I think your missing the bigger picture of the additional benefits of innovation in our academic hospitals.   That is what was great about the article and really the main point.  Just seeing this as some doctor trying to squeeze more money for himself out of the system is missing the importance of this discussion.  I don't care one bit about a robot for urology.  But the larger point being made  by the doctor is critical.  Maybe its hard to understand if you don't work in the area and maybe we need to do a better job educating the public about these issues.  There is great benefit to the public in supporting the process of medical innovation in our academic teaching hospitals.  The doctors in these programs actually make less money and work harder.  So your premise is false.