The Paul File

[Billy T]

R.Paul is an MD & I bet a follower of Jung:

"... Jung stressed the importance of individual rights in a person's relation to the state and society. He saw that the state was treated as "a quasi-animate personality from whom everything is expected" but that this personality was "only camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it",[33] and referred to the state as a form of slavery.[34][35][36][37] He also thought that the state "swallowed up [people's] religious forces",[38] and therefore that the state had "taken the place of God"—making it comparable to a religion in which "state slavery is a form of worship".*

[36] Jung observed that "stage acts of [the] state" are comparable to religious displays: "Brass bands, flags, banners, parades and monster demonstrations are no different in principle from ecclesiastical processions, cannonades and fire to scare off demons".[39]

From Jung's perspective, this replacement of God with the state in a mass society led to the dislocation of the religious drive and resulted in the same fanaticism of the church-states of the Dark Ages—wherein the more the state is 'worshipped', the more freedom and morality are suppressed;[40] this ultimately leaves the individual psychically undeveloped with extreme feelings of marginalization.[41] ..."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung with bold and color added by BT. That part now blue is near a perfect discription of the US of today -controlled by the rich and powerful and their corportations, with state promissing much more than it can afford, so it will soon collapse in debt. About the time than Jung wrote this was when Democracy in America was written, telling the same but with more emphasis on the mutual corruption between voters and those elected (I´ll vote for whomever promisses the most with least need for me to pay for it.)
---------
* You can sure see that "worship" in the posts of some the posters here and in the general arrogant belief that the American way is always the best way.

This is such a strong faith that even facts cannot shake it. For example,The fact that Americans pay ~2.5 more for medical services and yet live at least 2 years less is still better system than the socialized medical services of Europe, etc.

Like Religious faiths, contradicting facts can be ignored when your faith is strong.

 

[madanthonywayne]

This is such a strong faith that even facts cannot shake it. For example,The fact that Americans pay ~2.5 more for medical services and yet live at least 2 years less is still better system than the socialized medical services of Europe, etc.

Like Religious faiths, contradicting facts can be ignored when your faith is strong.

The difference is insignificant:

 

[Billy T]

The difference is insignificant...

I´m not sure what you are saying. Also, I am not sure what the size of the circles in your graph are trying to state. Perhaps it is proportional to population?

All I could see from this very confusing graph is that some African etc countries have much lower life expectances (and I assume much lower expenditures for public health care). I did note the the grey European Union circle was higher, by about 2 years than the smaller bluish US circle, but it is lost in the mess of overlaping circles.

Much more informative would be a table with numbers on per capita costs and life expectancies. - I was not able to quickly find that. Does your source give that? Just the US vs. Scandinavia and or EU would be all that is needed - I don´t it useful to include Nigeria, etc.

 

[adoucette]

Life expectancy at birth isn't just based on your medical system Billy.

 

[joepistole]

I´m not sure what you are saying. Also, I am not sure what the size of the circles in your graph are trying to state. Perhaps it is proportional to population?

All I could see from this very confusing graph is that some African etc countries have much lower life expectances (and I assume much lower expenditures for public health care). I did note the the grey European Union circle was higher, by about 2 years than the smaller bluish US circle, but it is lost in the mess of overlaping circles.

Much more informative would be a table with numbers on per capita costs and life expectancies. - I was not able to quickly find that. Does your source give that? Just the US vs. Scandinavia and or EU would be all that is needed - I don´t it useful to include Nigeria, etc.

Indeed, comparing life expecatancies to countries that are constantly engaged in very bloody warfare to those that are not, is not a fair comparison. The US healthcare system lags that of other industrial nations except one and that is cost. It is the most expensive healthcare system in the world and not every resident is provided healthcare insurance whereas every other industrial nation provides universal coverage and at half the cost and with better outcomes.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

 

[Billy T]

... {US´s} is the most expensive healthcare system in the world and not every resident is provided healthcare insurance whereas every other industrial nation provides universal coverage and at half the cost and with better outcomes. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

This list shows US in 37th place, just below Costa Rico!

Here is the world health organization report upon which it is based:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

And part of the introductory text:

"... The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world’s health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care ... The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . ..."

But as any "good American" will in ignorance confrim:
"The US has the best health care system in the world." but probably not note that it is a "for profit" system, with insurance companies getting a heavy slice of your health care dollars and without nation-wide negotiations with drug companies for the prices the US will pay that often are twice what national health services pay, but don´t let that bother you - You can drive to Canada and buy the drugs you need at half US prices.

Also the supply of doctors is tightly controlled by the AMA, which nearly every state asks if a new medical school is needed. (No known "Yes" answer nor new, privately-funded, medical school in decades that I know of. The AMA is the world´s most effective closed union shop, I think.) Thus, one of the most sure ways to get rich via education is to get into medical school. You can easily earn upwards of $100,000 annually with your MD degree, and not be stuck on some government medical service salary.

... {US´s} is the most expensive healthcare system in the world and not every resident is provided healthcare insurance whereas every other industrial nation provides universal coverage and at half the cost and with better outcomes. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

This list shows US in 37th place, just below Costa Rico!

Here is the world health organization report upon which it is based:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

And part of the introductory text:

"... The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world’s health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care ... The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . ..."

But as any "good American" will in ignorance confirm: The US has the best health care system in the world." but probably not note that it is "for profit" system, with insurance companies getting a heavy slice of your health care dollars and without nation-wide negotiations with drug companies for prices that often are twice what national health services pay, but don´t let that bother you - You can drive to Canada and buy the drugs you need at half US prices.

Also the supply of doctors is tightly controlled by the AMA, which nearly every state asks if a new medical school is needed. Thus, one of the surest ways to get rich via education is to get into medical school. You can easily earn upwards of $100,000 annually with your MD degree, and not be stuck on some government medical service salary as in Europe, Japan and truely advanced countries.

What type of person do you think is attracted to become a doctor in US vs. say England? Which country get 90% of students who mainly want to serve their fellow sick citizens and which gets at least 80% that mainly want to get rich and serve those who can pay outrageous hourly fees?


Do you think MD Ron Paul would wreck this gravy train for doctors and support cheaper and better medical system run by the government. If you do, contact me for a good deal on bridge near NYC.

 

[Billy T]

To support my claim in post 1466 that the AMA limits the number of doctors in the US see: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people

The US is number 52 in this list of doctors per citizen, just below Cyprus. But in fact it is much worse if you need typical help, like a cast for broken arm, or something for a persistent fever because a high percentage* of US doctors are specialist doing things like heart by-pass surgery or psychiatry (treating at high hourly rates for years some rich people) where the fees are best. - Many, if not most became doctors for the big bucks they could make so what would you expect? That they would work in state medical service ON SALARY, serving rich and poor alike, as in England, all of Scandinavia and most of main land Europe.

* When this fact is considered, US per capita ratio of GPs (Genera Practitioners) MD probably is far worse than Nigeria! Can any one find list of GPs per capita by country?

PS I won´t get the chance, but I would vote for RP if he were to tell the truth that the government can (and in most advanced countries does) provide better and cheaper medical services than the US´s "for profit" private medical system.

 

[Tiassa]

Didn't find Nigeria, but ....

When this fact is considered, US per capita ratio of GPs (Genera Practitioners) MD probably is far worse than Nigeria! Can any one find list of GPs per capita by country?

It's hardly definitive, and it doesn't include Nigeria, but I did find—

​

—this graph included in a 2011 blog post by Aaron Carroll.
____________________

Notes:

Carroll, Aaron. "Enough with the wait times, already". The Incidental Economist. February 25, 2011. TheIncidentalEconomist.com. April 8, 2012. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/enough-with-the-wait-times-already/

 

[Billy T]

It's hardly definitive, and it doesn't include Nigeria, but I did find— (See graph in prior post.). ...

Thanks. The color code (except for red USA at the bottom) was not clear to me, so I went to your link, where just under your graph is following text:

"... And that’s after spending way, way, way more money than anyone else. How is this defensible? We’re failing. We really are. I have no problem with disagreement on how to fix the system, but it’s hard to believe some many of you want to defend the status quo. ..."

I have long taken the fact that, the expensive, ineffective, US for profit medical system is still surviving as strong evidence that US is a nation of manipulated sheep, easily told what to believe by the idiot box and those paying for what is on it. In some ways, most arrogant Americans (the US way is the best way) disserves what they are soon to get. (collapse of the dollar, etc.)

PS - As I read your graph, Canada has seven times more GPs per capita, Japan and UK each have about 4 or 5 times more. Also at your source are bar charts showing that typical time spent with each patient and extext of MD learning all the relevant facts is much worse in the US. - Just what you should expect if the objective is to get the greatest bucks in fee with the least time spent with the patient. That is of course the objective in the US´s "for profit" medical system.

 

[adoucette]

We have 2.3 Doctors per 1,000 people.

Better than Japan, Canada or the UK.

But I doubt this number alone is a reasonable metric to decide how good your health care system is. For instance the US uses a lot of Nurse Practicioners in place of GPs (or maybe better said, to increase the number of patients a GP can handle).

When Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery, he didn't go to an Italian hospital. He didn't go to Austria or the Netherlands. He had his surgery at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. Similarly, when Canadian Human Resources Minister Belinda Stronach needed treatment for breast cancer, she had it done at a California hospital. And, when then-Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams needed to have a leaky heart valve repaired, he had it done at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Florida.

These high-profile patients were following in the footsteps of tens of thousands of patients from around the world who come to the United States for treatment every year.

They come here because they know that despite its flaws, the U.S. health care system still provides the highest quality care in the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the U.S. than in other countries.

According to a study published in the British medical journal The Lancet, the U.S. is at the top of the charts when it comes to surviving cancer. For example, more than two-thirds of women diagnosed with cancer will survive for at least five years in the U.S. That's 6 percentage points better than the next best country, Sweden.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-10-17/USA-health-care/50807584/1

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people

 

[Billy T]

We have 2.3 Doctors per 1,000 people.

Yes that is same link http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people
I gave and it shows there are 51 other countries with more doctors per 1000 people than the US has.
More important (except for the very wealthy) is how many GPs there are per capita. As a few specialties make five times more than a GP does most doctors in the US are specialist - don´t set broken bones or treat high fevers, etc. - the typical things most patients need (and can pay for). If you need an organ transplant, heart by-pass operation, etc, and can pay, by all means come to get it done in the USA as Italy´s richest man, Silvio Berlusconi, did.

... http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-10-17/USA-health-care/50807584/1 ...

Yes if you can pay $10,000 to 100,000 dollars for treatment, the US offers the best in its "for profit" medical system.

For example one treatment for advanced (CRPC) prostate cancer costs $93,000 for the only FDA approved drug, Provenge from Dendreon, but when the cost of the doctors and test are added price comes to $120,000. I´m not sure, but think you need several treatments each year and on average you can expect to live 4 months longer than if you did not get the drug.

Nice to see how consistent you are: A quick defender of a "for profit" system designed for the super rich that kills many of the poor, who get no treatments or only when too late and more costly at the hospital emergency room.

 

[joepistole]

We have 2.3 Doctors per 1,000 people.

Better than Japan, Canada or the UK.

But I doubt this number alone is a reasonable metric to decide how good your health care system is. For instance the US uses a lot of Nurse Practicioners in place of GPs (or maybe better said, to increase the number of patients a GP can handle).

The nurse practioner and the Physican Assistant in the US have the education and training equal to that of an M.D in another industrial country, but are not allowed to practice without an M.D. "supervising" them.

It's a racket. And it should be noted that the nurse practioner and physician assistant is a relatively new development in US medicine brought about by the overwhelming need for medical practioners that had been artifically suppressed for decades.

 

[adoucette]

The nurse practioner and the Physican Assistant in the US have the education and training equal to that of an M.D in another industrial country, but are not allowed to practice without an M.D. "supervising" them.

Untrue,

nurse practitioners have the advanced medical training to diagnose and treat a wide range of ailments. They can also prescribe medication without consulting an MD.

It's a racket.

No it's not, it's actually a very good profession, and there are over 167,000 of them in the US as of 2010, or .53 per every 1,000 people (which is why the GP per 1,000 is not nearly so relevant).

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestjobs/2009/snapshots/4.html

And it should be noted that the nurse practioner and physician assistant is a relatively new development in US medicine brought about by the overwhelming need for medical practioners that had been artifically suppressed for decades.

