Migrating to Canada or USA from Greece (Geological/Mining/Metallurgical Engineer) 1

[geov86]

Hello guys! I am really really glad to find this forum as I can see it represents a strong engineering community on the internet. I don't want to get you tired with many things so I am about to tell you my story in the short run, and I would kindly like your opinions regarding my issue.

I am a BSc(hons) Engineering Geologist specialized in Geotechnical Engineering and I have 4yrs of work experience as a consultant mainly in foundation engineering as well as in natural hazards (landslides, slope stability etc),and very few experience in tunneling. In addition,in a couple of years from now I am about to graduate from the National Technical University of Athens as a M.Eng Mining & Metallurgical Engineer (5yrs academic degree = BSc & integrated MSc) with specialization in Geoengineering & Metallurgy.

As most of you are aware (I think?), the situation in Greece has become unbearable,with zero prospects for engineers (basically for everyone!). For this reason, I decided to leave Greece,search for a job,and settle,abroad. Since two of my top choices are Canada and USA, I would like to ask you a couple of questions regarding engineering and engineering market there.
1) What's the possibility of getting geology or an engineering job before immigrating there, and without having to attend a MSc at a Canadian or US university in order to be seen more favorable from a possible employer?
2) How is the market in Canada or USA regarding geotechnical engineering,mining engineering, or geology? Good - bad prospects?
3) If I take the PE examinations and obtain the PE, does this change the way employers consider my resume and application, instead of just apply for a job without having this?

Thank you very much in advance for your opinions and for the kindness to reply to my post. Wish you all a wonderful day!

George

 

[canwesteng]

The welfare state in Canada will be nothing like what you have in Greece. It is not lavish by any means and very difficult to get on the dole - as an able bodied man with a degree I doubt you'd ever qualify for anything but old age security.

 

[IRstuff]

"Regarding to Canada the reason i want to work there is because of the welfare state and, generally, from what I've heard, is a really good place for having a family."

You appear to have a sense of entitlement that belies what you say are problems caused by external actors.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[geov86]

@SparWeb : thank you for your pieces of advice my friend. I will do a good search then. However coming there is impossible financially.

@DerbyLoco : My friend you should wish for the UK to leave the EU too. The European Union is a self-destructive, dictatorial union and every single country,especially GB, has enormous opportunities outside the EU. Should british people wish to destroy themselves and their future is the only reason for British people to remain within the EU. thank you for your good words, I hope not only my country but all of the countries should have a better future for their citizens.

@canwesteng : Canwesteng I don't want a lavish welfare state. I just want me and my future family to have the opportunity to go to a public hospital and get a good treatment without having to pay thousands of dollars to private institutions or taking loans for my health. I believe (this is the way I was raised here in Greece, and I consider this to be true) that healthcare system is a right not a privilege.

@IRstuff : Basically, I can't understand your conclusion

 

[NorthCivil]

Come on over to Canada for the welfare state (lol).

It aint like Greece in the glory days my friend. Everyone pays an arm and a leg in tax, and the services received are great when absolutely critical, but mediocre otherwise.

Get diagnosed with cancer, heart problems? yes, you will be in for treatment right away. life critical issues are dealt with swiftly.

Swollen prostate (affects 50% of men over 50), wake up and cant pee no matter how hard you push? spend 18 hours waiting in emergency, finally have an overworked, overburdened nurse shove a catheter in you as fast as she can (creating an excruciatingly painful, massive bloody mess in the process). get discharged and wait 4 weeks with the catheter in and a bag tied to your leg until you can get a 15 minute appointment with the specialist to give you a once over and write you a prescription. This is a personal experience of my dad a couple months ago.

Hardly the kind of care I look forward to, after having paid huge taxes my entire life. Furthermore, the standard of care is only going to get worse as the population ages in the next 30 years to come.

