I know that this thread has morphed into a discussion about the future of healthcare, especially in light of an possibly/impending major change in the way HC is delivered/rationed (depending on your outlook) in the U.S.
I just wanted to say is that don’t let your concerns about how old you will be deter you from what you want, as long as it is truly what you want.
If I were an AdComm member, I would first be wondering about you, “why are you interested in medicine now?” sometimes succinctly put “why medicine, why now?” Are you switching to medicine because of burn-out or because you really want to be a doctor or other health care provider? Switching to medicine, already with its high burn out rate, may not always be the best. Among the best reasons to be a doctor is that you like what doctors do, and you want to use your intelligence and drive to assist others in their health care needs.
In my opinion, the age issue is irrelevant; the rationale for pursuing medicine that age, is relevant. As an AdComm member (which I am not, I am just hypothesizing), I would wonder what made you decide now and why medicine? On the other hand, if you had a long-term background in health care or some health-related issue (such as volunteering, taking care of aging parents) or had a chronic health issue yourself or something similar, I would be less questioning or your motivation. Yes, younger applicants also get questioned on their motivation, but since they have had less time to experience life, so perhaps a shorter repertoire from which to choose their reasons for pursuing medicine. But again, these are my opinions.
Perhaps someone who is on an AdComm or has sat on AdComm could chime in?
Until lawyers quit trying to dictate health care, and business people who know nothing about either health care or law quit trying to use greed to line their own pockets, "ToTUS" will have many people unhappy - including many physicians who will probably leave the profession.
When a CEO of a health care facility makes 10x more than the family practice physicians who are front and center in health care, and 3x more than the specialists, our system is whacked.
"ToTus" won't do go after those people.
Some of my conservative colleagues believe that letting the government run health care is doomed to failure because their would be some bureaucrat between you and your health care provider. But this is exactly how it is with private health care, but instead of a bureaucrat, there is a clerk with a high-school education between me and my doctor, and s/he is telling me that I can’t have this procedure done or that I wasn’t approved for something. Of course, they aren’t doing this because they care about my health care; no, they are doing this because as a for-profit company, their job is not my health, but to maximize their profit for the benefit of their shareholders. To do this, they have to minimize their expenditure and outlays, which means spending less on me to keep more for themselves and/or raising rates.
Interestingly, when the government proposes raising taxes, people (especially Republicans) tend to balk. But when a health insurance company raises rates, they don’t seem to care. Either way the outcome is the same: less money in my pocket because I’m paying out more. The difference is that in the former case, my money goes to the government which is ultimately beholden to my vote (and industry lobbyists), and in the latter case, it goes to some private company for shareholder benefit.
Which scenario would you rather choose? If we could only 1) get rid of the lobbyists, and 2) get rid of the profit motive in health care, our system would be more workable, equitable, and affordable.
Why can’t we replace for-profit health companies with non-profit ones – organizations whose goal is my health, not their profit?
This situation is exactly why we need to a health care system that prioritizes patient needs above monetary needs. I doubt that a government-run agency focusing on health care would have denied payment; only a stupid, for-profit insurance company with inane rules on probationary periods (and pre-existing condition) would let this happen, although the hospital itself was also culpable since they kicked you out.
Unfortunately, the industry lobbyists in health insurance, pharmaceuticals, and even the AMA don’t really want reform, since it threatens their income and, in the case of individual companies,their shareholders income. If only we could get rid of the profit motive in health care, and get coverage for all who live here. Health care should not be tied to a job, but to the fact that you pay taxes to fund government initiatives. That’s what taxes are for.
While I do not agree with your views, I’m THRILLED that you can explain your points without devolving into name calling, and worse.
It is a testament to your ability to be objective… now use that to get to med school! 
(I did not vote for Obama, and for the 3x in a row did not vote for GOP candidate either… Colin Powell probably got 1 vote each election, and you can thank me for that write-in vote. :P)
For sure the answer is NOT putting someone in the government btw doc/patient I also agree that there should be NOBODY btw patient/physician…I think that in a perfect world the doc would be able to do what he/she thinks what is best for the patient be it providing care or NOT. But there lies the problem, in this society “sue” happy the option to do NOTHING is just not there. People (elderly, frail, or young with multiple comorbidities) want everything done. Physicians have a hard time making folks see the futility of FULL code in a 95 year old with severe CAD, ESRD, COPD, dementia, metastatic cancer, etc…it happens all the time! we code folks whom should not be coded and we operate on people that are more like a cadaver than a healthy/semi healthy person. It is truly unreal. Until WE physicians can do what is best without the fear of getting sued there will be NO HC change it will remain as is.
- efex101 Said:
Well put.
There are some cases where the physician was surely faulty, negligent, and homicidal (Murray, anyone?) but outside of those types of cases (or the ones where surgeons leave sponges, syringes, scalpels inside patients)... physicians need to be more free to practice.
(and yes, the scalpels, sponges, etc are actual findings of a friend of mine in St. Paul Traveler's Claims department)
Absolutely, and there should be a court of law that can go through those cases with SPECIAL medical juries, I have no idea why this is not done! Make it like jury duty among physicians to go through all the medical records and see if the physician is indeed at fault. Just because we all belong to the medical field does not mean we will turn a blind eye to true negligence.
- jkp2117 Said:
I'm feeling pretty good about my chances and I'll be 46 when I app in 2010.
I, too, will be 46 next year; unfortunately, I feel like I have no chance at all.
So, I recant my point. Perhaps it is best not to have a government bureaucrat between me and my doctor, but neither a company bureaucrat either.
But doctors can also be gatekeepers themselves, using their perogative to steer clients to what she/he, the doctor, feels is best for the patient, and not necessarily what the patient wants. I suppose most of the time this behavior is done in the “best interests” of the patient, but sometimes I wonder if doctors can be obstructionists. I still see this a lot in my current volunteer work, and I’ve been guilty of being the gatekeeper myself when I was a lay health worker.
- nahani2 Said:
Get that test anxiety taken care of, then worry about chances. Chin up!!!