No it's not, in the US, the role started almost 50 years ago, in 1965.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/464663_2

 

[adoucette]

Nice to see how consistent you are: A quick defender of a "for profit" system designed for the super rich that kills many of the poor, who get no treatments or only when too late and more costly at the hospital emergency room.

Bull.
You don't need to be super rich for medical care in the US.
I'm not super rich, and yet I have accessed the best medical care in the world and with typical insurance, my out of pocket expenses could never reach those numbers, even while caring for someone with an incredibly expensive disease (brain cancer).

 

[joepistole]

Untrue,

No it's not, it's actually a very good profession, and there are over 167,000 of them in the US as of 2010, or .53 per every 1,000 people (which is why the GP per 1,000 is not nearly so relevant).

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestjobs/2009/snapshots/4.html

Back to lying again Arthur No one is saying that nurse practioners or physician assistants are not good. What is being said, is that these professions enable physicians to keep their pocketbooks overflowing. As nurse practioners and physicans assistants are not able to compete with physicians. They enable physicans to keep the supply of physicans artifically low so they can command higher fees.

As previously pointed out to you, nurse practioners and physican assistants cannot practice without the "supervision" of a physician. They cannot compete with physicans for patients. I repeated that for your benefit Arthur. When I go see my PA, I get charged as if i saw the physican by my physican. My doctor is not paying physician wages to his PAs. He is paying PA wages.

Additionally, these positions were created because of physican shortages, intended to fill healthcare positions that were unwanted by regular physicans.

No it's not, in the US, the role started almost 50 years ago, in 1965.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/464663_2

Glad you can do a web search. Just because a nurse took it upon herself, and started training other nurses back in the 60's to fill an need for physician services that was not being filled. It does not mean that nurse practioners became immediately common place or even accepted in the 1960's. It took decades for that to occur and only in the last decade has the position become common place. Back in the 80's many PA's could not order prescriptions for patients. So the role has changed dramatically and only recently morped into what we now know as a nurse practioner and physican's assistant. And it is only in this last decade that they have become common place in physican offices accross the land.

It is a racket. There is no good reason why nurse practioners and physician assistants should not be able to practice independently of a physican. As previously mentioned, their education is equal to that an MD receives in other industrial countries.

 

[adoucette]

Back to lying again Arthur No one is saying that nurse practioners or physician assistants are not good. What is being said, is that these professions enable physicians to keep their pocketbooks overflowing. As nurse practioners and physicans assistants are not able to compete with physicians. They enable physicans to keep the supply of physicans artifically low so they can command higher fees.

As previously pointed out to you, nurse practioners and physican assistants cannot practice without the "supervision" of a physician. They cannot compete with physicans for patients. I repeated that for your benefit Arthur. When I go see my PA, I get charged as if i saw the physican by my physican. My doctor is not paying physician wages to his PAs. He is paying PA wages.

No Joe.
A Nurse Practicioner and a Physician's Assistant are NOT the same thing.

As a Nurse Practitioner, or a Physician Assistant you will be able to diagnose and treat your patients, however this is where the differences start to show. A Nurse Practitioner can do this unsupervised, where as a Physician Assistant needs to have a doctor to oversee their efforts.

http://nursingprofessioneducation.com/nurse-practitioner-vs-physician-assistant/

Glad you can do a web search. Just because a nurse took it upon herself, and started training other nurses back in the 60's to fill an need for physician services that was not being filled. It does not mean that nurse practioners became immediately common place or even accepted in the 1960's.

And not a claim I made Joe.

It took decades for that to occur and only in the last decade has the position become common place.

Now you are back to peddling BS.
NP have been common since the 80s, more than 2 decades ago Joe.

Back in the 80's many PA's could not order prescriptions for patients.

Again, back to PAs and not NPs, Joe, do try to stay on topic.

It is a racket. There is no good reason why nurse practioners and physician assistants should not be able to practice independently of a physican.

And as pointed out, it's not a racket and yes, NPs can practice independently.

 

[joepistole]

No Joe.
A Nurse Practicioner and a Physician's Assistant are NOT the same thing.

http://nursingprofessioneducation.com/nurse-practitioner-vs-physician-assistant/

Who said they were? That is you creating a straw man. They have different pedigrees/histories but they fill the same role in healthcare.

