Public loan forgiveness program to be capped at $57,500 under new budget proposal

[DocEspana]

I heard a rumor this morning that the PSLF cap was intended to be broken up between UG and professional school loans. According to the rumor, the cap for those of us with med school loans would be somewhere around 130k. I haven't seen anything to back this up yet, but I'd like to think that whatever passes will differentiate between UG and grad loans.

The only silver lining Ive found is that it appears pretty much everyone with a decent insight into the next political year is agreeing that neither party with will accept this budget (and thus these changes). Though the reasoning is important. The democrats would address the various federal programs one at a time, deciding who gets cuts and who doesnt. The upside here is they generally do NOT think that the PSLF is in need of repair as a party stance. The republicans are likely going to release their own budget with dramatically different cuts and its highly unlikely they will suggest these cuts (politically its bad to be the one to suggest something like this when there are less popular things to cut). But the downside here is that if they try to approve and uphold* an actual budget, they might adopt this as part of their ways to save.

*a budget will get approved. But budgets being approved have almost nothing to do with any of the proposed changes actually going into affect. A budget, ironically, doesnt have the power to change funding. Its simply something that *has* to be approved and then each part is individually enacted (or as is often the case, not at all enacted)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wjs010]

I heard a rumor this morning that the PSLF cap was intended to be broken up between UG and professional school loans. According to the rumor, the cap for those of us with med school loans would be somewhere around 130k. I haven't seen anything to back this up yet, but I'd like to think that whatever passes will differentiate between UG and grad loans.

I still think even only forgiving 130k would not be enough to get more people going into primary care. Maybe that new bill to increase primary care salary will be sufficient. But still, isn't it really risky to choose the public service thing? I actually was wondering if congress could just do away with that law.. And apparently they can.

 

[user3]

but on the other hand, more loan forgiveness just gives schools more incentive to keep raising tuition. If a CCOM student, for example, takes out the full COA all 4 years, they will graduate with over $400,000 of debt after interest and tuition hikes.

If worse comes to worst with reimbursement cuts and all, PAYE will be their only option. If physician income indeed takes a hit in coming years, these income-based monthly payments will probably not be enough to even cover interest--causing negative amortization and a giant tax bomb after the PAYE period ends. (unless the PAYE forgiveness is made tax-exempt)

 

[a runner]

but on the other hand, more loan forgiveness just gives schools more incentive to keep raising tuition. If a CCOM student, for example, takes out the full COA all 4 years, they will graduate with over $400,000 of debt after interest and tuition hikes.

If worse comes to worst with reimbursement cuts and all, PAYE will be their only option. If physician income indeed takes a hit in coming years, these income-based monthly payments will probably not be enough to even cover interest--causing negative amortization and a giant tax bomb after the PAYE period ends. (unless the PAYE forgiveness is made tax-exempt)

Not to mention if they cap PSLF forgiveness, the next thing they might decide to cap is how much can be forgiven under PAYE and IBR. So we might be lucky just to have that giant tax bomb at the end of 25 years (for me at least, my first loan was well before 2008).

The funny thing is that PSLF and IBR were signed into law under a Republican administration (George Bush in 2007), so it will be interesting to see what factions are willing to offer us on the sacrificial altar.

 

[wjs010]

Not to mention if they cap PSLF forgiveness, the next thing they might decide to cap is how much can be forgiven under PAYE and IBR. So we might be lucky just to have that giant tax bomb at the end of 25 years (for me at least, my first loan was well before 2008).

The funny thing is that PSLF and IBR were signed into law under a Republican administration (George Bush in 2007), so it will be interesting to see what factions are willing to offer us on the sacrificial altar.

Can u explain this tax bomb?

 

[sjv]

Can u explain this tax bomb?

Currently, the amount left on the loan after 20/25 years is forgiven but that amount is taxed as additional income. Depending on the how much has been paid back, income, how much is remaining, state living in, you will be hit with a significant tax burden that could be 6 figures. However, no one has reached this point yet since we are nowhere to close 20/25 years since PAYE/IBR was introduced (IBR in 2007, PAYE in 2012).

 

[DocEspana]

Currently, the amount left on the loan after 20/25 years is forgiven but that amount is taxed as additional income. Depending on the how much has been paid back, income, how much is remaining, state living in, you will be hit with a significant tax burden that could be 6 figures. However, no one has reached this point yet since we are nowhere to close 20/25 years since PAYE/IBR was introduced (IBR in 2007, PAYE in 2012).

