undefined | Better HN

0 pointspwinnski6y ago0 comments

I find it hard to believe that someone who has spent a large chunk of their life in the field of medicine is going to choose unemployment over continuing to practice with less remuneration.

If the jobs you describe are necessary, then they will continue. If they are not, they might go away. That's how things work.

We've had a long time to find these inefficiencies you describe, and yet all they've done is multiply. Cutting rates means leaving less room for inefficiencies, and is the most certain precursor to eliminating them that I know of.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

oflannabhra6y ago· 1 in thread

Those conclusions are taking the available detail of the current proposals to conclusion.

I seriously doubt that any proposal would pass that results in such a conclusion. The point the article is making is that the proposals need to consider the facts that result in that conclusion (ie, current Medicare/aid rates cannot support the current industy), and need to offer proposals to counter act such a conclusion. Any proposal that doesn't is not a proposal, but a platitude.

pwinnskiOP6y ago

Supporting the current industry is not the goal. The current industry is failing too many people.

Proposing too many details before a candidate is even elected would be foolish. Any particular detail can be distracting from the overall goal.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse