Is it still worth it?

[silenceofthelambs]

Before anyone flames me for asking this and yells at me to search, I have. The post about unemployed specialists seems really off topic right now.

 

What I really wanted to ask (as someone applying this cycle), is it still financially feasible to go into medical school with the goal of working in a metro area?

 

I feel as though there are many like me who entered the premed stream naively anticipating 400k+ salaries working in cities > 250000 and have reached the point where were about to graduate with a useless biology / life sciences degree and no alternatives but medical school. I like being a hero as much as the next guy but I'm not going to lie and say I wasn't in this for the good upper middle class lifestyle that was all but guaranteed.

 

For those of you having done your clerkships and entering your residencies does it appear that anyone is working on a solution? Or will we be perpetually outputting more residents than we can possibly employ?

 

Are there any rumours of cutting med school enrolments (hopefully)? Any signs of a massive pandemic causing widespread disease/illness/eliminating every physician over 70?

 

Basically given what you know now, going back to your senior year of undergrad would you still take that offer given an alternative career path like engineering?

[rmorelan]

There are rumours of cuts in the future but the current plan is to maintain current recruitment levels for the next few years as I understand it (as told last year but multiple Deans). Still there will be a correction - the media bliz is likely a part of it actually. You have to prime people for the idea that cutting enrollments is a good idea - otherwise it would be political suicide to do it if people still think there is a shortage. This train is going to take a while to stop.

 

By the way 400K I wouldn't say is upper middle class - usually informally the 1% and above are considered upper class. 400K is well above that limit. as a side note in part that is why the wall street protests were using the 1% number

[rmorelan]

also I should mention I wouldn't be at all surprised if doctor salaries continued to decline over time as well relatively speaking. The federal government is about to cap transfer payments to the provinces at inflation in 2016, and with the health care budget at already 41.5% or so there isn't any more room to up the amount given to it overall. With the demographic shift on top of that there will be considerable pressure to contain costs - we have no choice.

[Guest LeCreuset]

also I should mention I wouldn't be at all surprised if doctor salaries continued to decline over time as well relatively speaking. The federal government is about to cap transfer payments to the provinces at inflation in 2016, and with the health care budget at already 41.5% or so there isn't any more room to up the amount given to it overall. With the demographic shift on top of that there will be considerable pressure to contain costs - we have no choice.

 

Even in oil rich Alberta?

[rogerroger]

also I should mention I wouldn't be at all surprised if doctor salaries continued to decline over time as well relatively speaking.

 

Oh, I'm not so sure about this. Freezing sure. Maybe cuts for the top billings. But you gotta give Canadian physicians competitive reimbursement or else you will start losing your best and brightest. This is also not politically advisable nor will win elections. The CMA and the provincial professional associations also carry a decent amount of political clout.

 

We will see strong med school enrollment cuts before any significant salary hits IMHO.

[aaronjw]

Oh, I'm not so sure about this. Maybe for the top billings. But you gotta give Canadian physicians a competitive salary or else you will start losing your best and brightest. This is also not politically advisable. The CMA and the provincial professional associations also carry a decent amount of political clout.

 

We will see strong med school enrollment cuts before any significant salary hits IMHO.

 

Best and brightest? Lmao

 

Right.

[rogerroger]

Best and brightest? Lmao

 

Right.

 

 

That's the way the optics will look politically. This has happened, there is historical president for it, just google "brain drain".

[Hyperalgesia]

Cuts to medical school enrollment have already been made at the UofC; we went from 170 spots to 155 spots for the incoming 2013 class. I believe something similar may be happening at the UofA this cycle, but don't quote me on that.

[Hockeynut]

Really shouldn't need cuts, the information about the job market is out there. If people want to enter a crowded market then go for it, why the schools/government are involved is beyond me.

[NLengr]

Really shouldn't need cuts, the information about the job market is out there. If people want to enter a crowded market then go for it, why the schools/government are involved is beyond me.

 

The schools and the government are involved in it because they fund the training med students and residents receive. When they are paying 500k or more to train a physician, the should be interested in making sure that doc can work. If not, they just wasted a huge amount of tax payer money.

 

As a tax payer, you should be concerned too. Unless you love paying taxes to the CRA. In which case I'd be happy to let you pay my taxes this year.

 

On top of that, it's a government controlled healthcare system with limited funds. Obviously, they care about the state of the system.

[Hockeynut]

i guess I should have prefaced my comment by saying that i don't think the government should be involved in any of it.

[NLengr]

i guess I should have prefaced my comment by saying that i don't think the government should be involved in any of it.