Correct. Estimates that seem legitimate place it at around 35% for most states that have some level of state taxation (you win this time, Florida). I vague estimate of my own debt repayment given a predicted income (post tax, as its all measured by discretionary income) I would still have well over $100K in debt after 5-6 years (aka 10 minus the years of residency) of paying down my debt at 10% of an attendings income. So thats over $35,000 to get nailed with as one big tax expense.

I would have entirely paid off my debt (which would end up being something like $400k paid) if I went to 20 or 25 years.

 

[NontradCA]

Let me honest and just say right off the bat that I have no debt and will not acquire any. That being said, I do think these changes (or something similar) WILL happen and it is the right thing to do. The way PSLF is set up now is a loophole that allows someone to abuse the system. It's not intended for people being forgiven hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

No one going to med school should expect PSLF. You are BORROWING money from the government at a decent rate. You have to pay back your debts. The real problem is the education system, and the amount of tuition that schools get away with charging. Don't blame the government for not wanting to give you a full ride.

 

[sylvanthus]

Let me honest and just say right off the bat that I have no debt and will not acquire any. That being said, I do think these changes (or something similar) WILL happen and it is the right thing to do. The way PSLF is set up now is a loophole that allows someone to abuse the system. It's not intended for people being forgiven hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

No one going to med school should expect PSLF. You are BORROWING money from the government at a decent rate. You have to pay back your debts. The real problem is the education system, and the amount of tuition that schools get away with charging. Don't blame the government for not wanting to give you a full ride.

Did you really just say the above? Do you know the interest rate?

 

[LaughingMan]

Did you really just say the above? Do you know the interest rate?

+1

 

[NontradCA]

Did you really just say the above? Do you know the interest rate?

It's still better than what they used to be. And most people would not be able to get private loans at that rate. Am I wrong?

 

[sylvanthus]

Student loans used to be at roughly 2% and physicians a couple decades before us would pay it off over as long as possible because they made more money investing that money than paying down the debt. So yes, you are wrong.

 

[DocEspana]

It's still better than what they used to be. And most people would not be able to get private loans at that rate. Am I wrong?

Pretty much anyone can get private loans at FAR below that rate. If you have enough money to actually make the payments on a 150-200k loan, then you should actually take a private loan. But so few people do have that much saved out. Pretty much every financial aid officer will tell you that you make out much better with private loans IF you can afford to start paying immediately. The caveat is that the government doesn't charge you for so long. Almost no private lender will sit on the debt for 4.5 years and expect zero payment. And that period of time expecting no payment is something that a private lender could theoretically do (and potentially make more profit in the end) but none of them appear to do so, for fear of defaulting due to bankruptcy... something that cant be done on federal loans but is EXCEPTIONALLY easy for a medical student to do in private loans

Add in that student loans used to be at rates 33% or less of what they are now, and your sentence is wrong on every possible level.

 

[TXKnight]

It's still better than what they used to be. And most people would not be able to get private loans at that rate. Am I wrong?

Sorry NontradCA, but the above is kinda lame.

 

[NontradCA]

Student loans used to be at roughly 2% and physicians a couple decades before us would pay it off over as long as possible because they made more money investing that money than paying down the debt. So yes, you are wrong.

Ok, I was wrong on that. Sorry. But it makes sense that interest rates would go up with tuition. And DocEspana, like I said- students are unable to get those private loans.

 

[DocEspana]

Ok, I was wrong on that. Sorry. But it makes sense that interest rates would go up with tuition. And DocEspana, like I said- students are unable to get those private loans.

Not if their parents are subsidizing them... or if they were non-trad and had a number of Ks saved up.

But this is no different than how you said this is the fault of the schools for making it so expensive... its the fault of the loan lenders who jacked up the interest rate ~300-400% (based on which loan) in the last few decades. In that same time private interest has vaccilated but basically remained in the same ballpark it was in 20-30 years ago. If the student loans made money before, and 100% of them did, why the need to jack up the interest concurrent with the tuitions rising? They were already increasing their profits by taking the same percentage off of larger loans. But now they take a larger percent off of larger loans to double up.

