Homeboy, have you taken out government subsidized loans or ever gone to a public school? Then get off your high horse about not taking public assistance to fund your education because you already have. Who do you think subsidized those loans and funded those public schools? The taxpayers. If you really wanted to assume all of the responsibility yourself you would have gone only to private schools (for elementary, high school, college, and medical school) and you or your parents would have taken out private loans to cover the costs. It's convenient that you draw the line at what amount of government assistance is ok right at the point you chose to use it.
We as a nation, whether an individual agrees with it or not, have chosen to provide assistance to those who are poor, temporary or otherwise, and medical students definitely qualify under those standards. As pointed out above, you've already decided to take advantage of that assistance, so you have no right to bash anyone who has in different ways than you. They're different from you and have different circumstances. If, because of government assistant, a family is able to have a child or two while in school and ends up raising four contributing members to society instead of two, I'd say that was a wise investment of our tax dollars.
If the government didn't assist, there would be an even worse shortage as costs faced by potential physicians would exceed perceived individual benefit and fewer would choose to undergo medical training. This is the exact same reason that we subsidize the education of MD/PhD's. I'm curious, do you think that's wrong too? Should they turn down funding and take out private loans to fund their education because they'll earn a good income some day? Give me a break.
I bear you no ill-will, I just find it frustrating when people jump on others for doing something they themselves have been doing all along. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Edit: I just realized that I said essentially the same thing as Happy Wife. Great minds think alike I guess,
.
FYI, I attended private schools up to college (and my family was by no means "well off," my dad being a PA in town of 1500 and my mother staying at home), and I joined the military at 17, which paid for every last DIME of my college education. So I'm afraid your assumption falls a little short. Every penny of debt I've assumed, I've taken responisibility for, and the only subsidized federal loans I have are the same ones available to every other medical student.
I never argued against government assistance PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, in the correct context, and I've repeated myself so many times it's getting rather ridiculous.
Whether it's educational loans, home loans, tax credits, first-time homebuyer credits, whatever...properly understood, that's fine...I haven't argued against any of those entities. I've never argued against the PROGRAMS...I've argued against the pathetic bums that use them as an excuse not to assume more debt, or because they place their individual goals above all else.
I've
also argued against is people using government programs outside the context of their intent, and I don't care how many times you recite the technical qualifications for medicaid, WIC, and foodstamps, I
don't believe "soon to be physicians" fits that category.
Subsidized federal loans are still LOANS, and are available to every single medical student, single or married, whether your parents are "wealthy" or not. If the govt would increase the allowance of unsubsidized (or subsidized for that matter) loans to married couples, I'd be all for it, but I doubt the people getting medicaid/WIC/foodstamps would, because they receive such items FREE now, and increased loan allowance would mean more debt.
That's an interesting question...if the level of subsidized loans allowable by the govt or private lenders vis a vis the fin aid dept went UP, say $15k...would that eliminate people from using public assistance aimed at the poor and indigent?
Besides, assisting in the training of a physician makes GREAT economic sense as there's a definite positive externality associated with medical training: there is additional benefit to society that is not experienced by the individual.
If you're going to use economics terms, and if we're talking about 'benefit to society,' wouldn't it be cheaper for society if it didn't have to subzidize the living of medical students with families? If single medical students consume less in public assistance, and less in loans, isn't that a positive externality?
Why should we place equal value in medical students who can't provide for themselves other than through public assistance?
Society is going to benefit from the training of doctors whether student "A" (married with 3 kids) or student "B" (single or married with working spouse) is accepted to medical school, but it's going to benefit more (economically speaking) with student "B".
See, the thing is that the programs are designed for people who qualify for them. That's how they were created. If the government (or the general populous who vote for the elected officials) wanted to exclude certain groups, like medical students who may be making big bucks in a few years, they could. But they don't. If you satisfy the program's criteria, then the program is designed for you. 