 

[IRstuff]

"Basically, I can't understand your conclusion"

Seems pretty straightforward to me. You have welfare of some form that you claim are "rights" that need to be paid for with a robust and growing economy, which your country does not have. You blame other countries for your financial woes, yet you are unwilling to give up your entitlements and want to move to another country because it has them.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[CWB1]

I would encourage Geo and others to keep an open mind regarding social programs elsewhere. I've lived under various types and worked with many foreigners here and abroad. JMO but theyre different with their good and bad but not something to really look down upon. I often tell folks if they dont like how thing are locally then move, not to be a jerk but the world's a big place and opinions often change given first-hand experience. Our previous capitalistic US healthcare system for example no doubt had flaws, mainly that a few folks were only covered via basic and emergency services but it also had its good points in that excellent coverage existed fairly cheaply for most. Europe's various systems and the Canadian system IMHO are a bit more moderate, more folks are covered but coverage isnt nearly as good, as cheap, nor as readily available. To each their own choices but please respect others' decisions and if you like a different system better then start packing, dont try to turn the country into the city.

 

[geov86]

@NorthCivil : Thank you for your reply my friend.I fully understand. The same situation applies to Greece's healthcare system as well. However, it is really important that you don't have to pay like in the states,to take loans, and to have to deal with private insurance companies etc.I may have a wrong perspective regarding the canadian healthcare system, it's just that I've heard over times that the healthcare there is great.I wish it won't get worse there.

@IRstuff : It seems you don't have a clear view but I will try to explain a little bit more. The welfare I claim it should exist in every country as a right,not only greece, in my opinion. If you were aware about the numbers you would know that my country can definitely support there rights. The only thing my country can't support along with these is the illegal loans taken by our governments years and years ago in order for them to speculate and earn money through these loans.I don't blame anyone for our woes but ourselves as greek citizens for keep voting for certain people and families to govern greece. Instead, I admire countries like canada (though I may be wrong as northcivil said), sweden, norway etc which have this kind of exemplary benefits.Also in iceland the same thing applies and iceland is not a developed country.It faced a tough situation back in 2009 similar to Greece's.Also, the reason I want to move to another country is not only the healthcare system. Life here has become unbearable in any way,from personal security to working conditions,employment and life standards.

 

[CWB1]

it is really important that you don't have to pay like in the states,to take loans, and to have to deal with private insurance companies etc.

Why? With all due respect my friend, it sounds like the media and politicians have distorted your view, we dont really do that as modern Greeks dont really wear togas.

Here stateside we pay about half the taxes that Europeans do which more than compensates for paying for healthcare and other social programs privately, its a major reason why our cost of living is comparably cheap. We also have a significantly better, more inclusive, and more available system. The media focuses on surveys and all manner of other nonsense but reality is that the availability of care, and especially the availability of HIV, cancer, and other specialty care in remote parts of the US is amazingly common. Yes, most pay ~$4500USD/yr/family for health insurance but until our recent disastrous social experiments (O-care), that commonly got you significantly better coverage than offered via the European or Canadian socialized systems. Those socialized systems IMHO are more comparable to the free basic and emergency care systems for all unemployed and uninsured working-age adults that the US has had for decades.

 

[IRstuff]

"free basic and emergency care systems for all unemployed and uninsured working-age adults that the US has had for decades."

TNSTAAFL. We, the ones with insurance, are subsidizing the "free basic and emergency care," and are doing it at easily 5x the cost it could have been had these people had actual insurance and had gone to a primary care physician in an office visit. Moreover, because they don't have insurance, they go to the emergency dept. because what might had been trivial to treat when it first appeared has turned something that is life threatening, thereby incurring additional costs.

It's a completely stupid concept, particularly for a culture that claims, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Primary care doctors typically employ one or two medical assistants that make under $20/hr, and have no major capital equipment. Run that cost against any ED, with an army of specialists, RNs, techs, x-ray, MRI, ultrasound, and OR on demand. That's why any ED visit requires, even on my insurance, $100 co-pay, compared to $20 for an office visit.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Sparweb]

Geo,
I was hoping your "welfare state" comment wouldn't get noticed - and that you didn't really mean what it looks like you meant.
Well. As you can see, that subject is an excellent way to get any discussion sidetracked, in any country.
It is a badly misused term, and can't be used in the english language any more, unless you intend to make judgemental comments.

STF

 

[geov86]

@SparWeb : I can see that and I am really sorry about it but I didn't know the problem of using this term.I didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion, I just explained my reasons for wanting the one or the other country. Thank you for letting me know in order to be more careful in the future.

