No it's largely just the magical "a market will fix this" thinking that's been ruining policy for decades. It's silly and doesn't work because the assumptions that go into the underpinnings of the economics theory about the functioning of free markets don't exist in many potential markets they want to apply the logic to. Health care isn't the same as shopping for a pair of shoes and it's mind numbingly stupid to me to try to treat them the same.
Also doctors can be compelled to sign enforceable, legally binding noncompetes. Unlike most of us, they have to move far away to change employers, thereby making competition in the health care space very difficult.
I wanna say yes but to be fair, I cant prove it. I think without licencing we would get reduced length degrees & more people like nurses transitioning into primary care physicians - and I think that would be fine for a lot of conditions
I don't think licensure is really that much of a barrier, though. One of the huge trends going on is that nurses are increasingly replacing doctors in primary care. In my market it's unusual to have an actual doctor as a primary care provider. These nurses just go through some additional training for a PA or NP license and it's still a great deal cheaper than medical school.
This happens to me (my PCM is a nurse) but funnily enough my costs haven't gone down. Those nurses still work under a qualified doc, who will never look at your file until youre nearly dead, but theyre still getting a cut believe you me.
They’re not ‘getting a cut’ unless they directly own the clinic. What you’re seeing is a cost-cutting measure increasing the bottom line for whoever owns the clinic. Physicians are forced to agree to ‘supervise’ midlevels as a condition of their employment these days.
I replied to your other comment but wanted to reply here to say that this is also probably a fair point. I guess I dont really see doctors as employees taking orders (dont doctors mostly own their own practice?) since theyre so highly paid, but probably thats how being a software dev looks to others aswell.
Im curious if you think malpractice insurance is also a significant, unnecessary cost? What if we made it harder to sue doctors? On the flip side, malpractice is still a real problem - probably not one that will be fixed by removing medical licences :D just hoping you see this comment since I am genuinely interested in your answer
The financial incentives a specialist headache doc has whos spent the time and money to get to where they are would never tell a patient to eat less and radically adjust your diet for your ailment to go away, they wouldn't have patients coming back to them and they would go broke (that education was super long and expensive). I like the uncanny idea of getting rid of training requirements and let the free market handle it.
That kind of change though would leave someone with the bag and tends to never get voted or happen so we stay stuck in the over priced pharma, insurance, beating around the bush health game were in. Everyone is incentivezed to keep the bandaids rolling. Don't tell people their drug habits (I mean eating habits) are killing them.
Letting the free market handle it equals letting quacks handle it. I really doubt quacks will be any more incentivized (or qualified) to do right by their patients.
Or they start to require internet access before you can use the device. Even if it's periodic. Once a month you have to connect to the internet to validate your license and agreement, wherein it uploads your watch history and downloads new ads.
The box will still be warm from the warm of the store I bought it from when I take it back for a return. How’s that thing going to work at my remote cabin?
> What I bet hasn't decreased is the extent to which people say they want to be unique.
FTA:
> In our study of over one million participants surveyed from 2000 to 2020, we found that need for uniqueness was lowest among participants who took the survey most recently in 2020 compared to those in 2000.
So it seems that the desire for uniqueness has decreased, unless I'm reading this incorrectly. That's a surprise to me just based on my observations and possible biases.
I'd just love some zoning changes that would allow light commercial in the middle of some neighborhoods so I don't have to drive miles to get a cup of coffee. Could be as simple as adding more pathways between neighborhoods so I don't have to ride my bike on a busy street and almost get hit by someone on their phone.
Its not that we're obsessed with cars, its that cars are the only option for reasonable, safe transportation right now.
The 4-minute-mile is an average of 15mph. I haven't measured how fast I can sprint, but at my age (40s), I doubt its higher than 15mph for any timespan longer than a few seconds. So milers effectively sprint for 4 minutes straight. Its mind boggling what the human body can do.
I don't think you're familiar with the performance levels of masters (40+) atheletes.
I'm 60 now, but in my 40s I was a moderately good marathon-to-ultramarathon runner, and with a little bit of speedwork training, I managed to run a 5:30 track mile. That's not even fast - I had friends of the same age who could run 4:30.
It is truly remarkable what the human body can do - the world record for the marathon involves running 26.2 miles faster per mile than I could ever run 1 mile.
But if you can't sprint faster than 4mph for a few seconds, that's fine but it's not indicative of "at your age". Unless you have some actual health issue that prevents it, I would very surprised if you were incapable of hitting 6mph for a mile with some training, and a lot of people would not find it tremendously hard to hit 6.5-7mph if they had the time and motivation to train.
Not just that, but elite marathon performances (42.2 km) are under 5 minute miles.
Say, 2:10 (130 minutes) over 26.2 miles is a 4:58 mile pace.
The current world record seems to be 2:00:35, which is like a 4:36 mile pace.
Sometimes footage of elite level long distance running events shows fans trying to follow the runners on bicycle. It looks quite astonishing and ridiculous at the same time.
You missed a key part of that sentence. Also, there’s a huge difference between two engineers when one is super motivated and engaged by the work vs someone phoning it in.
In addition to all the other replies on this topic, monochrome sensors are capable of higher detail and higher sensitivity than color sensors. There's no scientific benefit to using a color sensor. In fact, a color sensor would be detrimental.
Yes, no professional telescope uses a color sensor, because the on-chip filters on those are terrible and doesn't go away when you don't want color. All color images are either done by combining images with different filters or are false color images.
I also might argue that the degree to which it is your identity will change through your life. Certainly in my 20s I had less of an idea of who I was so my value to society was rooted in how much I was paid or my perceived importance. I’ve seen as I age that my work has become less a part of my identity, but definitely greater than zero. I’ll check back in a decade and give an update :)
