🚀 go-pugleaf

It hardly seems excessive to limit the earnings of the doctors who earn
the most extraordinary incomes.  And yet, there is a principle involved.
Perhaps our medical neighbors are concerned with the precedent that the
government would determine their earnings.  Once this principle is
established, then the actual level of the cap can be set anywhere.
After all, $300,000 is a rather arbitrary number.  Why not set the level
at $290,000?  Or 250,000?  If times are difficult, or there is a certain
political expediency to trading off the benefits of the doctors against
others who receive funds dispersed by the government, why not $100,000?
Or $30,000?  This is what the lawyers sometimes call a "slippery slope."
Once the principle is established that politicians and bureaucrats can
determine the earnings of doctors, what is to prevent them from 
capping the salaries of engineers or bus drivers?

Of course, the doctors are beneficiaries of a virtual monopoly on 
health care.  You can't even get a good antifungus ointment without
a prescription from an M.D.  And 80% of people's medical needs can be
dealt with very effectively by practitioners with 2-4 years of training.
If we really want to keep health costs down, maybe we should consider
busting the monopoly.  Doctors deserve our respect for their dedication
and the time they have invested in education, but they don't deserve
a monopoly.  Claims that the monopoly benefits the patient
community seem ingenuous at best.  

The prominent position of MD's also tends to blind us to their 
limitations.  I've met a lot of MD's and as a group they don't seem 
noticeably more healthy than the patient community.  I would like to go 
to a doctor who is 80 years old and the picture of robust health.
That's the person who would have something to teach me.  Where can
I find such an individual?