A self-employed primary care doctor seeking reimbursements is different from a surgeon working in a hospital. Hospital medical staff do get raises based on experience: https://work.chron.com/rate-salary-increase-physician-27112.html
The other interesting question is whether years of experience are the best measure of quality in medicine. I wouldn’t want to be a surgeon’s first patient, but I also wouldn’t want to be their last either. A doctor with five or more years of practical experience may be more aware of the latest medical research or trends than one with 40 years about to retire. A younger surgeon might also have steadier hands.
Yet in some respects, the question is moot because doctors of any level of experience tend to get paid handsomely here. I feel for the overworked internists with huge student loans still to pay, but that is a different issue. You don’t hear of too many poor established American doctors. The reason we don’t have national health insurance is directly due to the AMA, which lobbied hard to prevent it from happening many moons ago. And Old Joe is exactly right about the different levels of care here. This is not a country to be poor and sick in. And other countries have consistently better outcomes than we do both on the cost and health front for their entire populations.
The problem with just letting the market handle healthcare is the inequality of supply—limited—and demand—unlimited—for necessary life saving care. If it costs you 5 cents to make a candy bar and you want to charge $50 for it, have at it. I’ll just buy something else, but there may be wealthy people who love your candy so much they’ll pay the $50 for it. But if it costs you 5 cents to make a pill that you have an exclusive patent on and it keeps my parents, children, or spouse alive and you want to charge $500 for it—we’ve got a problem.
Note, one of the additional problems our for profit healthcare industry has created is that through lobbying big pharma made it so that Medicare could not use its negotiating muscle to demand lower prices on drugs. That’s why you have poor seniors cutting pills in half. Medicare however does have the power to negotiate reimbursement rates for doctors visits and medical procedures. Doctors are unhappy with those lower reimbursement rates. I have a feeling many seniors are alive today because of them.

@ LewisBraham
You are referencing salaries paid to trainees in residency programs, not what a licensed physician bills and gets paid for to see a patient.
I used "medical intern" as the minimal amount of training most states require to get a license. I technically should have said "medical resident" because all states require at least one year ( internship) of post medical school training to be licensed and then to bill. So therefore technically a post internship MD
My point, based on 40 years of office practice is that insurance companies and Medicare pay the same amount for the procedure or office visit, regardless of what physician renders the service.
So a MD 366 days out of medical school gets the exact same $ amount for, say, an office visit that your long term internist with 40 years of experience and advanced training receives. Longer training, board certification, fellowship training etc have no effect on the fee, nor are they usually required to bill for procedures.
Nor is there, at the present time, any easy way to bill for additional time spent with the patient. This may change soon, but cognitive services will remain at a huge disadvantage when a dermatologist can remove a mole in 30 seconds for $100 and an internist only gets a little more to spend 45 minutes with you to diagnose your heart attack, or interpret your CT scan and plan your cancer care.
I too used to think the government was generally responsible for positive things in health care, but 40 years of running a small medical office convinced me otherwise. Most of our overhead, ( 50 to 60% of our revenues ) was due billing staff trying to collect a few dollars more from multiple payors, extra staff to deal with regulations from botht he government and our payors and mandated programing and Medicare mandated computers and electronic medical records. The latter required 3 to 4 hours a day of my time in front of the computer after the patients ( and staff) went home that added nothing to patient care or their health. I rarely left the office before 9 PM.
Is it any wonder why you can't find a primary care MD in practice taking new patients?
I could easily have taken home the same amount of money charging $50 to $100 a visit, and spent a lot less time with far fewer headaches.
I can't speak for specialists or hospitals and what what would happen to orthopedists, for example if they billed patients directly for a hip replacement. Specialists in high demand would obviously charge outrageous amounts. This is already happening in some states where subspecialty societies have limited sub specialist training.
Every study I have read demonstrates at least 30% of American health care expenses goes to needless administrative overhead and outrageous salaries of executives.