 

[NontradCA]

Not if their parents are subsidizing them... or if they were non-trad and had a number of Ks saved up.

But this is no different than how you said this is the fault of the schools for making it so expensive... its the fault of the loan lenders who jacked up the interest rate ~300-400% (based on which loan) in the last few decades. In that same time private interest has vaccilated but basically remained in the same ballpark it was in 20-30 years ago. If the student loans made money before, and 100% of them did, why the need to jack up the interest concurrent with the tuitions rising? They were already increasing their profits by taking the same percentage off of larger loans. But now they take a larger percent off of larger loans to double up.

Because that's allowing schools to charge whatever tuition they want if the government is going to give unlimited amount of money at low interest. If PSLF starts to forgive loans for physicians, you don't think that will increase tuition even more? Why would schools have any incentive for keeping tuition steady if their students could basically take out any amount of loan money and have it be forgiven in the future?

My view is that yes- doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc are a socioeconomic issue that the government is partially responsible for, but the ridiculous cost of education must be addressed.

 

[DocEspana]

well I mean right now PSLF has forgiven loans for exactly zero people. Also, pay-as-you-earn has also yet to forgive loans for a single person either. So if it starts to forgive loans for anyone, it will be doing exactly what it was created for.

It hasnt raised tuitions. These programs are 7 and 5 years old. Tuitions havent budged since then. This is more along the line of buyers regret* and fear of 'what could be' in the complete absence of 'what is'**

* It has been pretty implicit in all conversations about PAYE and PSLF that the politicians who penned it expected a combination of difficulty qualifying for it and obscurity making it be rarely utilized. The problem is that when the federal government took over all school loans in 2009, it suddenly became something that every single student was prompted to consider and see if they qualify for, as the government has a duty to educate their lenders that exceeds the private markets duty to inform. Its being utilized by the people who could actually benefit from it***

** The fact of the matter is that we are all terrified about the idea that tuitions MIGHT raise. Well tuitions do raise. They have raised at a steady rate from decades prior to this whole thing and are not accelerating in even the tiniest of ways. There is some conjecture in the academic world that costs of tuition may be decellerating as private institutions have appeared to not increased their tuitions much, for profit education (medical schools aside) has fallen out of favor and state schools cost increases have been steady. Leading to an overall picture of decellerating costs. But this doesnt stop us from making entire political decisions based on conjecture that 'feels' right but completely ignores reality. Admittedly: perhaps we just havent given reality enough time to bite us in the ass.

*** cant believe I am asterisking an asterisked comment. But most any loan officer you talk to (school or private loan advisor) will tell you that the various income-based plans dont work out for anyone except for physicians and (sometimes) PA's. Because most people's earnings post-degree are reflective of the amount they will earn. Not that a DJing degree should be $20,000 of debt. But it makes sense to be $20,000 and not $150,000. Take an vocational or graduate degree (too much variation in undergrad degree to make this point) and you'll see that their average expected income over the first 20 years means that income-based repayment is a BAD idea for them. They will pay more their their total loan and pretty much everyone is already opting out of the later years of their deal because its smarter to pay the debt off in ~10 years not 20... they just want the initial low payments for a year or two before they opt back into a 10 year program where the interest doesnt FAR outpace their expected payments. This is especially pronounced in lawyers where they are all told to sign up for a year or two and then pay the rest of their debt down as fast as possible. MDs, DOs and some PAs have this magical residency system where they spend 3-7 years earning a much smaller amount and then suddenly earn a crapton afterwards without any realistic scaling between the two points. It leads to a LOT of years earned toward the total time comittment without needing to pay much into it and then the option to pay it all off quickly, or just pay it off until the timer has elapsed.

These three healthcare degrees are basically the only people who will make it to the 10 year mark without paying off damn near all of their debt (alternatively: there may be a small cohort of people who pay off close to nothing of their debt, but they are outliers in the math, though quite a signficiant number of people in an absolute sense)

 

[link2swim06]

This whole thing is a joke. The government makes 40+ billion a year on student loans.

Why do they need to cap anything? There is obviously plenty of money to fund loan forgiveness.

 

[sazerac]

Because that's allowing schools to charge whatever tuition they want if the government is going to give unlimited amount of money at low interest. If PSLF starts to forgive loans for physicians, you don't think that will increase tuition even more? Why would schools have any incentive for keeping tuition steady if their students could basically take out any amount of loan money and have it be forgiven in the future?

