Wayward Son

It is a rumor that is believed by many - probably most - pre-meds. I personally feel that it would a good idea (although how does one tell a graduate who goes into a specialty residency that they must work in the north when there may only be a couple openings for that specialty in the country and none of them in the north). The main advantages that Northern Ontario has for NOSM include 1) most students are from Northern Ontario or other rural areas 2) While in medical school you make professional connections - if you go to NOSM those professional connections are going to be in Northern Ontario and 3) many do residencies in Northern Ontario which provides further professional connections and gives you a leg up on job openings in the area.

Graduating medical students are free to apply to residencies anywhere they wish. Most will be accepted (and accept) to Canadian spots, some in the US (and a small number in residencies elsewhere). The number of residency spots in Ontario increased inline with the increase in medical school spots, so while some Ontario medical school graduates are going to accept residencies outside of Ontario, those are generally replaced by a similar number of applicants accepted to Ontario residencies from medical schools outside of Ontario.

There is no requirement for NOSM students to serve the north for any period of time. The idea is select students who are more likely to want to work in northern and rural environments.

When I quit working as a flight paramedic back in 2009, I could pretty much guarantee (well at least based on newspaper reports of the average GP income in Ontario for that year) that I was making more money then the average GP, before even counting the benefits that I received, while working fewer hours, with significant downtime at work between calls, more vacation - and while I do have a university education, it is not required, related or a benefit - so most enter the job without the massive student debt, and none face the years spent working 24 - 36 hours straight at a stretch for roughly minimum wage as residents, or the 8 years of lost earning potential from undergrad and medical school that physicians deal with. I also partied like crazy during the same years that they were stressed out trying to out compete countless other hopefuls to get actually get accepted into medical school.

This is true...well maybe...although the often heard claim that physicians in France make an average salary of about $55,000 have been shown to be bogus when documents were leaked showing that physicians made a lot more then that. A lot more (like $700,000 euros average for radiologists in some hospitals). Following that leak the organization for General Practitioners admitted that in 2005 the average for their members was $105,000 US. That was average take home, after tax, salary. That is probably about the same as the average GP in Canada after overhead and taxes. It should also be kept in mind that: 1) MDs in Canada (and the US) carry large debts from school. Those in France do not. 2) I believe MDs in France can work a maximum of 35 hours a week, and they receive a lot of vacation time which drops their average hours/week further. MDs in Canada average over 50 hours a week, and that factors in any vacation time they may or may not take. 3) MDs in Canada pay overhead and malpractice insurance (which I have heard that for instance in the case of OBGYNs in Ontario is 7000/month - no idea if that is true). 4) MDs in France also get significant tax breaks on their salaries compared to other French citizens (hence the higher after-tax take home). 5) MDs in Canada pay for their own benefits. Other health care workers in Canada don't. And you can be sure that Physicians in France get some pretty nice benefits. I think that we would save far less money then people think in switching in NPs for MDs. So it is difficult to compare. Canadian MDs on average probably make more, maybe significantly more, but it cost them a lot more, and they work a lot more hours. And while physicians in Canada certainly make more then the average Canadian, they are also starting their career significantly later then most, and starting with significantly more debt then most.

I don't think that any of Canada's previous Ministers of Science and Technology have had science education beyond the high school level. The office was abolished in 1995. And my feeling is that Harper reinstated it, with Goodyear as the Minister, as a gift to his base so they would know that his government was not just going to ignore any science that does not agree with their ideology, but also interfere with scientists, and show contempt to those with a rational worldview. Mulroney and Chretien appear to have appointed people who knew nothing about science. Harper did one better by appointing someone who the little that he "knows" about science is clearly wrong - so in essence, knows less then nothing.

If it was the NDP, Liberals or Greens that was proposing this instead of the PCs would they get your vote?

That is a good point. Delivering the same quality of care is an area with a lower population density is more expensive. Canada has done very well, but many things can still be improved. If people and organizations really are interested in improving health care services the first thing they should do is realize that this is an extremely complicated issue and with that the second thing they should do is check their opinions and ideology at the door.

At least in Ontario, MD programs are no longer underfunded. Spots in medical school has increased significantly since the cuts in the 1990s and do not need to be expanded further at this time. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of years to make a physician, so deficits take many years to correct.

They are not. According to the WHO Canada spends 9.8% of it's GDP on health expenditures. France and Germany (at 11.2 and 10.5%) are significantly higher. The OECD likewise states that Germany and France spend more of their GDP on health. Incidently hospital and physician costs make up about the same percent of GDP today as they did in the 1970s (for instance hospital costs as a % of GDP was 3.1% in 1975 and the same percentage in 2008 - despite hospitals having much more advanced technology and doing a lot more). The increase in costs (from 7.1% of GDP in 1971 to 9.8% in 2008) seems to rest in other parts of the system (drug costs as one example).

If someone knows even the basics about evolutionary theory they will dismiss creationism and ID as not being science. If someone dismisses creationism and ID as not being science Betsy considers them to be a fanatic and extremist. Her mind is completely closed and will only consider the ideas of people who are accepting the same absurd pseudoscience she likes. You are more likely to be able to teach a dead dog advanced calculus then have her consider anything that does not conform to her worldview.

The problem with what you say is that people, with any intellectual integrity, who grasp the basics dismiss creationism and ID for the stupidity that it is. But dismissing creationism and ID makes one an evolution fanatic and extremist to the person you are arguing with. I encourage you to carry on, but your time would be better spent trying to punch a cloud.

