This is the crux of the problem. You can't really.
The interesting thing is that his brother is a physician with very similar training in the UK (they both went to Trinity in Dublin). Does he get $4 million a year? Not by a long shot. Is he hurting for money? No. He has a large house and equally large family, travels all over the world and in general has a wonderful life. Granted he's never bought a yacht on a whim 6 states away, neglected the insurance and have it sink in a hurricane before he ever got it out of the marina (true story) but he is not hurting. Is he any less responsible or hardworking than his brother? Were any fewer lives saved under his care?
You can't measure these things in terms of widgets and currency.
To do so is mere rationalization as if the current state of affairs isan economic inevitability. It clearly is not.
All else being equal, would the brother turn down the money if he were given it? Would he turn it down merely and strictly due to the number of zeroes tacked after the first six digits? How would anyone in his position make a decision either way? All questions worth thinking about. And IMHO, intricately woven of human nature and our immediate economies. I fail to see the foundation of a moral dilemma, leave alone outrage, in all this. But then again, I plead that I am merely following my own moral compass!
>Would he turn it down merely and strictly due to the number of zeroes tacked after the first six digits?
Of course not. And I don't blame my father in law for taking the money either. Why wouldn't he?
I understand your confusion. I was not clear.
I don't think it is personally shameful for my father in law to accept the money. I think it is shameful that we, as a society, have allowed a system to function where he is offered that kind of money. You can cite 'market forces' as the reason that state of affairs exist but the truth is that the market doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by regulations, standards and bureaucracy put in place by intention or by accident by human beings. No place is that more true than healthcare.
Whether it is doctors that own a hospital or surgical center that, on paper, operate at razor thin margins while paying their principal shareholders, who happen to be employees, exorbitant amounts of money or urine testing companies charging thousands of dollars for a single drug screening while giving kickbacks to doctors in the form of leasing office space in their clinics for far more than market rates for their representatives, or medical supply companies that charge more for refilling oxygen tanks than the tanks themselves cost new and filled then we have some inefficiencies that could use the light of day below the surface.
None of these things are crippling in and of themselves. All of them together are creating a crisis that affects almost every person in the United States.
This is the crux of the problem. You can't really.
The interesting thing is that his brother is a physician with very similar training in the UK (they both went to Trinity in Dublin). Does he get $4 million a year? Not by a long shot. Is he hurting for money? No. He has a large house and equally large family, travels all over the world and in general has a wonderful life. Granted he's never bought a yacht on a whim 6 states away, neglected the insurance and have it sink in a hurricane before he ever got it out of the marina (true story) but he is not hurting. Is he any less responsible or hardworking than his brother? Were any fewer lives saved under his care?
You can't measure these things in terms of widgets and currency.
To do so is mere rationalization as if the current state of affairs isan economic inevitability. It clearly is not.