Lol that is already happening in Georgetown Law. They have a program where if you go into Public Service and sign up for PSLF, the law school will make your loan payments for you.

Think about it. Let's say GT charges tuition + the student's projected income-based loan repayments as Tuition (capital "T" Tuition). The student gets a loan to cover Tuition, a degree, a public service job, and reasonable loan payments that are tied to current income. Ten years later the loan vanishes altogether.

The student gets a free degree and a career. The school keeps small "t" tuition, which is really whatever they felt like charging since the loan payments (income based, unrelated to the loan size) were built in. Everybody wins! GT Law basically has a license to print money at this point.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/admissions-financial-aid/office-of-financial-aid/lrap/LRAP-III.cfm

 

[a runner]

So I went ahead and read an article on this, and turns out, according to New America (whose analysis of the proposed budget is here: http://www.edcentral.org/obama-administration-announces-major-reforms-income-based-repayment/), if this budget is passed without changes, there would be no more tax bomb for IBR.

Also (for people like me) it would eliminate the 2008 first loan cutoff date to qualify for the 10% plan (vs. 15%). And it would change the repayment period to 25 years for all of us (instead of 20) because we all will have loans greater than $57,500. Look at the 3rd column in that link if this is confusing.

If this passes, I would say it's safe to say that all physicians/med students can forget about PSLF and instead look at the 25 year plan if necessary. Forget PSLF anyways, it's exceedingly difficult to find physician jobs that qualify, especially outside of psychiatry and primary care: basically just the VA and some academic jobs.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

If this passes, I would say it's safe to say that all physicians/med students can forget about PSLF and instead look at the 25 year plan if necessary. Forget PSLF anyways, it's exceedingly difficult to find physician jobs that qualify, especially outside of psychiatry and primary care: basically just the VA and some academic jobs.

Wouldn't employment at most hospitals qaulify for PSLF?

 

[user3]

So I went ahead and read an article on this, and turns out, according to New America (whose analysis of the proposed budget is here: http://www.edcentral.org/obama-administration-announces-major-reforms-income-based-repayment/), if this budget is passed without changes, there would be no more tax bomb for IBR.

Also (for people like me) it would eliminate the 2008 first loan cutoff date to qualify for the 10% plan (vs. 15%). And it would change the repayment period to 25 years for all of us (instead of 20) because we all will have loans greater than $57,500. Look at the 3rd column in that link if this is confusing.

If this passes, I would say it's safe to say that all physicians/med students can forget about PSLF and instead look at the 25 year plan if necessary. Forget PSLF anyways, it's exceedingly difficult to find physician jobs that qualify, especially outside of psychiatry and primary care: basically just the VA and some academic jobs.

well the 20 to 25 year extension would stink, but at least the tax bomb would be removed. that is a must

 

[NurWollen]

Wouldn't employment at most hospitals qaulify for PSLF?

That's what I thought too.

 

[a runner]

Wouldn't employment at most hospitals qaulify for PSLF?

No. There may be rare exceptions, but jobs that appear to be employed by the hospital are actually mediated through a private physician group or even a private subsidiary of the hospital itself. In some states, it is illegal for hospitals to directly employ physicians, regardless of whether they are for-profit or non-profit.

For example, if you work at Kaiser Permanente, you work at a non-profit hospital but you are employed or a partner in the for-profit physician group. In Northern California, this is The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. This is how nearly all physicians working at hospitals are employed. The exception is federal or state run hospitals such as the VA, Indian Health Services, prisons, and state run psychiatric hospitals. Even many academic jobs are employed through for-profit physician groups who contract with the universities to provide their services.

 

[Siggy]

No. There may be rare exceptions, but jobs that appear to be employed by the hospital are actually mediated through a private physician group or even a private subsidiary of the hospital itself. In some states, it is illegal for hospitals to directly employ physicians, regardless of whether they are for-profit or non-profit.

For example, if you work at Kaiser Permanente, you work at a non-profit hospital but you are employed or a partner in the for-profit physician group. In Northern California, this is The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. This is how nearly all physicians working at hospitals are employed. The exception is federal or state run hospitals such as the VA, Indian Health Services, prisons, and state run psychiatric hospitals. Even many academic jobs are employed through for-profit physician groups who contract with the universities to provide their services.

