Out of curiosity, why cannot hospitals fund residency slots on their own with some riders (the resident should work in the same hospital for x years)?
It seems odd that the medical profession is not willing to invest in the training of the next generation of professionals without government help.
They do sometimes. People don’t realize how much of medicine, generally, is funded through the government. Additionally, society gives medicine a lot of leeway to act selfishly because the core practice of healing is so altruistic.
Broadly, it’s the same issue that all jobs have: it’s cheaper to hire pre-trained professionals than to hire and train.
Because they need to support their executives and capital projects / debt service. That’s the discretionary budget… training doctors doesn’t improve the bottom line.
Hospitals are really quasi-government entities. Their pricing structures have price controls based on Medicare reimbursements. A third of hospital revenue is Medicare and Medicaid.
Both programs have been slowing rate growth, which in turn impacts private insurance as well. The institutions haven’t been successful in reducing cost growth. ACA built out regional cartels^H provider networks, essentially eliminating competition.
I was trying to keep my comment short. Such a regulatory regime would be expected to close such obvious loopholes.
In much the same way that a doctor in $FOREIGN_COUNTRY cannot practice telemedicine in the USA, I would expect the regulations to make a distinction between software (and services provided by software) developed by foreign and licensed programmers.
>much the same way that a doctor in $FOREIGN_COUNTRY cannot practice telemedicine in the USA...
U.S. retired doctor here. This is a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me until I read your comment. Could a foreign doctor not set up a system whereby she/he could appear to be in the U.S. while being in a country that's essentially unreachable by U.S. authorities? And take payment in cryptocurrency?
> Lobby the government to prohibit anyone from practicing programming without a license.
No way you're getting consensus on this one, but even if you could, it's too hard to stop. If you charge for compilers, and only provide them to licensed developers, hippies will make and distribute compilers for free.
Also, the vast majority of software bugs are annoying at worst, with no death potential. Powers that be would react a lot more aggressively if stack overflows routinely led to bodies on the pavement.
Considering the number of ransomware attacks and other viruses that infect hospitals, it wouldn't surprise me if stack overflows had quite a large body count.
Why not both? Even better if you have to obtain accreditation as a professional in every different market because EU software is different from US software is different from Indian software...
I programmers were smart, they would:
1. Lobby the government to prohibit anyone from practicing programming without a license.
2. Limit the number of licenses granted each year