Since medical training is subsidized by the federal government, and especially since there is a severe predicted shortage of physicians in the United States, do you think the public would continue to accept the prolonged length of training for physicians? For example, to train a general surgeon, it's 5 years. To train a cardiothoracic surgeon, it's 7-8 years. Often research years are added, making the training 9-10 years. These years are subsidized in the form of loan deferments and payments to residency programs. If the public knew it took up to 10 years of government subsidies after graduation from college and medical school (about 18 years of post-high school education) to train one person to be a cardiothoracic surgeon for 20 years, do you think they would still think it's a good investment? Or maybe they would demand a more efficient training paradigm? Finally, is it really appropriate for these highly educated physicians to extend their residency even longer with research or elective time, especially since only a small fraction of these trainees become academic physicians? If I were just a normal taxpayer, I would demand that my tax dollars be better spent. 18 years of post-high school training for 20 years of medical practice seems highly inefficient and I wouldn't want to pay for that.