can increase the first variable without negatively affecting the others then you should be reimbursed more, IMHO.

 

[circulus vitios]

Tell your pre-law (lol) friend that lawyers are useless and should earn pennies. Lie detectors can replace attorneys and the toss of a coin should be sufficient for anything else. I mean since when have facts ever won a case? It's all about putting a good show for the idiot jurors.

 

[elektroshok]

👍

Tell your pre-law (lol) friend that lawyers are useless and should earn pennies. Lie detectors can replace attorneys and the toss of a coin should be sufficient for anything else. I mean since when have facts ever won a case? It's all about putting a good show for the idiot jurors.

 

[He2]

the problem with the medical profession is that its not the same as singers, actors, or professional athletes, since millions of people can receive the rewards of their work simultaneously. That is why it is entertainment. Its unfortuanate, but there will naturally be a lower cap to their work, even if it does produce more of a societal benefit (although i would argue that entertainment is pretty important too, since a good doc's job is to let a patient go and enjoy those things).

so i wouldnt say superstar docs are worth a $20,000,000 contract like Shaq

 

[Emerald84]

OP, your lawyer-to-be friend is clueless.

Yep.

 

[jj6vcb]

Not to go all nerdy on you, but this seems way simplistic.

The incentive you described to work harder (see more patients) due to highe reimbursement is known as the substitution effect in econ. Seeing patients is now worth more, so you will see more patients until the value of the procedure is equal to your valuation of the lost time doing the procedure (opportunity cost).

On the other hand, there is the income effect in that higher reimbursement means that your overall income is increased, meaning that (assuming diminishing returns to money) the marginal benefit of monetary gain is now lower, meaning that you will work less to gain more leisure time.

Basically these two effects (work more because you get paid more per procedure and work less because you have a much higher income) are at odds with one another, and you can't really know which effect will "win" in all cases.

In general, the income effect seems to win, as shown by Medicare cutting reimbursements leading to increased procedures to regain lost earnings

Flashbacks to econ 101...

 

[He2]

Yep.

Was your friend this person?

Spence: Trial lawyers more important than doctors
BY CHRIS RIZO
Gerry Spence SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline)-Being a trial lawyer is the noblest profession in America, some 500 lawyers who gathered here for the annual Consumer Attorneys of California convention heard from one of the nation's most famed plaintiffs' attorneys.

Lawyer Gerry Spence, who was awarded the CAOC Lifetime Achievement Award, told conference attendees that legal representation is essential, even more important than health care, for people.

"We have to redefine who we are: We are the most important people in America," Spence said. "There is no other profession in America that fights for freedom, that fights for what America is about, that fights for justice for ordinary people."

To make his point, Spence -- founder of the Trial Lawyers College, which trains lawyers to be more effective in the courtroom -- said to imagine that all of the doctors and healers somehow vanished.

"I want to ask you which would be more important: If all of the doctors in the country somehow disappeared or all the trial lawyers in America somehow disappeared?" he asked. "We can live without medical care, but we cannot live without justice."

Spence gained national prominence for his handling of the Karen Silkwood case. Silkwood was a technician at the Kerr-McGee plutonium production plant in Oklahoma. She died in 1974 in a fatal car crash under suspicious circumstances after reportedly gathering evidence for her union.

Spence represented her father and children in a case that alleged Kerr-McGee was responsible for exposing Silkwood to dangerous levels of radiation.

The jury awarded $505,000 in damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the judgment was reduced to $5,000. Then in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court restored the original verdict. The lawsuit was headed for retrial when Kerr-McGee settled out of court for $1.38 million.

He told the attorneys gathered in the city for three days of meetings at the swanky Fairmont Hotel that being a trial lawyer is about helping people - the poor, the helpless and the damned.

"There is so few of us and the responsibility and the opportunity and the need is so great," said Spence, a former prosecutor and defense attorney for the insurance industry.

He called upon his fellow trial lawyers to embrace their role in the American judicial system.

"I want you to be proud you are a trial lawyer," he said. "It isn't what we call ourselves; it's what we do."

Spence took aim at U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a fellow Wyomingite, whom he said tarnished the nation's legal system.

"He is a man who has been more responsible for more of the destruction of the American Dream, more of the destruction of the myth of justice, has destroyed more of what we search for and fight for and pride ourselves in as being American than any other human being on the face of the earth," he said.

Spence asked rhetorically if plaintiffs' attorneys failed to speak out against such things as the Bush administration's pursuit of terrorists and the treatment of terror detainees.

"Were we silent?" he asked in a booming voice. "Did they hear from us?"

Conference attendee Benton McKnight, a Bakersfield, Calif.-based personal injury lawyer, told Legal Newsline after Spence's pep talk that his profession has been unfairly vilified by insurance and business interests.

"Trial lawyers speak out for people who don't have a voice in our society, whether that's through their race, through their economic status or through their lack of education," McKnight said. "The different insurance companies and large businesses have self-interest in attempting to demonize trial lawyers, and they have the funds and the ability to do so."

Personal injury attorney April Blackman of Costa Mesa, Calif., said Spence's presentation was encouraging to her.

