Would you go to US medical school if money was no issue?

[Savac]

They seem to think it's a Robin Hood model that they're employing. Only difference is that Robin Hood actually stole from people who attained their wealth truly on the backs of others (theft etc) where as the current system takes from those that earned it and gives to those who vote for a "job".

Gotta love people who hid under the guise of helping people when truly they are just stealing from those who drive the economy. When people vote the wealth from the "greedy" into their own hands who is truly being the greedy one?

 

Thank you for this post.

[Teflon Don]

So where do you stand on taking care of children? I'm not a parent but I'm sure any that you talk to (the good ones anyways) would agree that keeping a child alive, let alone raising one well takes a lot of time, resources, and quite possibly infringes on a parent's liberty to go out all the time. It's also important to mention that many children are born into poor families and are therefore poor themselves, not able to afford health care or even food in the kind of system you suggest to be superior. Should we let them waste away on their own powerless to do anything about it? I guess you could put the blame on their parents for being so poor but that doesn't seem fair to a 2-year old. Seems kind of heartless to me.

 

I think your argument really displays a large sense of entitlement to your time, money, your own resources and whatever else you seem to have in this life. My question is to you is, are you really entitled to it? Did you do anything to earn this time or money, or was it your parents that earned it for you (and did your parents get to where they are by themselves or did they have some help to?)? Aren't you inconveniencing your parents by taking up their time and money (see above) to be able to think of entering medical school? The very fact that you're able to post on this forum means you have access to some kind of internet, computer, and had access to a likely free elementary school education (I'm guessing higher) which some teacher who was probably not making billions of dollars provided to you because they decided it's important to keep contributing to the future of society. You also have access to this free forum which allows you to broadcast your thoughts to whoever might read your posts. Would you suggest that Ian should charge every member for using up bandwidth (or whatever the correct term would be, you know what I mean), which he has to pay for in the first place?

 

although i tend to use the word individual in these kinds of debates I actually do believe that we live in a family society and not purely an individual society. parents are the only people who value the utility their children would get from consumption over their own and whatever a parent gives up for the sake of his/her child they do so purely voluntarily.

 

and yes i am entitled to my time, money, the things i earn and that which my parents have worked for and then voluntarily provided to me. i don't really see your point here.

also, if Ian wants to raise revenue from this website then he can either charge a membership fee (and probably lose a lot of visitors) or display advertisements on this site (which he might not want to for his own personal reasons and that is his decision to make)

 

with regards to feeding children and providing healthcare for the truly poor. that is something that should be left to private charity and it should be the voluntary responsibility of individuals in society to take care of themselves, their families and their communities.

 

yes we need a moral society in order for this work but do you have such little faith in yourself and your fellow citizens that you think they would let a child starve to death on the street because the profit motive is not there or that a doctor would deny a trauma patient life saving medical care if the government isn't there to threaten him with jail time?

 

i have a bit more faith in humanity than that and only a society ravaged by socialism and without the vibrant middle and upper class that capitalism creates would have to worry about it.

[rmorelan]

although i tend to use the word individual in these kinds of debates I actually do believe that we live in a family society and not purely an individual society. parents are the only people who value the utility their children would get from consumption over their own and whatever a parent gives up for the sake of his/her child they do so purely voluntarily.

 

and yes i am entitled to my time, money, the things i earn and that which my parents have worked for and then voluntarily provided to me. i don't really see your point here.

also, if Ian wants to raise revenue from this website then he can either charge a membership fee (and probably lose a lot of visitors) or display advertisements on this site (which he might not want to for his own personal reasons and that is his decision to make)

 

with regards to feeding children and providing healthcare for the truly poor. that is something that should be left to private charity and it should be the voluntary responsibility of individuals in society to take care of themselves, their families and their communities.

 

yes we need a moral society in order for this work but do you have such little faith in yourself and your fellow citizens that you think they would let a child starve to death on the street because the profit motive is not there or that a doctor would deny a trauma patient life saving medical care if the government isn't there to threaten him with jail time?

 

i have a bit more faith in humanity than that and only a society ravaged by socialism and without the vibrant middle and upper class that capitalism creates would have to worry about it.

 

well this is just classic libertarianism almost verbatim.

 

and of course I have questions about people abilities to do the charitable works you mention because right now you can see collectively the rather pure contributions the rich are making to charity (there are of course some notable exceptions - there always are). Building a society purely on the good motives of others is a bit fragile to say the least. They are also generally haphazard, and inefficient overall. They tend to collapse.