SVWXX 7 day SEC yield is 3.71% today. Taxed at 22% bracket plus Mass ( my state) income tax ( 5%) is 2.75%
SNOXX ( Govt obligations) is 3.45% or 2.691% without any default risk ( Repos are minimal so now state tax free).
For PRHIX, I don't see how Fidelity arrives at SEC yield of 3.68%, using October's income of 0.0256 a share
Using October's distribution ( after expenses) of .0256 a share if continued for next 12 months is .3072 or a yield of 3.2 % without compounding
Can you find the SEC yield on RPHIX website?

@LewisBraham
There are myriad of reasons why the "health care is a right" movement, which was very popular when I was in medical school in the 70s, foundered.
The libertarians went after it, claiming that if people had a right to something, the professionals providing that service were denied freedom of action and were essentially slaves. This, of course was before the rise of health insurance companies totally controlling payments and making physicians essentially their slaves.
The BC/BS organizations in the 50's decided to pay for "procedures" rather than cognitive services, putting thinking and counseling at a major disadvantage, especially when they also decided ( in the 80s) that all cognitive services and non procedural treatments for a cold or cancer or septic shock were the same and reimbursed them equally.
Adding insult, unlike every other profession in America, experience and training and skill in medicine do not result in a differential in payment. An intern, one day out of medical school gets the same payment as a doc with decades of experience.
I think if we eliminated third party payors, and had people pay for their health care themselves, with subsidies directly to the consumer perhaps, it would solve a lot of the problems.
Few people would pay for brand name drugs if there was a cheap generic. Hospitals would be empty unless they had rates equal to the cheap hotels that most of them are. CEOs of "non-profit" health care institutions would not be paid millions of $. Professionals would have to compete on results, or services or reputation or price, but almost all would be forced to lower their fees or else go broke.
Eliminate the third party payors, and the typical physician would save 35 to 50% of overhead.
Overnight, the political pressure people and states put on insurers to pay for stuff that is not life saving ( plastic surgery, unnecessary procedures etc) would disappear.
I won't get in to the Billions of dollars of added expense that the Federal and state governments add with their demands for "meaningful use", protocols, and other regulations.

When purchasing a long term CD , say 5 years, & the interest accumulates until the maturity date, does Uncle Sam want interest payments taxed & paid on a yearly basis ?
Do all CD's have a POD or TOD , or is this info part of due-diligence ?
Thanks for any info, Derf

SWVXX has a cumulative (not annualized) return of 1.218% from March 16, 2020 through Nov 15, 2022. (Fund pays divs in mid-month.) Schwab data source.
RPHIX has provided a cumulative return of 7.20% over the same time span. M* data source.
Recent performance (1 month/3 month, through 10/31):
RPHIX 0.47% / 0.69% (from Morningstar performance page)
SWVXX 0.25% / 0.63% (from Schwab's page for this fund)
As I've explained, extrapolating from today's yields is always risky, but FWIW, here are some yields (7 day for the MMF and 30 day SEC for the Riverpark funds).
RPHIX 3.68% (as of 10/31)
SWVXX 2.97% (as of 10/31)
What is it about RPHIX's performance pattern that leads you to feel that you "can get better returns through Schwab Money Market accounts"? There are a lot of factors beyond the raw numbers above that one might look at. I've suggested option adjusted spreads as one factor to throw into the mix. Others?

There is lot of opaqueness in the affairs and operations of DCG, the holding company that owns Genesis, GBTC/Grayscale, Coindesk (mews mouthpiece), Luno, Foundry. The founder/CEO Barry Silbert has been totally quiet. DCG was trying to raise up to $1 billion that was assumed to be for Genesis, but it is unclear how its other units, or even the parent DCG, are doing. Even GBTC (Bitcoin trust now trading at 50% discount) has been impacted. News was also that Binance evaluated Genesis but decided not to invest - that is becoming CZ' modus operandi (look at the books, then reject) and people predicted just that knowing what he did for FTX.
Next domino may be Genesis, may be even DCG.