"It's something we need to really take to heart," she said. "We are defenders of peoples' rights."

From Legal Newsline: Reach reporter Chris Rizo at [email protected].

 

[s1lver]

You Average Joe still thinks that doctors make hundreds of thousands of dollars and they get to keep every penny.

 

[cardinal2010]

Was your friend this person?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait. He's serious?

You can live without doctors, you can't live without trial lawyers? Not saying lawyers don't serve a purpose, but damn.

 

[Hoody]

okay. but what would be my odds at acceptance if I didn't raise my hand but was still really pre med?

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Lawyers should be paid more than docs, you get a lot of financial reward for selling your soul. I kid, I kid...

 

[shiftingmirage]

My question is..do most people not realize the amount of work that it takes just in the amount of schooling is needed to become a doctor? And, is that the reason why a lot of people just assume doctors to be greedy people, because they don't understand the work it took to get to their position?

In Chicago the median income is ~38-39k. So 50% of the population makes less, 50% makes more. Let's take a FM doc who makes 150k on the lower end (some may not consider it lower end, but for Chicago, I venture to say it is). So you have this doc who is making almost 4x the median income, to say, 'I'm not making enough money.' To the (my estimated) 94-97% of the population that makes less than 150k, that seems like an absurd statement. It's hard for others to feel sympathy, particularly those who make significantly less. 50% of the pop make 100+k less than a doc. They manage to get by, there is no way they will feel sorry for the docs who are making much more money than they are.

Medical costs are through the roof. People assume that when they pay $200 for what seems like 10 minutes of a doctors time, that
a) a large portion goes to the doc's pocket
b) medical billing is so twisted, that it's hard to determine what you are paying for. One can get 3 different bills for the same visit. Huh? Maybe if they only sent me one bill they could save themselves $10 worth of handling/over head
c) the system is a monopoly (which it is) and docs/insurance companies use this monopoly to charge them an arm and a leg. It's not like clothes, where you can go to Nordstroms if you're $$$, Lazarus if you're $$ and the outlet mall/walmart if you're $. Sure some doc's charge more then others, but the difference often does not mean someone with means of $ can find a doc they can afford. The result: resentment of the system, the people who make the system, those that participate in the system. To them it's like, look doc's, you've been screwing us financially for years, and the moment you are asked to make a concession, you say it's unfair. Well, to them, it's been unfair for years. Again, no sympathy from the public.

Lots of other people work hard too. Yes, most physicians delay having a family, take out large amounts of debt for school, and during residency work long hours. Several non-physicians will tell you they work 60 hrs a week, every week, not just the 3-5 years of residency. They will tell you because they can't afford to live in better areas, they have to tolerate the drug traffic, gang violence in their neighborhood.

So it's not, for me at least, difficult to imagine why people complain about doctors complain about their salaries. To 90+% of the population, doctors have it really good.

 

[randombetch]

Income should be determined by one thing: the equilibrium point of supply and demand.

If your income is lower than the equilibrium, you are getting underpaid. It doesn't matter what the actual number is. The CEO of Google could be making 100 times more than his plumber who could be making $100k, and he'd be getting way underpaid while his plumber is getting way overpaid. In a competitive market, your income reflects your marginal contribution to society. What you should be paid is simply a matter of how much schooling you went through or how difficult your work is - these are compensating differentials and do have an effect a person's income but should not determine it.

I will venture to say that most doctors, due to the high demand of medical care, are being underpaid.

shifting - healthcare is not a monopoly because 1) there is more than one doctor/hospital/firm that people in each region can go to for healthcare, 2) there are no major barriers to entry for these healthcare firms, and 3) healthcare is rival in consumption (a person getting healthcare prevents another from getting the same healthcare at the same time) so it cannot be a natural monopoly.

I agree that doctors have a it really good. You can have it really good while still being underpaid though.

 

[Narmerguy]

You Average Joe still thinks that doctors make hundreds of thousands of dollars and they get to keep every penny.

Yeah that's the problem. And any attempt to explain differently will not be received well.

 

[shiftingmirage]

Health care is a monopoly for a couple of reasons, the biggest being that it is self-regulated. AMA guidelines, which are not laws, are often adopted as the standard by which physicians should conduct themselves. The ACGME which accredits residencies, fellowships, is comprised of the AMA, the AAMC, the AHA, and several others, which are comprised of a bunch of docs. It's like how Congress has the ability to give itself a raise every so many years. Is it really that surprising that every time they can, they vote themselves a raise? No, because they are the ones regulating their pay.

Let's look at your argument.

shifting - healthcare is not a monopoly because 1) there is more than one doctor/hospital/firm that people in each region can go to for healthcare, 2) there are no major barriers to entry for these healthcare firms, and 3) healthcare is rival in consumption (a person getting healthcare prevents another from getting the same healthcare at the same time) so it cannot be a natural monopoly.

1) is true in some areas. Maybe even most areas, but there are areas of the counrty that are medically underserved. They tend to be rural, or in areas with high concentrations of uninsured/under insured. Insurance companies also have monopolies in some areas, and what if they don't cover the doc down the street, but only the guy an hour away, who is only open 9-5.