 

More socialist views argue there is nothing you earned on your own. Your training, the very structures that allow you to exist have been built on public funds, and collectively those structures have improved live much better than the extremes of capitalism or communism (you said socialism was amoral. Doesn't leave much for you to describe communism but I imagine you will invent a new degree of disdain for that ). The social contract is that we contribute back at some point and in some meaningful way.

 

It would interesting as a thought experiment what would be involved switching system mid stride as to one that you propose. Initial effects would be rather destabilizing of course as any switch of power would be. Transition would be challenging and short of an entire reset of the political system seems unlikely to occur. Our constitution would get in the way

[ralk]

They seem to think it's a Robin Hood model that they're employing. Only difference is that Robin Hood actually stole from people who attained their wealth truly on the backs of others (theft etc) where as the current system takes from those that earned it and gives to those who vote for a "job".

Gotta love people who hid under the guise of helping people when truly they are just stealing from those who drive the economy. When people vote the wealth from the "greedy" into their own hands who is truly being the greedy one?

 

I don't know who this "they" is, but as a supporter of progressive taxation, I certainly don't view it as a Robin Hood model.

 

In even the most minimalistic government, there will necessarily be some services. Even to ensure, as Teflon Don says, that people's bodies and property are protected, we would need basic law enforcement in the form of police officers and a court system. These things cost money, which someone has to pay for. That's what taxes are - payment for services that are necessary for a function society.

 

Having those with greater incomes/wealth pay more isn't meant as a punishment to those individuals, but as a more efficient means of paying for those necessary services. Taxes are necessary, but they depress the economy, and they tend to depress the economy more when levied on individuals who struggle to pay for basic elements of life than on those who can afford them comfortably.

 

As is true for most people on this forum, my expected lifetime earnings should be well above that of an average Canadian citizen and the taxes I will pay will almost certainly be higher than the direct monetary value of services I receive from the government. However, progressive taxation, when applied to productive means, has numerous secondary effects that do benefit me above and beyond the immediate loss of money. As a potential high-income earned, I don't see the poor as stealing my income - I see myself as buying these secondary effects for the benefit of myself, my family, and my country.

[JohnDakota]

i have a bit more faith in humanity than that and only a society ravaged by socialism and without the vibrant middle and upper class that capitalism creates would have to worry about it.

 

If you are to be the standard for what constitutes the type of morality and humanity necessary for society to function - the person who just likened a cancer patient to a slave owner - then I'm fairly certain your system is bound to fail from the start.

 

This pretty much sums up my position regarding neo-libertarianism;

[thebouque]

If you are to be the standard for what constitutes the type of morality and humanity necessary for society to function - the person who just likened a cancer patient to a slave owner - then I'm fairly certain your system is bound to fail from the start.

 

This pretty much sums up my position regarding neo-libertarianism;

 

Like neo in the matrix?

[JohnDakota]

Like neo in the matrix?

 

lol.. no.. like the prefix to describe a new age version of a philosophy.

[thebouque]

lol.. no.. like the prefix to describe a new age version of a philosophy.

 

Nice, I like philosophy too

[JohnDakota]

Nice, I like philosophy too

 

sweet.. maybe we can philosophize together sometime brah....

 

nitzsche please

[vladimirhorowitz]

Since US grads are considered equivalent as Canadian grads for residency matching, I cannot see any other downfalls.

 

If you were accepted into a US medical school, and money is no issue, would you go attend instead of wasting more years applying to Canada?

 

 

Please give reasons why.

 

Brock is that you?

[medigeek]

Money isn't an object for me, at the moment, so this isn't theoretical in any sense.

 

I wouldn't. I want to study somewhere my wife can work and be happy too. She can't really work in the US. She loves her job and I would hate to take that away from her. Her career is as important to me as my dream of becoming a medical doctor.

 

Furthermore - 1-2 years working out the kinks to study in Canada will translate in to significantly less indebtedness and therefore more financial stability in the long run. Even if that means I become an MD later in life. I'm quite pessimistic and I don't believe anyone from our generation is reasonably going to retire at 60 or possibly even 65. I'm fairly certain our generation is going to get stuck with the tab to support the Boomers, and those just after the Boomers, while not benefiting from any of their social support programs (ie. pensions @60 years old). So, if I'm going to work until i'm ~70 years old, I don't see the need to rush in to it. Hell, if you start as a full time Family Doctor (post PGY2) at 40 years old, you're still working for 30 years before retirement.

 

I've never understood the desire to rush through life stages. We all get to the same end point eventually - death. Just enjoy each stage as it presents itself.

