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
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
Available residency slots are dictated by the funding made available through the Medicare program and ultimately Congress.
Broadly, it’s the same issue that all jobs have: it’s cheaper to hire pre-trained professionals than to hire and train.
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.
Who is successfully lobbied by organizations of doctors
Congress doesn't make decisions in a vacuum
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.
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?
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.
Consensus isnt needed, just enough beurocracy to make development expensive.