Side note on insurance monopolies: in 2006, study found that in 56% of markets, a single insurer had 50+% of the market share. In 95% of markets, a simgle company has 30+% of the market share.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/ama_insurance_study.html

This one said that in North Dakota, Blue Cross Blue Shield has 90% of the market share. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears

2) oh yes there are. Any insurance company has in-network and out of network docs. In network, they cover 70% (estimation), out of network, they cover 10% maybe even 0% (another estimation). So one such barrier is your insurance company saying, you can go there premium paying customer of 10 years, but we ain't gonna pay for it.
Another financial barrier is for the non-insured. Hospitals cannot turn away individuals with life-threatening injuries. Everyone elsse, they can show to the door. You have TB but no money, here is the exit, feel free to cough on every member of our staff as you pass them on your way out. So as long as it's not life-threatening, any physician in the counrty can refuse to treat someone, which will especially occur, if they don't have any $. (Note: most docs would treat TB cause it will just spread, but they are not legally obligated to at all.)

 

[TheMightySmiter]

I think the problem is that there are such different standards for pay when it comes to different professions. I know this example has probably been used to death, but why do doctors make up to five times the amount that public school teachers do? I know that physicians have a lot of loans to pay off, but the pay difference adds up to WAY more than the student loan+interest amount. I think that a lot of people resent the amount of money that doctors make off of treating an illness that they often can't do anything about. Of course I'm not saying doctors should all just be poor and feel good about helping others. And often the most needed docs make the least amount of money. That's sort of the way it goes in life, and I don't think it should be drastically changed, but I don't think that people are necessarily "stupid" for thinking that doctors make a lot of money. It's true. Even with malpractice, doctors tend to be among the wealthier people in society. And they're profiting off of other people's health problems.

I think that in general people on SDN complain about this a lot because they want to BE doctors. And it's a valid perspective. But if everyone here wanted to be a teacher, they'd probably have a very different and also valid perspective.

 

[longhorn09]

Are people that say doctors make too much and shouldn't complain about what will happen to, (ie. their income, # of patients they see), because of Obama's health plan just short sighted?

When I started undergrad, the Director of Biology came to our first class and asked all those who wanted to become to doctors to raise their hands. Then he said, good, most of you won't make it. After that he said, and for any of you who saw those people studying on the grass in their swimsuits, the liberal arts school is across campus - go get your major changed.

My friend who's becoming a lawyer tried to explain to me that doctors shouldn't be compensated as much as they are because they go into their profession knowing they're supposed to help people. - First. That's bullsh.t because I can go to the soup kitchen and help people for free without having to spend i don't know some $350,000 for schooling 1/5 life learning. Second. Lawyer's seem to be completely content with taking money away from other people until it comes to their own.

My question is..do most people not realize the amount of work that it takes just in the amount of schooling is needed to become a doctor? And, is that the reason why a lot of people just assume doctors to be greedy people, because they don't understand the work it took to get to their position?

My friend, you are wrong...They are not stupid, they are smart. They point out that doctors are paid too much, and they wish doctors will have pay-cut and the resources can go into other sectors of the society. Such action is really benefitial to them.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I think that in general people on SDN complain about this a lot because they want to BE doctors. And it's a valid perspective. But if everyone here wanted to be a teacher, they'd probably have a very different and also valid perspective.

Being a teacher can be a good EC.

 

[thamsenman]

In a competitive market, your income reflects your marginal contribution to society. QUOTE]

What about firefighters, teachers, and police officers vs. Goldman Sachs executives? Market failure, Mr. Economist? 🙂

 

[TheMightySmiter]

What about firefighters, teachers, and police officers vs. Goldman Sachs executives? Market failure, Mr. Economist? 🙂

+1

If i-banking execs were so crucial to the economy, how come they royally ****ed us all over? Seems to me like if the market had done its job there'd BE no i-bankers.

 

[betheltim]

This is a bizarre thread, to say the least...

🙄

 

[IDoIt4Love]

people don't know all that goes into becoming a doctor and....

people don't care. all they see are these well-off, successful individuals that can afford all these things that they can't afford in this bad economy, and it makes them mad. there are a lot of jealous people out there that unfortunately do not take 2 seconds to reason out the fact that they didn't work as hard and dedicate as much time into their education as we did, and thus are not where we will ultimately be in a few years.

 

[futureboy]

To make his point, Spence -- founder of the Trial Lawyers College, which trains lawyers to be more effective in the courtroom -- said to imagine that all of the doctors and healers somehow vanished."I want to ask you which would be more important: If all of the doctors in the country somehow disappeared or all the trial lawyers in America somehow disappeared?" he asked. "We can live without medical care, but we cannot live without justice."

Gerry Spence, get over yourself. This has got to be one the dumbest comments I've ever read--and I'm a lawyer. Of course lawyers are important to society, more so than we're given credit for. But to suggest lawyers are more important than doctors is more idiotic than I can describe in words.