Thanks for correcting my assumptions.  According to Wikipedia,  about
5.8 percent of the population have family incomes greater than $150,000.
 15.7 percent of the population has incomes greater than $100,00. (From
census data as of 2005.)   But remember that most families involve more
than one wage earner these days.  Wikipedia also gives percentages for
personal income and the percentage over $100,000 is 5.63 percent. (2006
census).  I think that confirms my assertion that doctors do reasonably
well in comparison the the population as a whole.

I think they also do pretty well in comparison to individuals with
comparable education, but I haven't amassed any data to prove that, so I
could be wrong.  I can assure you they do considerably better than the
overwhelming bulk of Ph.D. mathematicians.  Am I showing some resentment
there?  Perhaps, but I got over that many years ago.  I am happy to have
a happy well paid physician treat me.  Occasionally it comes to the fore
when I hear some physician justifying his income on the basis of all his
training.  Physicians should be well paid for a whole bunch of reasons,
but their lengthy training is not one of them.

The table you present also hides another fact.  Some specialties you
don't list earn specially high incomes, e.g., dermatology and plastic
surgery.  This is a problem, not because those specialists are
undeserving of their wealth, but because it skews the choices young
doctors, particularly the most talented, make about what specialties to
choose.  If we really had a free market in medicine, that would
presumably take care of itself,  but the evidence that I've seen shows
the opposite.  An oversupply of doctors doesn't lower fees because of
competition, it appears, if anything, to raise them.  Yet another
example of why medicine can't be treated as a free market.