EMS medical director at either a FD, third government agency, or government oversight level (i.e. state EMS authority) for the win. I imagine that there are other such medical director type jobs out there in the government.

 

[sazerac]

If this passes, I would say it's safe to say that all physicians/med students can forget about a career in primary care.

They should rename this the Primary Care Reduction Act of 2015.

 

[a runner]

EMS medical director at either a FD, third government agency, or government oversight level (i.e. state EMS authority) for the win. I imagine that there are other such medical director type jobs out there in the government.

If you are employed directly by any level of government, you should be good for PSLF. Problem is what % of physicians are employed by government? The limited # of jobs may make it difficult.

 

[wjs010]

Medical school education will eventually leave students in 1 million dollars of debt and their neurosurgery salary will be 80k per year. Lol. Boy that would suck

 

[touchpause13]

Not if their parents are subsidizing them... or if they were non-trad and had a number of Ks saved up.

But this is no different than how you said this is the fault of the schools for making it so expensive... its the fault of the loan lenders who jacked up the interest rate ~300-400% (based on which loan) in the last few decades. In that same time private interest has vaccilated but basically remained in the same ballpark it was in 20-30 years ago. If the student loans made money before, and 100% of them did, why the need to jack up the interest concurrent with the tuitions rising? They were already increasing their profits by taking the same percentage off of larger loans. But now they take a larger percent off of larger loans to double up.

Can you explain this further? I haven't decided what I'm going to do about loans, and I never even considered that I could get a lower interest rate through a private lender.

How much would one need to have in order to do a loan like this?

 

[Dharma]

Medical school education will eventually leave students in 1 million dollars of debt and their neurosurgery salary will be 80k per year. Lol. Boy that would suck

But premeds and med students will keep on voting democrat…

Go Libertarian. Less government is what we need! (Okay that's enough politics for me…)

 

[Dharma]

.

 

[DocEspana]

Can you explain this further? I haven't decided what I'm going to do about loans, and I never even considered that I could get a lower interest rate through a private lender.

How much would one need to have in order to do a loan like this?

Its hard to do the math as every couple hundred dollars you add to your loan amount great modifies the amount you need banked and depends on the interest rate you get. But lets say 33K is a safe number for how much you'd need fronted by yourself to cover your payments during medical school and have a little bit of a cushion to aid the payments in the first year of residency assuming youre on a 10 or 20 year repayment plan. But thats cutting it very razor thin.

 

[DocEspana]

But premeds and med students will keep on voting democrat…

Go Libertarian. Less government is what we need! (Okay that's enough politics for me…)

Less government would give us the debt and no way to lessen the burden of it....

 

[NontradCA]

Less government would give us the debt and no way to lessen the burden of it....

Not necessarily. And it's not like government has improved education lately, but I do blame that on Bush and NCLB. It's not just the government though, the general public doesn't care about education either. We care more about social media, ****ty music, and celebrities.

 

[a runner]

I disagree. The public highly values education, you could even say a culture of education worship exists among some. That's why they want to throw unlimited amounts of money at free K-12 education and that's why so many kids go to college for no reason at all. It's why these forgiveness programs exist in the first place, to bail out those people. The fortunate unintended side effect (for us) is that we may get to take advantage of these programs too.

 

[Dharma]

Less government would give us the debt and no way to lessen the burden of it....

I didn't say no government. But less BS and more efficiency would go a long ways.

 

[a runner]

Less government would give us the debt and no way to lessen the burden of it....

Except if there weren't federally guaranteed loan programs, then very few would afford higher education, mostly only those whose parents pay for it, or those who really really want it. If very few could afford education, the demand would be much less and the cost (and therefore loans) would probably be a fraction of what it is now.

Not saying we should take away these federal loans now, I mean the genie's out of the bottle, maybe just phase them out for new borrowers, but it's not true that less government would mean there is anywhere near the same amount of student debt.

 

[NontradCA]

I disagree. The public highly values education, you could even say a culture of education worship exists among some. That's why they want to throw unlimited amounts of money at free K-12 education and that's why so many kids go to college for no reason at all. It's why these forgiveness programs exist in the first place, to bail out those people. The fortunate unintended side effect (for us) is that we may get to take advantage of these programs too.