I have learned two things from the anti-teacher posters on MLW. 1) Teachers are vastly overpaid because anti-teacher posters calculate their hourly wage by dividing their salary into their teaching hours and, as it suits them here, claim that teachers do nothing else (well except for their first year, when they develop their lesson plans. Apparently all tests are marked by scanners, and I would assume that essays and other assignments must be graded by scanners too). 2) Despite teacher's only working during their teaching hours, once they work-to-rule to reduce some of their hours spent working outside of their teaching hours...which now that it suits the anti-teacher posters apparently now exist...it is a dangerous crisis and they must be fired.

Seriously...it is 10 pages long. I think it is a bit demanding on your part to expect Fletch to read more then the first paragraph before declaring - twice - that the information in question, which is clearly there, is not included.

Ideally I would support continued stimulus and no tax increases until the economy recovers enough for needed spending cuts and tax increases to be phased in without causing a recession. That is the position that the IMF supports for the best recovery prospects. It is made more difficult in the US because Dubya left the economy with little room to move. However, that is the reality, and it was compounded by the nutbars in the Republican party forcing the Obama administration to immediate deficit reduction in order to get the debt ceiling raised. That bed was made. The rate increases will hurt the economy. The reductions in government spending will do the same. From what I can see the predictions seem to be a short recession with decent growth starting in the second half of 2013.

If so then someone better change the Canada Health Act feature on this site where it says: "Each province and territory provides its residents with a mandatory health insurance plan." http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canada-health-act-provisions-administration

I am taking the income tax rates into account. The problem is you are only taking those cuts into account which you want to, and say, ignore that capital gains tax cut was restored completely in 1986. The 1982 tax increases took up about 1/3 of the 1981 tax cuts alone. By 1988 about half of the tax cuts were either restored or replaced. Sorry for bringing reality up. Feel free to ignore it.

By the end of Reagan's second term he had rolled back about half of the tax cuts he had put through in his first year (In 1986 the top rate for capital gains went from 20% to 28% which is much larger then the upcoming increase from 15% to 18% that Shady mentions above). Somehow the US did not fall apart, and indeed over the next several years the United States went from massive deficits to a balanced budget and eventually large surpluses. Those large surpluses were turned into massive deficits by policies that benefitted the rich. It was said that the tax cuts were lead to a growth in government revenue. It has not. Those tax cuts led to massive deficits. Tax policy changes lead to changes in the stock market. Always has, always will. So what. The United States has managed to survive increases before. My position is that there will be much huffing and puffing and claims of apocolypse over the 50 days, but come April the "crisis" from these changes will measure about as much on the public as the news the Justin Beiber just broke up with what's her name.

Umm...yeah...and Obama would apparently not increase the capital gains tax rate by that much either...because he is not. The capital gains tax rate that George Lucas would have had to pay after January 1st would have gone up from from 15% to 18%. Much smaller then the rate would have been in the 80s or 90s (or 50s, 60s or 70s for that matter).

For those qualified dividends that make up income above about 390 grand (the ordinary dividend rate that made up income above 390 grand was already 35%). Hopefully those ultra-high earners can think back to the days before 1986 and 1981 when the top dividend tax rate was above 50% and 70% respectively and somehow figure out a way to survive the winter.

Comparing Canada and the US in the face of the financial crisis is kind of like comparing the wolf huffing and puffing at a house made of brick and a house made of straw. Bush left the US with a house made of straw.

I would also add that some (not all) of those on the right posting in this thread seem to feel that law in this country should be arbitrary. So much for the claims that those on right are the ones that believe in law and order. Instead it seems that for some the law can be dismissed when they find it inconvenient to their worldview.

You said that fuel prices were up x3. That is clearly wrong. You also said that this was due to Obama's green energy plan. That is also wrong. This has nothing to do with "political reasons." Nor are gas prices at RECORD highs under Obama. As I already said average gas prices in the US exceeded $4 a gallon under Bush (peaking at about $4.12). And gas prices under Obama have not exceeded the high under Bush (and when adjusted to inflation the peak under Carter is still the highest, and if you are going with the price of a barrel of oil it averaged $23 a barrel in Bush's first year and more than $92 during his last year - a 4x increase. No other president comes close). Furthermore when you compare American oil prices to oil prices elsewhere in the world like Germany, France and the UK you find that the prices moved along in tandem during both Obama's and Bush's terms. Your claims about Obama are completely wrong.

No. I am going to go with gas prices (if you have numbers for other fuels feel free to add them) as that is the one that has received the most media attention with groups claiming that gasoline prices were $1.85 when Obama came into office and have since doubled. While that is technically true, it is meaningless in terms of policies such as Obama's green energy plan. Gas prices had sat above $4 a barrel during Bush's last summer leading up to the financial crisis where shortly after gas prices took a free fall. At the time Obama took office oil prices sat at the lowest point they had been at in many years. Every expert knew that was a temporary situation due to a mismatch of supply and demand that would be corrected over the coming months. It was. Oil prices over the last six months have generally remained slightly lower than they were during the same month 4 years earlier (ie Bush's last year in office).

Obama will be re-elected with 285 (Leaving Romney with ~263). The popular vote will go to Romney by a small margin. The courts in a couple close states will be busy over arguments about counting votes, as well as claims of wide-spread voter fraud.