any idiot who walks into a state of the art Clinical Lab and looks at the enormous size of machines that run even simple lab tests ( ie blood count) would know that they could not be miniaturized
Thanks for the link. I hate to pay $ to Amazon, but watching this will be such a guilty pleasure.
Both Andy Fastow and his wife both did time for Enron, but only 6 and 1 years respectively. He at least fully cooperated with the DOJ ( of course after this schemes were exposed). I think the judge let them serve the sentences one after another so the kids would not be left alone.
They had to pay back at least $25 million but I think they put a huge pot into their house in Houston to protect it, but nothing restored the life savings of all of the Enron employees
I have heard Holmes's judge still has to decide if she will be required to pay back the $500 to $800 million lost in Theranos scheme.
She is not only a crook, but a mean and vindictive woman. She tried to destroy George Shultz's grandson's life and reputation with private detective surveillance and threats after he blew the whistle on her. Read the victim testimony from his father at the trial.
She deserves more than 11 years, new mother or not.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1005020/000093041322001959/c104865_497.htm
497 1 c104865_497.htm
Virtus Stone Harbor Emerging Markets Debt Fund and
Virtus Stone Harbor Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund
(each a “Fund” and together the “Funds”),
each a Series of Virtus Opportunities Trust
Supplement dated November 21, 2022, to the Funds’ Summary Prospectuses, the Virtus Opportunities Trust
Statutory Prospectus pertaining to the Funds, and the Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated September 28, 2022, as supplemented
Important Notice to Investors
Effective January 30, 2023, the name of the Virtus Stone Harbor Emerging Markets Debt Fund will be changed to Virtus Stone Harbor Emerging Markets Debt Income Fund and the name of the Virtus Stone Harbor Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund will be changed to Virtus Stone Harbor Emerging Markets Bond Fund.
There will be no changes to the principal investment strategies for the Funds as a result of these name changes.
All other disclosure concerning the Funds, including investment objectives, fees, expenses and portfolio management remains unchanged.
Investors should retain this supplement with the Prospectuses and SAI for future reference.
VOT 8020/EMDebt-EMCorpDebt Name Change (11/2022)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/918949/000089418922008448/thomaswhite-497estickerliq.htm
497 1 thomaswhite-497estickerliq.htm 497
LORD ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST
Thomas White International Fund
TWWDX (Investor Class)
TWWIX (Class I)
Thomas White American Opportunities Fund
TWAOX (Investor Class)
(each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”)
Supplement Dated November 21, 2022 to the Summary Prospectuses and Prospectus Dated March 1, 2022
______________________________________________________________________________
Upon the recommendation of Thomas White International, Ltd. (the “Adviser”), the Board of Trustees has determined that it is in the best interests of each of the Thomas White International Fund and Thomas White American Opportunities Fund to redeem all the shares of each Fund outstanding on or about December 28, 2022 (the “Liquidation Date”), and then to terminate the Fund.
Effective November 22, 2022, each Fund is closed to additional investment. Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders of the Funds may redeem (sell) their Fund shares as described in the prospectus. Redemption fees applicable to redemptions of Fund shares held for less than sixty days are suspended effective immediately. On the Liquidation Date, any shares of the Funds that have not been redeemed will be redeemed automatically at their net asset value per share on that date.
If you hold your shares in an IRA account, you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest or “rollover” your proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund’s transfer agent by telephone at 1-800-811-0535 (toll free) prior to the Liquidation Date of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your redemption proceeds.
In addition, each Fund will temporarily (i.e., until the Liquidation Date) depart from its principal investment strategies and the Adviser will convert each Fund’s portfolio holdings to cash, cash equivalents, and money market instruments, as described in the prospectus, in order to raise cash for the liquidation and any redemptions by shareholders prior thereto.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Fund at 1-800-811-0535 (toll free).
_____________________________________________________________________________
Please retain this supplement with your Summary Prospectus or Prospectus for future reference.

FDIC coverage is at owner level rather than at the product level. If you have a CD and a MMA at the same bank each with $250K (and each with same type of ownership), then if the bank fails you're only covered for $250K. If you have $500K in a MMF at a brokerage and the brokerage fails, then the SIPC will cover any brokerage losses.
Case 1 - Vanguard's Cash Plus' underlying bank fails. You're covered by the FDIC, but only up to $250K. That's total coverage not only for the Cash Plus account but for all other money you might have in the same underlying bank.