And not a claim I made Joe.

If you don't want people to call you a liar Arthur, I suggest you stop lying. Because clearly you did.

Now you are back to peddling BS.
NP have been common since the 80s, more than 2 decades ago Joe.

In your dreams Arthur. Why are you trying to limit the conversation to only nurse practitioners and forgetting the other half of the issue – physician assistants? And what do you mean by common? Prove it Arthur. There are only 167k nurse practitioners now.

Again, back to PAs and not NPs, Joe, do try to stay on topic.

LOL now that is laughable. I am not the one trying to obfuscate (e.g. leave out half the conversation).

You had claimed that physician's assistants and nurse practitioners were common place and had been around for more than 50 years. I pointed out your errors. What we now know as a PA and a nurse practitioner is different from what was allowed back in the 80's. I suggest you address the issues and stop trying to dodge the issues Arthur.

And as pointed out, it's not a racket and yes, NPs can practice independently.

In limited cases, which varies by state, some nurse practitioners can function with more autonomy than others. And in some states they cannot practice without the “supervision” of a physician period. And in any case, nurse practitioners are far from being independent providers of healthcare services. And physician’s assistants can never practice independently to any degree.

And yes it is a racket, as nurse practitioners and physician assistants have educations equivalent to that of physicians in other developed countries but cannot operate independently of and compete with physicians for patients.

 

[adoucette]

Who said they were? That is you creating a straw man. They have different pedigrees/histories but they fill the same role in healthcare.

You did Joe:

The nurse practioner and the Physican Assistant in the US have the education and training equal to that of an M.D in another industrial country, but are not allowed to practice without an M.D. "supervising" them.

But I've pointed out that their roles are not the same, particularly on the issue that you claimed was important, that they are not allowed to practice without an M.D. supervising them, and while that's true of PAs, that is not typical of NPs.

Most states alloy you to practice independently as a NP but AFAIK, none do as a PA. To enter the NP program, first you must have gone through nursing school to get their BSN and typically at least two years clinical experience while PA admission typically only requires an undergraduate degree. So a NP is not only an RN with two plus years of clinical experience after graduation but two more years of NP training while PAs can have an BA degree unrelated to medicine and only the two years of PA training.

If you don't want people to call you a liar Arthur, I suggest you stop lying. Because clearly you did.

Nope Joe, once again that would be you. (and really Joe, I expect you to call me a liar, you've always done so and you've always been shown to be wrong)
Like this, you claimed it was a new role and I showed it started over half a century ago, and I also showed that there are over 167,000 of them today, so clearly it is NOT a new role, and you don't get to that level of trained medical professionals in just a decade either.

In your dreams Arthur. Why are you trying to limit the conversation to only nurse practitioners and forgetting the other half of the issue – physician assistants? And what do you mean by common? Prove it Arthur. There are only 167k nurse practitioners now.

Well because I only brought up Nurse Practitioners and I never mentioned Physician's Assistants?
And 167k NPs is a LOT of them Joe (see chart below).
But the fact that there are also 83,000 PA's (.26 per 1,000 people) as of 2010, in addition to NPs just improves my argument Joe, it doesn't hurt it at all.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/images/gbisd0927a.pdf

You had claimed that physician's assistants and nurse practitioners were common place and had been around for more than 50 years.

Nope, since I never once mentioned PAs, that was all you.
But yes, I did correctly point out that NPs have been around for almost 60 years and that yes they are now common place, and provided the data to back that up, because at over 167,000 NPs in 2010, that's slightly over .5 Nurse Practitioners per 1,000 people, which if you will notice is twice the level of GPs on this chart:

Once again Joe all you pointed out was your utter lack of understanding of the issues, which is what I've come to expect from you.

 

[joepistole]

You did Joe:

But I've pointed out that their roles are not the same, particularly on the issue that YOU claimed was important, that they are not allowed to practice without an M.D. supervising them, and while that's true of PAs, tha is not typical of NPs.

Nope Joe, once again that would be you. (and really Joe, I expect you to call me a liar, you've always done so and you've always been shown to be wrong)
Like this, you claimed it was a new role and I showed it started over half a century ago, and I also showed that there are over 167,000 of them today, so clearly it is NOT a new role, and you don't get to that level of trained medical professionals in just a decade either.