@CWB1 : haha that was good about togas! Ok, what I meant was that,as far as I have seen,private healthcare system does not compare with social healthcare system in a way that, private institutions care primarily for their profits (very reasonable as they are companies) and therefore some things change (i.e the coverage conditions and terms may differ,as well as the cases,the payment for treatment is different,the copay for each medical examination etc).Anyway,I would love to know more about the healthcare system in the US as I am interested in moving there so if you'd like (and of course have the time) to provide me with some more details in order to help me get some things clear, I would really appreciate this a lot.

 

[moltenmetal]

The topic is off the rails, so I'm going to contribute to the spur line a bit.

Canadians spend 11% of their GDP to provide basic healthcare to 100% of their population. Other nations do it for less, but they don't have the geographic challenges we have. Our system isn't perfect by any stretch- lots of room for improvement, but most Canadians are very satisfied with the basic single payor concept. The key advantages of our system, aside from its vastly lower cost, are the fact that there is no such thing as a pre-existing condition here.

Americans have a very complex system which consists of a very substantial publicly-funded sector (Medicare, Medicaid and the VA health system), plus a private system consisting primarily of healthcare provided through insurance paid for by employers- in what is surely the highest de-facto payroll tax in the world, but which seems to be acceptable to Americans because it's not called a tax and, while employed at least, they don't feel like they pay much for it out of their own pockets. That system provides good, but not the best healthcare in the world based on outcomes, to most people but not all, and it costs 17% of US GDP.

The difference between 17% and 11%, an amount which surely the US could achieve with a single payor system or a more reasonable public/private system than the one they have now, is 6% of US GDP, an amount of money roughly twice what the US currently spends on its entire military. And that, folks, is why the US will NEVER have an efficient single-payor healthcare system. Ever. That money wields way too much political power for that change to ever be possible.

Canadians only managed the transition from private to public healthcare as a result of a ballsy move by a socialist premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas. Tommy broke the resulting doctors' strike by bringing in replacement doctors from the UK who had witnessed the incredible positive outcome of the immplementation of the NHS there. Once the rest of the country saw how well the experiment worked, they implemented it themselves, province by province. Had it failed, we'd be in the same mess as the US, only worse because our population density is far lower and hence our overhead costs have to be far higher. And we have to face a constant lobbying effort from people who want a slice of that 6% of our GDP for themselves.

It works in Canada also for another key reason: we pay our taxes here. Tax cheats here are seen not as clever, but as scoundrels- shirkers, who aren't paying their fair share like everyone else. That's a cultural thing, for sure. Sure, there are people here who feel taxes here are too high, and that government is too wasteful- but they still pay their taxes, for the most part. And if 11% vs 17% tells you anything, it's that as wasteful as anything run by government may seem, there's an even less efficient "public-private partnership" to be found if you're creative enough.

The populations in both the US and Canada are aging at roughly the same rate. If current costs are 11% of GDP in Canada and you are concerned about our ability to take care of an aging population, the Americans are totally screwed.

Ok, we can go back to discussing what country best suits the needs of someone fleeing the Greek kleptocracy, or German oppression, or what have you.

 

[FoxRox]

moltenmetal (or anyone) - how are doctors paid in Canada? Is it salary or per procedure/appointment? Does the government operate like an insurance company or an employer? Is pay comparable to what doctors make in the US? Is the profession still desirable enough to attract the best and brightest? I ask not to debate, but to learn. This has always been a concern of mine - that if the government took over healthcare completely, quality would slowly dwindle due to lack of competition.

 

[geov86]

As far as I can see, bringing up the healthcare system topic was clearly a huge mistake

@moltenmetal: I share the same opinion with you as our countries have (so far) the same healthcare system (public) and I fully understand what you're saying.I would say more about this even prior to your post but the point of the topic is not the healthcare system as well as this topic is a hot topic (as I noticed) and I didn't want the conversation to go down the wrong way.