You are responsible for monitoring the total assets you hold at each Program Bank for FDIC coverage and limitations. These total assets will include not only Eligible Balances under the Bank Sweep but also any other deposits you may hold at those banks.

https://investor.vanguard.com/accounts-plans/vanguard-cash-plus-account
Case 2 - Treasury MMF fails. That means that the underlying securities fail, i.e. the Treasury fails. No resemblance to Lehman paper going to zero. A Treasury failure is effectively case 4, a complete financial system meltdown.
While government MMFs can impose gates/fees, they have to explicitly declare this. AFAIK, there isn't a single fund that has done so; certainly not Vanguard's government MMFs.
From Vanguard (click on liquidity gates and fees):

The fees and gates rules only apply to retail and institutional funds, although government funds may voluntarily adopt them if the fees and gates are previously disclosed to investors.

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/mutual-funds/money-market-reform#modal-understanding-liquidity-fees
Case 3 - VBS fails. Then securities in the account (including MMF shares) are covered up to $500K.
Case 4 - total financial system meltdown. Not worth too much thought, though I am curious about the mechanics of moving sweep money back through the failed brokerage. There's a fair amount of legerdemain with brokerage sweep accounts, including short periods of time (between daily sweeps) when new cash is held not in an FDIC-insured bank, but by the brokerage. Might the same risk manifest itself in reverse, i.e. might the FDIC "payout" move back through the failed brokerage?
Here's some of what Ken Tumin (DepositAccounts.com) had to say about sweep accounts between brokerages and banks:

SoFi, Aspiration, Betterment and Wealthfront ... define their accounts as either cash management accounts or cash accounts that are considered to be a brokerage product. All ... describe how deposits that have been moved into the program banks are FDIC insured. The coverage that exists while the deposits are in transit into or out of the program banks is complicated. Most state that the funds are covered by SIPC

https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/banking-fintechs-safety-money.html
Regarding Robinhood, consider that brokerages routinely offer interest-bearing checking accounts with SIPC coverage for free credit balances (e.g. E*Trade's CBP account and Fidelity's FCASH). The difference is that they don't loudly promote these accounts as savings vehicles, though they can be used this way.
However, you do so at your own risk. Continuing from Ken's column:

It should be noted that there’s no guarantee that SIPC will cover a cash management account if the SIPC determines that it’s being used for banking purposes. Below is a relevant excerpt from the SIPC FAQs:

I have a securities account. Isn’t everything in my securities account protected by SIPC?
Not necessarily. In general, SIPC protection is determined on an asset-by-asset basis and extends only to: (1) cash in a customer’s account that is on deposit for the purchase of securities; [...]

It's all about marketing. Slap an FDIC label on a service and you'll get more customers. Regardless of whether it is actually safer than T-bills (securities underlying Treasury MMFs). And regardless of whether its after-tax yield is better or worse.

Vanguard Cash Plus savings is a FDIC insured banking product that allows ACH withdrawals (for money transfers to brokerages/banks or bill pay)

More spin. VBS accounts, like the vast majority of brokerage accounts, allow external financial institutions to push and pull money from them. Creditors pull their money from VBS, not directly from the banking product.

Checks, ACH payments, wire transfers, and other transactions and items for Your Account are processed through Your VBS Account rather than directly with any Program Bank under the Bank Sweep. VBS will withdraw Your Sweep Deposits with the Program Banks to satisfy any net debit position in your Account on the Business Day following the debit’s posting.

Vanguard Cash Deposit Terms of Use
In all of this, I'm not saying that this is a bad service, just that it is one designed for the purpose of retaining/holding assets as opposed to one providing something of significant additional value. If you linked a VBS account to an online bank account, why? You could have been using VUSXX, whose assets (Treasury obligations) are backed directly by the Treasury, and likely gotten a better return, even before considering VUSXX's tax advantages.
Side note: the ticker for Vanguard's Treasury MMF is VUSXX, not VMSXX. VUSXX is yielding 3.49% as @Sven noted. I've changed the ticker to VUSXX in both of my posts.
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/list/mutual-funds?assetclass=money_market

