Re:The Illicit Perks of the M.D. Club
by SilasX on Monday July 04, 2016 @01:18AM
(#12028993)
>I did my best to make it clear that these two things are intricately linked.
Where? You haven't once mentioned the return to becoming a doctor, nor compared the two, nor given a reply that suggests you recognized the distinction between the two.
>>you have not provided substantiation to address the point (that lucrative businesses can't be bottlenecked by subsidy caps), and at this point I don't think you understand the criticism, but prefer instead to dismiss any clarification of the relevant dynamics with "oh that's regulated"
>I've stated pretty clearly that medical practico is not a particularly lucrative business (hence why private practices have been going bankrupt and being bought out by hospitals and insurers, and why so many hospitals have negative gross profit margins). That's not a 'dismissal' of your criticism; it's a refutation of the underlying premise.
Then I was correct that you misunderstood the argument. The "lucrative businesses" referred to here, two which I was drawing an analogy, would be 1) the hypothetical airline business, and 2) the "business" of training to be a doctor; it was explicitly NOT referring to that of a medical practice!
Just as superprofitable airlines don't depend on government subsidies, superlucrative becoming-a-doctor shouldn't depend on government funding of residencies. See the dynamic there?
Now, after reading your last post, it sound like you're saying that Medicare has monopsony power over all doctor services and therefore is the major determinant of all doctor compensation, even those that eg work for rich people as their personal doctor.
If that's what you meant, I don't see why you couldn't have just said that the first time around, given your deep domain knowledge. Then, the appropriate reply would be "the return to becoming a doctor is no higher than other training, so it would be pointless to become a doctor if you had to also bear the cost of the residency". Note the length is less than 500 words.
But then, seen so clearly, it would depend on very questionable claims.
If that's not what you meant, then I stand by my claim that you're not responding to my point, because that's the only way that government-paid residency slot caps could hold up the correction of doctor undersupply.
Where? You haven't once mentioned the return to becoming a doctor, nor compared the two, nor given a reply that suggests you recognized the distinction between the two.
>>you have not provided substantiation to address the point (that lucrative businesses can't be bottlenecked by subsidy caps), and at this point I don't think you understand the criticism, but prefer instead to dismiss any clarification of the relevant dynamics with "oh that's regulated"
>I've stated pretty clearly that medical practico is not a particularly lucrative business (hence why private practices have been going bankrupt and being bought out by hospitals and insurers, and why so many hospitals have negative gross profit margins). That's not a 'dismissal' of your criticism; it's a refutation of the underlying premise.
Then I was correct that you misunderstood the argument. The "lucrative businesses" referred to here, two which I was drawing an analogy, would be 1) the hypothetical airline business, and 2) the "business" of training to be a doctor; it was explicitly NOT referring to that of a medical practice!
Just as superprofitable airlines don't depend on government subsidies, superlucrative becoming-a-doctor shouldn't depend on government funding of residencies. See the dynamic there?
Now, after reading your last post, it sound like you're saying that Medicare has monopsony power over all doctor services and therefore is the major determinant of all doctor compensation, even those that eg work for rich people as their personal doctor.
If that's what you meant, I don't see why you couldn't have just said that the first time around, given your deep domain knowledge. Then, the appropriate reply would be "the return to becoming a doctor is no higher than other training, so it would be pointless to become a doctor if you had to also bear the cost of the residency". Note the length is less than 500 words.
But then, seen so clearly, it would depend on very questionable claims.
If that's not what you meant, then I stand by my claim that you're not responding to my point, because that's the only way that government-paid residency slot caps could hold up the correction of doctor undersupply.