Who hurts the US Healthcare system worse?

Because they could get paid twice what they do, for largely the same job, in the US.Unless you are suggesting that there is a realistic prospect of US doctor's salaries more than halving - why would we worry about any significant brain drain happening?

But then, where would they get a proper cup of tea? Isn't there a lot higher percentage of foreign-born/trained doctors in the UK as compared to the US? Could that reflect the pay disparity? I'm not worried about significant brain drain, that's something that happens in developing nations.RAZD mentioned limiting doctors' pay. I'm saying that could cause a loss to the high-end doctors, who are superior in their practice, and who also command a higher pay. But I'm sure there's plenty of scrubs (heh) who could come in and fill the slots if they did decide to retire. I'd just prefer to have the access to the better (best) doctors.

I don't follow your point. There are a lot of foreign born doctors in the UK. Why are they doctoring in the UK and not the US? So logically, the US should pay doctors more?

Because US citizens are more likely to become doctors because they get paid more; the lower pay in the UK allows for more jobs opening for the foreigners to take. (not that I know that's true, that's just where the point leads) No, that's not logical. Being paid more doesn't necessarily mean being better.The logical conclusion would be that the US shouldn't disincentivise the best doctors by preventing them from earning a higher pay.

That is not how medicine works. How much a doctor is paid is not a reflection upon their superiority.Pay is contingent upon location and specialty. Not quality. A busier doctor is not a higher paid doctor. A busier doctor is also not a better doctor. There are lot of poor doctors that are thought of as the "good" doctor. I guarantee you that a doctor that is loose with the prescriptions is much harder to get in to see than a doctor that is not. I also guarantee you that that doctor is not paid more than the other doctors in the practice based upon how popular he is.There are many factors built into doctor pay. High-end doctors are not necessarily better doctors.Using your argument rural doctors are not worth much at all.

That isn't really a logical extension of the data. There could be numerous reasons why there are foreign doctors in the UK. The lower pay does not automatically mean more openings. If this is true why are they going to UK at all. The US has lots of openings for foreign doctors. If pay was so important why is there a doctor shortage in the US. Do you have evidence for doctors being disincentivised? If so why are only the "best" doctors being disincentivised?Again I don't think what you have presented leads to this conclusion, logical or not.

You said that we should not pay doctors less. The reason was to retain talent. Therefore, in order to ensure we retain the best talent (your goal) we should pay more. Unless you think that by some fluke the US is paying doctors precisely the right amount to keep the best doctors doctoring we should logically increase their wages. You are saying that paying them less 'could cause a loss to the high-end doctors, who are superior in their practice, and who also command a higher pay.'. You want to retain the top doctors? Want to encourage the finest minds into medicine? It seems the only reasonable thing to do would be to increase the pay. The best, after all, 'command a higher pay' so why are you trying to destroy the American health care system by not providing a higher pay? Exactly. So you think they should earn 'higher pay', to avoid disincentivising the best. You think that the US' finest minds are in medicine right now? No! The best {potential} doctors are disencintivised by the current pay. So we should raise it!

Not really. You're speaking too generally.I said that we shouldn't artificially limit doctors' profits. And my goal is not to retain the best talent in a general sense. My goal is to not dissuade talent by limiting the profit that a doctor can make. You're, like, on a whole 'nother level. I'm not looking at this from a national point of view. I'm talking about my personal experience. No, I'm not concerned about retaining the top doctors and encouraging the finest minds in medicine.I'm concerned about being able to see the doctor that I want to see. My doctor is really good and I'm willing to pay more to be able to see him. Putting a limit on that hurts my ability to maintain seeing him. Although, on the other hand, we could always just meet up in secret and have me pay him in cash. But I don't think you guys want that kind of stuff going on. Paying them more doesn't ensure a higher quality. But I think I get what you're saying. Its just that a doctor should be able to earn a higher pay by providing a better service. Not that we should just 'pay doctors more' in a general sense. You've got a decent argument there, but I don't think the conclusion necessarily follows. Simply paying more doesn't ensure that the qualty will be higher.

I don't know about you, but I'm willing to pay more for better service.

Your response does not have anything to do with my statement. You are also making judgements about me that you have no evidence for. You see how your response is completely unrelated to my comment. I have never said anything about not be willing to pay more for better service. Why would you even make such a comment? You seem to be throwing up a strawman and the rest of this thread is a gish gallop from you.For example your claim about willing to pay your doctor more and some sort of nefariousness by "obamacare" that would prevent you from doing so. The ACA does not set doctors pay. The ACA is not socialized medicine and doctors are not government employees. I have no idea what your disjointed argument is even trying to present. Doctors are paid usually on RVU's(you can do the research). There is now a move away from strict RVU's to also including quality metrics(outcomes) and patient satisfaction. This is a natural industry transition and ACA has nothing to do with how doctors are paid, no matter what the pay model is.

That's how I feel.

I'm pretty sure doctors' wages are already limited by artifice. No, but apparently it ensures the talent pool is of higher quality. The proposal of limiting the maximum possible wage doesn't prohibit this performance related wages.

Where to? If all other developed countries have socialized single payer medical systems who is going to pay more?Any idea how doctor salaries compare from country to country?

Please explain how. I at least have the decency to explain how you responses are lacking. All you give me are petty throw away lines. How can I improve if you don't give any meaningful feedback.

There is always going to be a fine balancing act. A strong monetary incentive can attract more talent, for example. Also, you could offer lower wages but decreased hours. This would attract more family-minded candidates.I think there is one ethos that socialized medicine has that the US profit driven system lacks. In socialized medicine you are also responsible to the public in a way that US doctors aren't. If you price gouge in the US, that's just capitalism. If you price gouge in the UK, you are going against the public good since those are public tax dollars you are taking.I just think there is a sense of responsibility that is lacking in the US healthcare system. I am not saying that doctors are not looking out for the well being of patients. What I am saying is that they don't care as much about the economic impacts that their business has on the US economy and on families.