[SilasX]

I added an edit that there is plenty of room between full current subsidy and 0% subsidy.

You're doubling down on the strawman of adding new slots at 0% subsidy, and you're not considering the possibility that the requirements are too stringent to begin with. (Full bachelor's plus MD plus full residency.)

Edit: Also, it wouldn't be "seeing the effects" of it until the number of med school applications = number of med school slots.

[chimeracoder]

There is no "full current subsidy" - the existing contributions from Medicare are already a partial subsidy.

But this is kind of a meaningless debate after a point, because the number of unmatched residents is already an upper bound on the number of additional matches (you certainly wouldn't have more people interested when you increased the price to them). And even then, we wouldn't see a huge difference - the number of unmatched domestic applicants isn't enough to make a meaningful dent in the labor supply of practicing physicians - and that's assuming all of the unmatched doctors are as properly qualified as their matched counterparts.

In other words, no, we're not at the exact market-clearing rates for the medical education market, and we consistently bias in one direction from that equilibrium, but we're measurably not far off from it.

[SilasX]

>There is no "full current subsidy" - the existing contributions from Medicare are already a partial subsidy.

In the context, I meant "100% of current level"; I didn't mean to imply that it was "full" in that sense (and my point didn't depend on such).

>t this is kind of a meaningless debate after a point, because the number of unmatched residents is already an upper bound on the number of additional matches (you certainly wouldn't have more people interested when you increased the price to them)

You wouldn't have enough doctors if residents had to bear $1 extra in costs? That is implausible.

With respect, this exchange does not feel productive.