 

How do you propose we fund medical training then? Very few people have $500,000 - $1,000,000 sitting around to pay for it themselves. Even the banks are going to be reluctant to lend that much cash. Only the children of the extremely wealthy would be able to afford to be physicians.

 

On top of that, the residents work in government hospitals, utilizing government resources, which costs the government a large amount of money. I fail to see how they can completely separate themselves from training.

 

Even the US, which has one of the most privatized systems in the world still gets the majority of its medical training funding from the government.

[Hockeynut]

How do you propose we fund medical training then? Very few people have $500,000 - $1,000,000 sitting around to pay for it themselves. Even the banks are going to be reluctant to lend that much cash. Only the children of the extremely wealthy would be able to afford to be physicians.

 

On top of that, the residents work in government hospitals, utilizing government resources, which costs the government a large amount of money. I fail to see how they can completely separate themselves from training.

 

Even the US, which has one of the most privatized systems in the world still gets the majority of its medical training funding from the government.

 

I'll tackle this is bits.

Firstly in a free market medical training wouldn't be that expensive, as no one could go. There would be true competition within the market thus driving prices down and quality up. (If people can't afford your product, you won't be in business very long) This in of itself solves your problems within your first question. I would also add that you would pay much less taxes and could thus save up for education, not to mention that it would eliminate those who go into medicine more on a whim (sorting through the price system). Do you pay tens of thousands of dollars for a computer? No as there is competition in the electronics market. Whenever someone has a monopoly supply decreases and drives prices up to non EQ levels.

 

Ideally the government would not be in the hospital business, plain and simple. (They're doing such a marvelous job right now aren't they?) is a hospital truly such a marvel that only the government can provide them? If so why doesn't the government provide us with cars and clothes and computers? (the way you phrased your response leads me to believe that you would enjoy the government providing everything for you as it is the only way to get efficient allocation of a service/good)

 

Lastly I HATE when people use the US as an example of privatized health care. IT IS NOT! HMO's are all in bed with the government, being 'selected" to be the ones who succeed or don't, as opposed to a market system where the market itself (consumers) support those who offer the best products at the best prices. In a true free market you eliminate these monopolies/oligopolies that are oh so too often found in the current system of crony-capitalism.

 

Hopefully I answered some of your questions.

[rmorelan]

The schools and the government are involved in it because they fund the training med students and residents receive. When they are paying 500k or more to train a physician, the should be interested in making sure that doc can work. If not, they just wasted a huge amount of tax payer money.

 

As a tax payer, you should be concerned too. Unless you love paying taxes to the CRA. In which case I'd be happy to let you pay my taxes this year.

 

On top of that, it's a government controlled healthcare system with limited funds. Obviously, they care about the state of the system.

 

and doctors do have a tendancy to create work for themselves - if you have a lot of them you will find them find anyway they can to care for a valid patient population and bill for it. It will drive up costs. It is isn't a perfect relationship by far but originally the cuts to doctor training was to exactly avoid that sort of potential over billing in the mid 90s.

[NLengr]

(the way you phrased your response leads me to believe that you would enjoy the government providing everything for you as it is the only way to get efficient allocation of a service/good)

 

You need to improve your reading comprehension.

 

Either way, I'm not going to argue with you about some head in the clouds pure free market healthcare idea. It's never going to happen. Ever.

 

The point I wanted to explain is why, in our current situation, the government is involved in training. I think it's been adequately explained. I'm not interested in debating unrealistic theoretical systems which will never come to pass. It's not worth the time.

[Hockeynut]

You need to improve your reading comprehension.

 

Either way, I'm not going to argue with you about some head in the clouds pure free market healthcare idea. It's never going to happen. Ever.

 

The point I wanted to explain is why, in our current situation, the government is involved in training. I think it's been adequately explained. I'm not interested in debating unrealistic theoretical systems which will never come to pass. It's not worth the time.

 

How exactly is it head in the clouds idea? I can think of two powerhouses throughout history that have utilized this idea (Britain (1600's and the US Pre 1920). Just on a side note I love how a free market is a "never going to happen" idea. I'm sure people said a Communist country was never going to happen either and it did.

 

Anyways you are right about it not being the time or place but regardless how can we cut the number of physicians when there are huge populations of under serviced areas in Canada?

 

ps: Anyone else think it would be a good idea to have two "tiers" of medical school? ie: a direct entry Family medicine program (from HS) and then one for specialties where an UG is need. This would,at least in my mind help fill the need for family physicians in rural areas.

[aaronjw]

I'll tackle this is bits.