FDIC and SIPC coverages are quite different.
Federal FDIC related to banks and nonprofit SIPC relates to brokerages.
Confusion arises for brokerage cash, money-market funds, brokered CDs.
To begin with, consider brokerage firm A and financial product B (cash, market fund, CD). Then, the SIPC coverage is at the brokerage firm level (for fraud, failure; total $500K including $250K for brokerage cash) while the FDIC coverage is at product-CD level ($250K).
Case 1 - Firm A is fine, but product-CD fails. The FDIC coverage kicks in (if the issuing bank is covered by FDIC). The SIPC is not involved.
Case 2 - Firm A is fine, but product-money-market fund fails. The SIPC coverage doesn't kick in; the FDIC has no business in this. There has been only one major money-market fund failure - Reserve Primary Fund. Much of the money was recovered after being frozen for several years. That situation was not covered by the SIPC or FDIC. More realistic risks of money-market funds today are not failures, but gates and/or redemption fees (least likely for government money-market funds) but those situations are also not covered by the SIPC or FDIC.
Case 3 - Firm A fails, CD is fine. The FDIC isn't involved. The SIPC coverage kicks in for securities and brokerage cash. The SIPC coverage of $500K would be for the total account value (net equity for margin account) including $250K for brokerage cash.
Case 4 - Firm fails, CD fails, money-market fund fails. A total disaster, may be an economic collapse. In that unlikely and absurd case, the SIPC will cover $500K and the FDIC $250K, for a combined total of $750K, more if the brokerage firm has excess insurance coverage beyond SIPC (most major brokerages do).
Securities are stocks, bonds, money-market funds, Treasuries, CDs, options; excluded are futures, warrants. While we may think of money-market funds as cash equivalents, for the SIPC, they are classified as securities. It goes without saying that there is no FDIC or SIPC coverage for the money-market fund itself, and the SIPC coverage will kick in for the total brokerage account only if the brokerage firm fails.
Brokerage cash is the cash held from securities sales or that waiting only to be deployed for purchases of securities (and for no other purpose). When in 2018, Robinhood foolishly launched an interest-bearing checking account with SIPC coverage, the SIPC rejected that notion immediately and publicly - because that Robinhood money wasn't really waiting to be deployed for security purchases only. Robinhood mistakenly thought that it could stretch the definition of brokerage cash into an interest bearing product (i.e. a banking product without really saying so). The SIPC wasn't amused, nor was the FDIC. An embarrassed Robinhood withdrew that product, and a couple of years later, relaunched a cash management product in partnership with banks with FDIC coverages.
In conclusion, Vanguard Cash Plus savings is a FDIC insured banking product that allows ACH withdrawals (for money transfers to brokerages/banks or bill pay) but there won't be any credit/debit card associated with it at this time. If your brokerage account is linked to an online savings account now, then VG Cash Plus can be a better alternative.

From the horse's mouth:
https://investor.vanguard.com/accounts-plans/vanguard-cash-plus-account
And participating banks:
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/Bank_Sweep_Participating_Banks.pdf
For purposes other than same-day trades, I'll stick with VUSXX. Same pre-tax yield (within a basis point), better after-tax yield (100% state tax exempt), and VUSXX is arguably better insured (though I think this is splitting hairs).
Its underlying Treasury securities are backed directly by the Treasury in an unlimited amount. Protection against theft (embezzlement, robbery, etc.) is provided up to $500K by the SIPC. In comparison, the VG sweep program is covered "only" up to $250K by the FDIC, which in turn is backed by the Treasury.
Another petty difference between the VG sweep account (or the MMFs) and bank savings accounts is that the latter are subject to Regulation D. The banks may reserve the right to require seven days notice for withdrawals. And while the six withdrawal per month limit has been suspended, the banks may still impose a limit.
For example American Express Bank limits savers to nine withdrawals.
https://www.cnn.com/cnn-underscored/reviews/american-express-personal-savings-account
One way in which VUSXX and bank savings accounts are similar is that neither can be used as a settlement account at VBS. You have to move money from a bank or from VUSXX into a brokerage settlement account before you can trade with it. If that's an important feature, compare the Vanguard sweep account to VMFXX.