Well because I only brought up Nurse Practitioners and I never mentioned Physician's Assistants?
And 167k NPs is a LOT of them Joe (see chart below).
But the fact that there are also 83,000 PA's (.26 per 1,000 people) as of 2010, in addition to NPs just improves my argument Joe, it doesn't hurt it at all.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/images/gbisd0927a.pdf

Nope, since I never once mentioned PAs, that was all you.
But yes, I did correctly point out that NPs have been around for almost 60 years and that yes they are now common place, and provided the data to back that up, because at over 167,000 NPs in 2010, that's slightly over .5 Nurse Practitioners per 1,000 people, which if you will notice is twice the level of GPs on this chart:

Once again Joe all you pointed out was your utter lack of understanding of the issues, which is what I've come to expect from you.

Nice attempt to obfuscate and evade, which is oh so Arthur. You throw up a lot of chaff. But here is the bottom line reality, you have not been honest – again typical Arthur. And the bottom line here is that nurse practitioners and physician's assistants have the equivalent training of foreign medical doctors but cannot cannot practice as medical doctors or in any way compete with them for patients. It's a racket for the benefit of physicians,

 

[adoucette]

No Joe, PAs clearly do NOT have the same level of training as an MD in any country.

It takes but a BA and 2 years to become a PA.

Show me any major western country that awards a MD based on such limited training (so I can avoid getting sick in that country)

In comparison, Canada is essentially the same as the US,

Getting into medical school is an ordeal in itself, usually requiring a bachelor’s degree with at least basic science courses. Most English-speaking medical schools also require applicants to write the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), a gruelling 9 1 /2-hour standardized exam.

The medical school curriculum typically lasts four years. The first two are “pre-clinical,” while the third and fourth provide an opportunity to rotate through the core medical specialities — the “clerkship” — and try different fields.

Students graduate with an M.D., making them licensed doctors — but they still must complete a residency before they can practice independently. The residency combines learning with service: Working long hours in teaching hospitals and clinics affiliated with the medical schools, the residents learn from senior mentor physicians, and help to teach students still in medical school. Family doctors — the largest group, comprising slightly less than 40 per cent of residents — complete a twoyear residency. Specialists complete programs ranging from four years for internal medicine and pediatrics to six years for neurosurgery and cardiac surgery

In the UK an undergraduate medical degree takes either 5 or 6 years depending on if you do an optional intercalated year. Once you have finished your undergraduate degree you become a doctor with provisional GMC registration. To gain full GMC registration you need to work for two years in the NHS as a foundation doctor (F1 formally known as pre-registation house officer PRHO and F2 formally know as senior house officer SHO). After that timescales and career paths vary depending on what speciality you wish to go into.

To become a GP you need to work as a GP ST (General Practice Specialist Trainee) that takes about an additional 3 years.

So that's 10 years in Canada to become a GP, longer for a specialty like Pediatrics.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen...=37ba1795-c7de-4882-9e4c-ec0ad3068352&k=44390

The UK is the same:

In the UK an undergraduate medical degree takes either 5 or 6 years depending on if you do an optional intercalated year. Once you have finished your undergraduate degree you become a doctor with provisional GMC registration. To gain full GMC registration you need to work for two years in the NHS as a foundation doctor (F1 formally known as pre-registation house officer PRHO and F2 formally know as senior house officer SHO). After that timescales and career paths vary depending on what speciality you wish to go into. To become a GP you need to work as a GP ST (General Practice Specialist Trainee) that takes about an additional 3 years.

So that's 10 years to become a GP in the UK.

Seems pretty much the same for Australia:

Gain entry to a medical course e.g. Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery
Undergraduate entry course
Via entry from year 12

Graduate from the medical course (courses range between 4 and 7 years)
Work as an intern in a hospital (first year of residency)
Work as a resident in a hospital ( one to three years )
Apply for and gain entry to a training program to specialise.
Those in a training program, work as registrars in their area of training.
Upon completion of training program (between 3-6 years), graduates are eligible for membership of the relevant medical college.

http://sufface.net/medicine/med4me.shtml