[bunderbunder]

The AMA does work rather nicely for physicians, but it's less clear that it works nicely for patients. There's a strong argument to be made that the USA suffers from a chronic undersupply of physicians, and that certainly boosts doctor pay but it comes at the cost of patients having to pay higher prices for poorer quality service.

The AMA also has the advantage of being an incumbent. If we were to hypothesize a similar national organization for American academics that was attempting to follow a similar strategy, their first problem would be how to generate the artificial undersupply that allows members of its profession to enjoy such a favorable job market in the first place. I'm guessing anything that accomplishes that goal more quickly than waiting for a market correction would, would end up being a pretty painful experience for the large number of folks who find themselves forcibly shoved out of academia.

[kevin_thibedeau]

From what doctor's have told me, the AMA exists to serve itself and the few conducting research.

[Omniusaspirer]

Yep, the general sentiment among doctors is that they've failed to advocate for themselves both in the public sphere and government. Comparisons are frequently drawn between themselves and nursing groups who have lobbied very successfully for both expanded scope of practice and better workplace conditions.