@FoxRox: what moltenmetal wants to point is that the healthcare system relies on the public sector, meaning that the healthcare providers are mainly public structures (i.e public hospitals),though private institutions are not excluded.These doctors are essentially civil servants receiving a salary and the state operates both as an employer as well as like an insurance institution with the only difference being that the cost of any medical examination, treatment or surgery is almost half the price of that performed by the private sector, and this is covered mostly by the state.

Regarding the income issue you're pointing, my opinion is that income is not the only factor affecting the quality of the healthcare services.There are other factors too such as a competitive work environment or the love for your job. Just imagine that in a deregulated economy where everyone is free to ask whatever amount he wants, plus the fact he needs to have a significant profit,the prices are set enormously high for no reason when the same examination or surgery could be done in a very very lower price as the state's priority is to provide service to its citizens, not to make profits.For example,I was needed to have a surgery here and it costed approximately 1500 euros which were covered by my insurance. the same surgery in the US would cost me between 15000-30000$ and I doubt if any private insurance would cover this.So even if I was uninsured it was more easy for me to pay 1500 euros than 15000$ or more. A very good example of public healthcare system is Sweden which has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and you don't have to pay a single krone when it comes to your health. Of course taxation is high, as it is in canada as well, and as it was in greece with the only difference being that in greece the taxation was high in order to repay illegal loans taken by our governments not for the favor of our healthcare or educational system. Also, public healthcare providers are more "free" to face any kind of problem regardless how it was created and whether it preexisted or not.

 

[CWB1]

Geo, thanks for appreciating the joke. I'll try to explain the basics but please bear with me on this, it can be tough to understand. Apologies in advance if you knew all/most of this already and hopefully my countrymen will give me some leniency if my experience with healthcare doesn't match theirs.

First and foremost keep in mind that the US is the land of "freedom of choice" and that applies to everything from employment to insurance. Secondly, please realize that job-hopping between competing employers to maximize income and personal benefit for you as a worker is common and accepted here in the US unlike some other countries. Ours is a comparatively big country and big economy with lots of different opportunity, comparable to Europe as a whole in both size and GDP with roughly half the population.

Most workers in the US buy insurance through their employer. Employers negotiate with the various insurance companies directly to get the best balance of cost and coverage for their employees. You don't have to purchase insurance through your employer but you typically get much better rates through them than you would individually dealing directly with insurance companies and those costs are often untaxed by the govt if bought through an employer. If you have a working spouse then you have more options for buying insurance, you could buy through hers, yours, directly through an insurance company (without employer involvement), or go without. Within each employer there are typically a couple options with varying upfront and backend costs. We pay monthly and depending on the plan, we may or may not need to pay again when we use services - deductibles and copays. A copay means you pay a (typically small) amount everytime you use a service, a deductible means you pay everything up to an amount then insurance covers everything beyond that for the year. Younger folks don't use as many health services so typically get a plan that costs less monthly upfront but has more backend costs should they actually need services, older folks pay more monthly but use more services so are less tolerant of deductibles and copays. We also typically consider dental and eye care separate from healthcare and have the option to buy that or not at the same time as normal "primary" healthcare, also through employers.

What this boils down to is this - I sign up to buy insurance once annually through my employer and pay ~$400 monthly for myself and family for health, dental, and vision. I typically get the most expensive plan offered as I'm not a gambler, I prefer to pay higher upfront monthly costs and don't want to deal with too many copays or deductibles. I go to the doc every few months for something and might pay $1-200 copay each time, but typically get excellent service. Granted, I am at least semi-educated on these matters and choose employers based not only upon cash pay but also benefits and consider health insurance a "must-have." My brother often works for professional contract staffing companies which typically pay more cash but often do not offer health insurance. He simply goes without and grumbles about wanting socialized medicine while collecting more $USD, and may one day have a catastrophic need for a doctor that bankrupts him. JMO but his choices are his, mine are mine. I have a family to worry about, he doesn't.

 

[geov86]

@CWB1 : Thank you very much for explaining further about the US healthcare system. I completely understand.I wish the best to your family, you're doing absolutely right, I would make my choices to offer the best to my family too.

I understand what you wrote about the healthcare system there and I find them to be fair if I take into account that you have private healthcare providers and insurance companies there. However, you gave me further knowledge to use when it comes to my decision for immigration. Thank you very much again!