For your info;
Here is some interesting information on China doing business within the USA.
 
China own's 191,000 acre's of America's farmland.
China own's 2,400 USA companies having 114,000 employee's.
China produces 97% of the antibiotic's used in the USA
China controls 80% of the ingrediants used in American drugs.
" 70% of the worlds Tylenol etc supply
" own's 8,000 theater screens in USA
" hope's to build out the 5G network in USA
" own's/controls 80% of the worlds rare minerals

Vanguard Savings a/c Cash Plus, FDIC insured. Gradual rollout.
https://www.doctorofcredit.com/vanguard-launches-cash-plus-3-5-apy/
https://twitter.com/MichaelKitces/status/1594468129069047809
More
https://www.adviserinvestments.com/adviser-fund-update/a-better-cash-option-at-vanguard/
https://investor.vanguard.com/accounts-plans/vanguard-cash-plus-account

"The 2% target is not realistic today."
My guess is final range of 3-4.5%. That would allow Fed nice range of "dry powder" to decrease rates if necessary to offset future financial problems. What the Fed says and what it really thinks may be two slightly different things. I doubt that Bernanke's demonstration of Fed weaponry will be forgotten any time soon.

There's also a difference between any current rate during a hiking cycle and the rate that will result after the hikes have worked their way through the economy, which can take many months. So they've got the fallback of "yeah, it's down only to 4% now, but we're confident that once all our work is reflected in the system, it'll be more like 2%."
And if they actually did wait to stop until year-over-year was at 2%, the biggest risk would be a truly awful, long recession rather than a shorter, shallower one.

Fed uses PCE-Core and that is 5.1%.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=WBJz
Fed fund futures project terminal rate of 5.00-5.25%.
The CME FedWatch tool is based on current fed fund futures quotes around the FOMC meetings and the assumption of gradual fed fund rate changes (+/- 0.25%). In the list below, more than 50% probability is used to indicate rate hike; “+” is shown after the FOMC date to indicate that rate hike can be at that or a later FOMC.
16th & 17th rate hikes, FOMC 12/14/22+ (50 bps hike possible) (rate 4.25-4.50%)
Good riddance, 2022
1st & 2nd rate hikes of 2023, FOMC 2/1/23+ (50 bps hike possible)
3rd rate hike, FOMC 3/22/23+ 25 bps (rate 5.00-5.25%; likely cycle peak)
https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch-tool.html

Your guess on the inflation range is very reasonable. Except for Bullard (hawkish guy), a number of Fed members want to take a more gradual rate hike, i.e. 50 bps in December, and perhaps several 25 bps hikes in first half of 2023. I think US is entering a recession late this year. Hopefully the people are in better financial situation and with debt comparing to 2008. By then I hope the Fed can start to cut the rate again.
Also the Fed has stop buying bonds (quantitative tightening) and may sell the bonds on the book. How would this would impact the bond market?

What is Terminal fund rate?
The terminal rate is the level at which the Fed is expected to stop raising interest rates.
I'm imaging the FED using CPI or an index gauge they choose and increasing interest rates until the two numbers are near the same value; and then take a look around at the results, to determine the next move. I.E. : CPI at 5.5%, stop the terminal rate at 5.5%.

From a Schwab article:
"the futures markets are now pricing in a rise in the federal funds rate to the 5% to 5.25% region in the second quarter of 2023, with the rate staying above 5% until late 2023."
That would be my guess, too.

There are a number of key elements to produce nanoscale complex chipsets that China does not have today. They are trying to the entire factories from Germany and England lately but they were blocked for national security reasons. China has come a long way to build up this part of semiconductor infrastructure but they are years behind. Eventually they will catch up. Industrial espionage have been on going with them in stealing someone else intellectual properties and know-hows.
Same applies to biotechnology such as mRNA-based vaccines. Their version of mRNA vaccines is barely passing the 50% effectiveness requirement against COVID while Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are 90%+ effective. China wants to buy Moderna vaccine but Moderna must disclosed all the secrets within their patents. Moderna refused and there are lots of customers around the world.