Firstly in a free market medical training wouldn't be that expensive, as no one could go. There would be true competition within the market thus driving prices down and quality up. (If people can't afford your product, you won't be in business very long) This in of itself solves your problems within your first question. I would also add that you would pay much less taxes and could thus save up for education, not to mention that it would eliminate those who go into medicine more on a whim (sorting through the price system). Do you pay tens of thousands of dollars for a computer? No as there is competition in the electronics market. Whenever someone has a monopoly supply decreases and drives prices up to non EQ levels.

 

Ideally the government would not be in the hospital business, plain and simple. (They're doing such a marvelous job right now aren't they?) is a hospital truly such a marvel that only the government can provide them? If so why doesn't the government provide us with cars and clothes and computers? (the way you phrased your response leads me to believe that you would enjoy the government providing everything for you as it is the only way to get efficient allocation of a service/good)

 

Lastly I HATE when people use the US as an example of privatized health care. IT IS NOT! HMO's are all in bed with the government, being 'selected" to be the ones who succeed or don't, as opposed to a market system where the market itself (consumers) support those who offer the best products at the best prices. In a true free market you eliminate these monopolies/oligopolies that are oh so too often found in the current system of crony-capitalism.

 

Hopefully I answered some of your questions.

 

Guy takes a first year economic class and now thinks he's an expert lmao

[Exocytosis]

Lastly I HATE when people use the US as an example of privatized health care. IT IS NOT! HMO's are all in bed with the government, being 'selected" to be the ones who succeed or don't, as opposed to a market system where the market itself (consumers) support those who offer the best products at the best prices. In a true free market you eliminate these monopolies/oligopolies that are oh so too often found in the current system of crony-capitalism.

 

Which country would be a better example of a free-market system? Genuinely curious.

[HycrestJIT]

How exactly is it head in the clouds idea? I can think of two powerhouses throughout history that have utilized this idea (Britain (1600's and the US Pre 1920). Just on a side note I love how a free market is a "never going to happen" idea. I'm sure people said a Communist country was never going to happen either and it did.

 

Anyways you are right about it not being the time or place but regardless how can we cut the number of physicians when there are huge populations of under serviced areas in Canada?

 

ps: Anyone else think it would be a good idea to have two "tiers" of medical school? ie: a direct entry Family medicine program (from HS) and then one for specialties where an UG is need. This would,at least in my mind help fill the need for family physicians in rural areas.

 

Grasshopper, the world is more highly nuanced than you yet know.

[Hockeynut]

Which country would be a better example of a free-market system? Genuinely curious.

 

Pre 1920 US, 1600 Britain, both rose from the :ashes" to become world powers

 

At aaronjw if University in Canada teaches you anything it's the direct opposite of what i just stated. The humanities are very much left leaning, so how exactly is this taught in a first year economics class? (My argument is based on the Austrian economic theory, which is not taught in schools).

 

Lastly I don't hear a counterargument, all I hear is bashing.

[Hockeynut]

Grasshopper, the world is more highly nuanced than you yet know.

 

So nuanced that one central agency can control everything?

 

Please note that I'm done commenting on a thread that is now truly off topic, secondly no one wants to offer a true argument your all just calling me names, a wonderful argument.

[aaronjw]

(the way you phrased your response leads me to believe that you would enjoy the government providing everything for you as it is the only way to get efficient allocation of a service/good)

 

 

So nuanced that one central agency can control everything?

 

Please note that I'm done commenting on a thread that is now truly off topic, secondly no one wants to offer a true argument your all just calling me names, a wonderful argument.

 

 

Pot. Kettle. Black

[aaronjw]

Pre 1920 US, 1600 Britain, both rose from the :ashes" to become world powers

 

At aaronjw if University in Canada teaches you anything it's the direct opposite of what i just stated. The humanities are very much left leaning, so how exactly is this taught in a first year economics class? (My argument is based on the Austrian economic theory, which is not taught in schools).

 

Lastly I don't hear a counterargument, all I hear is bashing.

 

Since you're all about truly free markets, can the tax payers have back all the money they put into your education? You know, since you don't want to be reliant on the government and all...

[Exocytosis]

Pre 1920 US, 1600 Britain, both rose from the :ashes" to become world powers

 

How did they handle the issue of universal coverage/accessibility? i.e. "I'm a poor person in 1920's America and I become seriously ill. What do I do?"

[NLengr]

So nuanced that one central agency can control everything?

 

Please note that I'm done commenting on a thread that is now truly off topic, secondly no one wants to offer a true argument your all just calling me names, a wonderful argument.

 

Weren't you the one who steered it off topic by starting to argue economic theory?