Perhaps, but there's a precedent.  In California, at least, you can offer a million dollars for a house, but if it doesn't appraise for that, no one can write the loan.  By LAW.  I see a similarity in this.  The value of the house is an objective value based on all the things appraisers have to take into consideration.  Asking price > than appraised value?  No sale.

Perhaps it is lack of sleep, but I am missing the connection here...

Speak slowly, and in dumb blonde terms... 

I'd be just as happy if their class grades were public knowledge.  It isn't a catch all - some people aren't great with school, but they are fine at what they do.  Still, it would be a starting point.

Oh, forgot to explain the house thing.

In California, you can not get a loan for a house for more than it appraises for.  It's against the law - can't be done.  You CAN pay more, but if you do so, the difference comes straight out of your pocket in cold hard cash.

So in this metaphor, the house = the doctor.  When objectively appraised, the doctor has an exact value just like the house does.  If he's great, he should be able to charge an amount commensurate with his ability.  If he isn't so great, he should only be able to charge according to his ability.

The problem comes when you decide on how to appraise the doctor.  Instead of being objective about intelligence, something we're not able to really do, currently, because the subject is so taboo due to people's collective insecurity, we allow lots of wishy washy subjective judgements about intelligence.  I would like intelligence to be studied deeply and for objective benchmarks to be made a reality so that we no longer have to guess who REALLY has a clue and who is just a bullshit artist.

We do this with houses.  Why not Doctors?  Musicians?  Lawyers!

The obvious answer?  Because houses don't have emotions, or rights,

I think your process would def. be logical, but only as a beginning.  You would have to factor in education, and specific medical field.  (In regards to doctors.)  You wouldn't want to go to a doctor with high intelligence, but limited education. 

Again, it's getting into dangerous territory when you are limiting how much someone can be paid (therefore how someone can live) because of their intelligence, which is not something that any one person can help.

Intelligence is a natural trait, much like skin color, though it can be enhanced to a degree.  However, when it comes to deciding how someone lives because of a trait that they can't help, you reach into the realm of discrimination.

Regarding your argument about athletics and intelligence being compared, I see a parallel, but a difference at the same time.  Can we develop our brains to the same extent we can our bodies?  Yes, to a degree, but enough to overcome our natural intelligence limits?  That I don't know, and I do think it should be studied more.

Maybe I can take another tack at this.

I love Kobe Bryant.  Awesome player.  He just declined to opt out of the last two years of his contract with the LA Lakers, and instead is signing a 3 year extension for....*drumroll*....97 Fucking Million dollars.  To do an activity many of us do for fun with friends on the weekend.  (Albeit, he does it much better than we do)

Meanwhile, some researcher that still has 100,000 in student loan debt is toiling away in a laboratory trying to cure cancer for 80,000 a year.

Americas puts agility and strength on a pedestal and worships it, but brains go in the backseat with the wadded up burger king wrappers.  Something is wrong.

I think intelligence, and moreso high intelligence, needs to be more greatly appreciated.  No one is going to live a longer life or a higher quality life because Kobe threw up a triple double in game 7 of the finals. 

I have and I am certain it is true.  There are certainly people out there who are smart, but bad at taking tests (they just work slower, for example - big baddie on tests).  There are people who are smart but do really, really stupid things (un-common sense).  There are people who are creative and great artists/musicians who can't do a simple algebra problem, and others who are mathematical geniuses but can't hold a paintbrush or strum a guitar (left/right brain).

As for the original point made, I believe the reason that intelligence statements offend people more is that it can't be improved much.  Unlike physical activities that you can get better at with practice, intelligence doesn't come with practice; you either have it or you don't.

I believe people are insecure because everyone wants everyone to believe they have that intellect.  No one wants to be thought of as stupid.

I completely agree.  It could be denial, to an extent, a trying to avoid the existence of something which can't be obtained.  We are generally much more willing to watch any of the various sports on TV than Jeopardy.  (Though maybe it is because Jeopardy is just boring to watch?  On the other hand, people do watch Wheel of Fortune...)

I don't agree with this, at least, not all of it.

We don't know how much intelligence comes from our DNA, and how much comes from our environment/education.  I am sure there are effects of both in all of us, but to different degrees.  Along those lines, just as the bicep is a muscle, so is the brain, and it can be worked, and trained, just as any other muscles.  That can improve parts of "intelligence," I am sure, even if not all of it.