Everyone is familiar, in theory, with some working definition of debt; however, we rarely contemplate its implications and influence on the day-to-day politics of finance-driven decision making. The cynical among us may argue that politics at every level is driven by economics, and that very few newspaper headlines are free of an underlying economic agenda. Most only think of debt as it relates to their daily lives – mortgages, loans and lines of credit – but the financial sector is built on the margins that arise from the balance between issuing and servicing debt, and the economy stands on a complicated foundation of government-issued paper, or debt. Is debt bad? We’ve all heard the warnings: Canadians need to decrease their household debt and hunker down in preparation for an inevitable interest rate rise that will threaten the domestic economy. We are more personally in debt than we have ever been at any point in history. Or is debt good? The more money the banks put in our hands, the more money we spend. Spending drives the economy and, despite market rises of late, world economies remain in dire need of drivers. When markets are good, everyone prospers. Personal preference and risk tolerance factor heavily into an individual’s perception of what constitutes a good amount of debt. But what about the debt each one of us assumes through citizenship? The debt we hold by proxy, assumed on our behalves by our elected officials? The debt whose accrual and servicing we cannot control. How does government debt affect our everyday lives as doctors? Does it impact our health care system and the way we treat our patients? Where does all that debt come from, and to whom are we indebted as citizens of the provinces and our country?