Work sooner = make decent to good to great money sooner (whichever)= do what you want sooner

 

50s and 60s are high alert time for cancer symptoms and warning signs along with warning signs of heart disease..etc.. and tons more in your 70s of course.

For the average student (speaking very general here), it makes the most sense to get through everything pretty quickly. In other words, long term delaying of gratification isn't wise for the reasons stated above.

 

Of course people will talk about sudden things that happen (like Paul Walker's death yesterday), but odds are in your favour until about 50..55..

[NLengr]

 

Enough with the stupid political theory that ignores the real world. Answer the original question people!

[hopeful1]

Disclaimer: n=1 data, and attending US school next year.

 

It really depends.

 

I've interviewed on both sides of the border, and while I noticed that ALL the Canadian institutions I interviewed are very good (better than the average American one), they don't compare to quality of the very best American ones. The resources, connections, and mentoring available at places like Stanford, Wash U, Harvard etc. is unbeatable (just look at their NIH funding). If you like research, and get into one of these types of schools, definitely pick US.

 

Other things I noticed was that the students in U.S. schools seemed happier overall. Most schools I went to in the states had P/F grading, electives, and non-mandatory attendance. Comparing the daily schedules, the US schools have less class hours and MUCH less PBL/TBL(thank god ). This was not the case in some places in Canada. The students in US schools were more involved in their communities, and research because of this.

 

Finally, I've been told by doctors on both sides of the border to go US if I want to specialize. Canada doesn't have as good of a market for some specialties (especially surgical). Don't believe me? Go look at the surgical boards on this site.

 

BUT, schools here are cheaper, residency is shorter in some cases, less need for malpractice insurance, specialty markets might recover, and you can incorporate as a doctor in Canada. So there are alot of factors which favor going Canadian MD.

[Edict]

Disclaimer: n=1 data, and attending US school next year.

 

It really depends.

 

I've interviewed on both sides of the border, and while I noticed that ALL the Canadian institutions I interviewed are very good (better than the average American one), they don't compare to quality of the very best American ones. The resources, connections, and mentoring available at places like Stanford, Wash U, Harvard etc. is unbeatable (just look at their NIH funding). If you like research, and get into one of these types of schools, definitely pick US.

 

Other things I noticed was that the students in U.S. schools seemed happier overall. Most schools I went to in the states had P/F grading, electives, and non-mandatory attendance. Comparing the daily schedules, the US schools have less class hours and MUCH less PBL/TBL(thank god ). This was not the case in some places in Canada. The students in US schools were more involved in their communities, and research because of this.

 

Finally, I've been told by doctors on both sides of the border to go US if I want to specialize. Canada doesn't have as good of a market for some specialties (especially surgical). Don't believe me? Go look at the surgical boards on this site.

 

BUT, schools here are cheaper, residency is shorter in some cases, less need for malpractice insurance, specialty markets might recover, and you can incorporate as a doctor in Canada. So there are alot of factors which favor going Canadian MD.

 

I've heard that research is better in the US. They publish in highly cited journals whereas in Canada they mostly publish in Canadian journals that no-one reads.

[thebouque]

Disclaimer: n=1 data, and attending US school next year.

 

It really depends.

 

I've interviewed on both sides of the border, and while I noticed that ALL the Canadian institutions I interviewed are very good (better than the average American one), they don't compare to quality of the very best American ones. The resources, connections, and mentoring available at places like Stanford, Wash U, Harvard etc. is unbeatable (just look at their NIH funding). If you like research, and get into one of these types of schools, definitely pick US.

 

Other things I noticed was that the students in U.S. schools seemed happier overall. Most schools I went to in the states had P/F grading, electives, and non-mandatory attendance. Comparing the daily schedules, the US schools have less class hours and MUCH less PBL/TBL(thank god ). This was not the case in some places in Canada. The students in US schools were more involved in their communities, and research because of this.

 

Finally, I've been told by doctors on both sides of the border to go US if I want to specialize. Canada doesn't have as good of a market for some specialties (especially surgical). Don't believe me? Go look at the surgical boards on this site.

 

BUT, schools here are cheaper, residency is shorter in some cases, less need for malpractice insurance, specialty markets might recover, and you can incorporate as a doctor in Canada. So there are alot of factors which favor going Canadian MD.

 

Most of what you say is accurate except for the market part. The job market for a lot of specialties isn't good at all in the US, and they often get paid less. Also residency is usually shorter in the US except for family medicine.

[rmorelan]

all schools in Canada outside of Quebec now are pass/fail, attendance was only really required for sure at things where that made sense (if you have a group anatomy lab you better be there - that cadaver was a profound gift etc), and we all have electives in medical school.