Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa
Both are valuable services, I believe. Still, I have made a good living and had a fulfilling career. But as we face health care reimbursement issues, these discrepancies probably will need to be addressed.
It think the discrepancies have already been addressed by the fact that neither of you has switched jobs.
I know you're just using this as an example, but it's a good opportunity to look at the issues in any career-change debate.
Financial: I understand the reimbursement numbers, but what about take-home pay after equipment, support staff, & malpractice insurance? You can probably practice your craft for decades, what about her? I don't have any idea about the costs but I know that focusing on annual income is a risky approach.
Qualitative: While salary gets a lot of attention, there's also the intangibles like quality of work and quality of life. Even if you accepted the higher reimbursement you might be miserable in some other field... or miserable with work in general.
Rich, it'd be a lot harder to replace you with a robot or outsource you to Bumrungrad... but just about any neophyte can open a LASIK clinic these days and that trend will accelerate. Considering the competitive changes in the last decade, if I was a surgeon I'd be looking for a sideline.
When I learned that I wouldn't be a submarine XO, at 12 years of service with eight more years before retirement vesting, I thought my career had slammed into a brick wall. I spent the next eight years in training commands while exploring just about every alternative the Navy had to offer-- and not realizing that I'd already found it. Despite all the choices, it came down to the fact that I was comfortable with who I was and what I was doing, and I didn't want to leave that behind just for the possibility of finding something better. Although it was better than the alternatives, eight years later I still hadn't found my "Aha!" career so I ER'd...
I've had a lot of "Aha!!" moments during ER.