I agree, and the "cartel" that you've described carefully limits the number of foreign physicians who can compete with Americans. I agree with you about law at the middle to low end, but clearly the very elite schools still often lead to lucrative careers - and this is another field that clearly has established barriers to entry that make it more difficult for foreign firms or lawyers to compete.
Elite science and engineering programs, on the other hand, seem to be going in the opposite direction from the AMA and ABA - the graduate schools in these fields are willing to enroll a majority of international students, and the US senate is talking about "stapling a green card" to every graduate degree in a STEM field (but not to every JD, MD, or DDS). And even if they did include the professional degrees, the respective professional organizations are empowered by the US government to severely limit how and where they can practice.
All that said, I think this simply lends more support to my original point, which is that US citizens have discovered that the fields that require heavy science and math often put them in the path of competing with very talented immigrants and international students, whereas fields that require less math are more lucrative and offer a safe haven from international competition.
It may not be a free market at work, but it clearly is a rational and expected response to market conditions created by government policy.
In short, if you're a very talented US citizen who wants to maximize the return on the effort you put into education, it is rational to get a little bit good at math, but there isn't much of a premium on getting really good at math relative to what the professions offer. If you're an international student who aspires to immigrate to the US, on the other hand, getting really good at intensive math and science fields is a high probability way to gain access to the US market.
Medicine is profitable because it is potentially ~extortive, even correcting for government regulation.
ie, "your money, or your life"? is the negotiating dynamic.
Note this is also historically why Lawyers ("your money, or your life"?) and investment bankers ("your money, or your life/company"?) are also highly remunerative careers, at least traditionally.[1,2]
_______
[1] It helps also that in addition to negotiations under proximate duress, there is a highly exclusionary hiring process (a/k/a guilds or qualifications to be admitted into "the professions" etc).
I don't think that's a valid argument. You could say the same thing about the food industry - if you don't eat, you die. The food industry (notwithstanding the FDA) is relatively free from government regulation and is quite competitive. Strong competition in any industry inevitably drives prices down.
There can certainly be situations where time is of the essence, but that doesn't explain why an MRI costs thousands of dollars or why a visit to a specialist can cost hundreds for a 15 minute visit.
-- It's not an 'argument' as much as it is a negotiating strategy/dynamic.
The food case is trivial. Its not the case that you negotiate from a position of massive information assymetry. There are 1XXX variations of healthy diet, for example. Medical, legal, and Banking services are akin to the food case if you were in an alien planet where 90/100 items in the food store or to be foraged were poisonous/deadly to humans, yet indeterminately so. So, you must pay for the 'information' element to not kill yourself (ie, like a local alien guide).
If the issue is information asymmetry, you could say the same thing about car repairs. Most people don't know a thing about fixing their car, and if it's not fixed correctly, they could die. I don't see this pricing issue happening with car repairs though.
I think that with sufficient competition and a system that doesn't require/encourage people to go to the specialists recommended by their primary care physicians, you could significantly drive prices down. There is in fact probably a place for technology in all this, insofar as curating and maintaining accurate statistics on the record of individual doctors in a manner that is easily accessible to all patients. Then you wouldn't have primary care physicians giving referrals to friends from medical school or residency (a change that could actually improve specialist quality).
The stakes are much higher in medicine/law/and finance. But similar "hold-up" dynamics are pretty frequent as low levels in car repairs (classically, taking advantage of women). A more intermediary example is is Home Building (the so-called change-orders, also at play in public works). Its really a combination of information assymetry, high-stakes, and some form of sunk cost or switching/searching costs that are prohibitive. You can't change your builder with a hole in the ground, you can't change your car-repair guy with your car-motor in pieces, etc.
Alas, I don't want to beat the explanation to death. Its not meant to be the sole explanatory variable. I just thought it was useful to be aware of. In the case of healthcare, in particular, I don't dis=agree with the structural market issues (lack of direct pricing, non-transparency, etc.). But if you look at drug pricing, see what they charge for cancer drugs. And look at places like the NHS in britain who won't pay $100k for a course of drugs out of principle.
There is more to the story for those interested in the subject is all.
Elite science and engineering programs, on the other hand, seem to be going in the opposite direction from the AMA and ABA - the graduate schools in these fields are willing to enroll a majority of international students, and the US senate is talking about "stapling a green card" to every graduate degree in a STEM field (but not to every JD, MD, or DDS). And even if they did include the professional degrees, the respective professional organizations are empowered by the US government to severely limit how and where they can practice.
All that said, I think this simply lends more support to my original point, which is that US citizens have discovered that the fields that require heavy science and math often put them in the path of competing with very talented immigrants and international students, whereas fields that require less math are more lucrative and offer a safe haven from international competition.
It may not be a free market at work, but it clearly is a rational and expected response to market conditions created by government policy.
In short, if you're a very talented US citizen who wants to maximize the return on the effort you put into education, it is rational to get a little bit good at math, but there isn't much of a premium on getting really good at math relative to what the professions offer. If you're an international student who aspires to immigrate to the US, on the other hand, getting really good at intensive math and science fields is a high probability way to gain access to the US market.