 

[CWB1]

These doctors are essentially civil servants receiving a salary and the state operates both as an employer as well as like an insurance institution with the only difference being that the cost of any medical examination, treatment or surgery is almost half the price of that performed by the private sector.

The trouble comparing systems is that they are not directly comparable. Like Canada, private healthcare in Europe is an expensive luxury for which folks pay a premium. That makes your public system seem comparably cheap and leads folks to believe the same would be true here when in reality you folks are paying a serious premium for both and preventing the masses from accessing the best and brightest. Access to that care stateside is typically only a function of the patient's proximity to that care, not whether or not they can afford it.

 

[geov86]

@CWB1 : Private healthcare is somehow a "luxury", however, it is not what it makes our system cheap. Macroeconomicaly speaking, healthcare is a public good and creates economies of scale meaning that the more you provide, the lower the cost. Apart from that private institutions are after profits whereas the state provides services without expecting profits. Therefore, it has the ability,for the same service, to lower the price for any kind of treatment or examination significantly.

As for the best and brightest, I would argue about this as apart from the income (which doesn't mean that it is low for the doctors of public hospitals), there are other factors such as the competition of the work environment,and the work environment itself, that play also an important role for attracting the best and brightest.

 

[moltenmetal]

FoxRox: we have a constant leakage of both doctors and nurses across the border, and have to train more of both to cover this- but we don't have a shortage of either doctors or nurses. There certainly is no shortage of applicants to medical schools here.

Family docs are paid on a fee for service basis. They're little private businesses, free to set up where they want. Some set up as multidisciplinary businesses with a nurse practitioner to take care of the routine things, a dietician, a physiotherapist etc. all in the same practice. Others are all on their own, with maybe a receptionist. They send their bills to only one place though- the provincial government. Small towns tend to be under-serviced by family docs, partially because of lifestyle considerations (i.e. the doc's spouse isn't a doc and needs a job, so easier to find that in an urban setting, or because in a remote area you can only take a vacation if you have a locum available to come in and cover your patients etc.). Large cities tend to have enough docs. The province and the doctors' collective bargaining body collude to limit the number of internships available and hence control the supply so that docs can make a good living and to ensure that there aren't so many that provincial billings to through the roof. There is no price competition among docs- they are de-facto unionized, though many would spit on you if you called them that. In my living memory there has indeed been a doctors' strike, but only once, and that was over 30 yrs ago.

Hospital docs are paid by the hospital which is funded directly by the province.

Some specialists are resident in hospitals, while others have separate practices and operate more like the family docs. Being a specialist is a much higher paying gig, so we generate a lot of specialists and export them to the US, regrettably not giving them a bill for their public-subsidized education at the border when they leave.

Ask the average Canadian and they're very satisfied with the single payor nature of our system. They get care, triaged on the basis of need rather than wealth. Pharmaceuticals and dental aren't covered yet, so that's a worry for people without secondary coverage through employment, but pharma here is cheaper because the province sets the price as bulk buyer and we all benefit at the drugstore. Like all systems it's imperfect and in constant need of refining and improvement, but it beats the hell out of the worry inherent in an insurance-based system.

 

[CWB1]

Geo, yes I'm well aware of the theoretical advantages of socialized medicine. Unfortunately reality doesnt prove those theories true, contrary to media and others' personal agendas the US capitalistic system is actually slightly cheaper as a whole and vastly cheaper to individual workers while providing considerably better care than Canada and most in Europe. Simply stated, foreign governments are about as inefficient as ours when it comes to spending money - terrible! No doubt there are many considerations to reach this conclusion but when reviewing facts we must apply liberal doses of common sense. Cost/GDP for example is irrelevant, obviously wealthier countries like wealthier people can afford to spend a higher percentage of income on even seemingly frivolous things like healthcare and still come out ahead. Cost/GDP/capita is the relevant but rarely considered statistic as it helps normalize GDP between differing population sizes, and in this case pretty clearly shows that the US has ~20% more to spend than Canada. We dont spend all of that 20%, meaning ours as a whole is actually a better deal than our northern neighbors. Considering employers pay the majority of the cost makes it even better.