Because tax payers pay for military training, which isn't a "school." but medical school you have to pay for yourself.
This is just my view, I personally think it should be the other way around.
I'm actually going to get training to do both (68W Combat Medic). In exchange for four of the best years of my life. During which I'll likely be sent to kill bad people in strange lands. While possibly having any of my squad mates bleed out under my hands. But sure, I guess the training is technically free.
.
Most military jobs are non-combat, and if you get a good enough score on your ASVAB, the Army will teach you just about anything, from accounting to aircraft maintenance to foreign languages.
From what I understand US Army basic training costs about $70,000. For 12 weeks. I'm not sure if that figure includes food and housing. It isn't free. It's just that the taxpayers are paying for it.
Actually, only about 25% of people, barring psychopaths and sociopaths, actually have the capacity to kill people. But we get almost 90% participation in combat. This is because of the training our soldiers receive.
Everyone has the capability of killing people. It's just that some people can deal with it easier than others. If only 25% of people could kill people then why are there no tests in the military to determine if someone will actually be capable of killing enemies?
It's actually rather interesting. When you go through training you're taught this is how you do (this). Whatever the action is from making your bed to shooting your rifle you get taught step by step and perform it repeatedly. Yet prior to deploying you must go through several sessions with various civilian and military personnel where they ask you questions and you are able to answer, without repercussion, truthfully. If you think you can't actually shoot someone you get put on a list and they determine the best course of action they can do for you. Many times this just means you get put on the Rear D or Rear Detachment. Meaning you are still part of your battalion/brigade but stay state side and act as support for your fellow soldiers. Of course all that being said there is a big difference in killing someone in defense of your life or the people around you and actively going after a target. Many people can do the former but would be unable to do the latter.
Before I answer; First the majority of people in the military and not in combat units, Second you can get medical training for free if you agree to serve in the military. Now the main answer; the reason military training is free is because the military serves the state, while doctors, nurses and paramedics serve individual citizens
It's not an equal trade. You are sacrificing years of your life and possibly your actual life for something that gets little recognition and no guarantee that your death will be appreciated/wanted. If you want an example then just look at the Vietnam War welcome back celebrations.
We want people to keep our country safe so the training is really cheap and we want people to save lives correctly so it's more expensive. Whoever posted this is so stupid.
A medical professional (e.g. doctor, nurse, etc.) in the civilian sector has very different motivations and rewards than a soldier when it comes to choosing that particular field as a career.
This is just my view, I personally think it should be the other way around.
.
Most military jobs are non-combat, and if you get a good enough score on your ASVAB, the Army will teach you just about anything, from accounting to aircraft maintenance to foreign languages.
I imagine conscripts would end up worse off.
This is wrong