Maxima lielveiklos nopērkamas Latvijas zemenes

I agree with many of the posters that the rterticsion in the number of doctors may not be a deliberate ploy to increase doctor's wages. Nonetheless, the AMA cartel and their monopoly on certification is still a problem. They are not serving the needs of the customers (patients). Perhaps one reason is that they have overly strict standards. A lot of people here and probably within the AMA are probably convinced that relaxing standards would only lead to poorer service and thus lower medical quality, but the high standards are restricting the number of places that can serve as medical and the profitability of medical schools and restricting the number of medical students and thus the number of doctors. Obviously, having too few doctors decreases quality of medical service. In other words, if relaxing standards can increase the number of doctors, then a balance needs to be struck between high standards and having enough doctors. If there were other certifying agencies we might have more diverse responses to this doctor shortage. From the looks of it, the AMA just sounds like it's a money problem: it costs more money to open more schools, so we just need more money, without being willing to make the type of compromises that could best serve the needs of the customers, which includes both quality medical service and affordable prices (whether one pays via an insurer or directly).If people are worried about medical malpractice, I read somewhere (I think it was in Gladwell's Blink) that the more time a doctor spends with a patient the less likely they are to be sued; ie the more attentive the doctor is and the more the doctor listens to the patient, the better. Patients like this, and aren't inclined to sue doctors they like, even if that doctor errors. Thus, these overworked doctors are a formula for malpractice and thus means more work for the abundance of lawyers.