Throwing money at something means nothing. It's song and dance. Kids aren't learning **** in school and their parents take very little interest in what they do learn. Kids go to college because they either want to succeed or because they want to become "worldly". It's not for educational reasons.

 

[a runner]

I'll agree with that. I think the reason education is so important to a lot of parents is because it gets their kids out of their hair for free all day. Then they can both work jobs and still not have enough money because everyone does that now and it drives up prices for everything from housing to food. I'd say kids go to college for those reasons, but also because they're indoctrinated from day 1 "education=success" and "education is the way out" and "education leads to happiness in life" instead of telling them that hard work, wise decisions, internal contentment, and a little bit of luck=success. Plus they're just lazy and want to delay working for an extra 6 years of undergrad education just to do the same jobs they would have started out with without the degree.

 

[Silent Cool]

Less government would give us the debt and no way to lessen the burden of it....

This is patently false. If there were no federal loan program to hand you the money like it's candy, then the tuition would drop like a rock. Back in the 60s and 70s, before any widespread federal student loan intervention, tuition was reasonable. In fact, the COA at Berkeley in today's dollars would be about $3700 per year. The ACTUAL cost is $33,000, and that's directly because of the federal government, not in spite of it. In the absence of any federal subsidy of higher education, you wouldn't need these asinine loan repayment programs, because you could pay out of pocket for education, or the costs would be so small that a private bank would loan you the money. Instead, you are going to spend 30 years paying back the money rather than three. Thanks, federal government, for one more disastrous program.

 

[DocEspana]

everyone here really needs to pull up a chart of tuition increases over the last 40 years look at it and then look at what point we start giving out federal loans. And then realize how completely off base you all are. The timings do not match up in the least. I'm not saying there wouldn't be in packs for doing something now, only that there was no relation between tuitions be coming out of control and federal loans becoming easier to acquire. In fact it has been quite the opposite the tuitions rose sky high well before the government came in to try to help people by giving easier to acquire loans

 

[rob554]

No. There may be rare exceptions, but jobs that appear to be employed by the hospital are actually mediated through a private physician group or even a private subsidiary of the hospital itself. In some states, it is illegal for hospitals to directly employ physicians, regardless of whether they are for-profit or non-profit.

For example, if you work at Kaiser Permanente, you work at a non-profit hospital but you are employed or a partner in the for-profit physician group. In Northern California, this is The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. This is how nearly all physicians working at hospitals are employed. The exception is federal or state run hospitals such as the VA, Indian Health Services, prisons, and state run psychiatric hospitals. Even many academic jobs are employed through for-profit physician groups who contract with the universities to provide their services.

This is not entirely true. Many religiously-affiliated hospitals still include their physicians groups under their non-profit umbrella. I wouldn't call it "rare exceptions."

 

[cbtk18]

No. There may be rare exceptions, but jobs that appear to be employed by the hospital are actually mediated through a private physician group or even a private subsidiary of the hospital itself. In some states, it is illegal for hospitals to directly employ physicians, regardless of whether they are for-profit or non-profit.

For example, if you work at Kaiser Permanente, you work at a non-profit hospital but you are employed or a partner in the for-profit physician group. In Northern California, this is The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. This is how nearly all physicians working at hospitals are employed. The exception is federal or state run hospitals such as the VA, Indian Health Services, prisons, and state run psychiatric hospitals. Even many academic jobs are employed through for-profit physician groups who contract with the universities to provide their services.

I don't think this is true

 

[Dharma]

Throwing money at something means nothing. It's song and dance. Kids aren't learning **** in school and their parents take very little interest in what they do learn. Kids go to college because they either want to succeed or because they want to become "worldly". It's not for educational reasons.

Some of THE worst performing school systems are well funded. Not to go too far off topic but it has less to do with money than it does family values and the work ethic (or lack of) instilled by parents/guardians upon their children. I saw it teaching in the inner city at a school with over 90% of the students considered to be living in poverty. (But do understand, this school was well funded).

Take two families: family A and family B… both dirt poor and both sets of parents working crazy hours to put food on the table. Family A gives priority to their child's education- shows up at conferences, gets on their kids' cases when they step out of line or underperform, and sets the bar high, expecting success and no less. This kid succeeds… and even when he struggles, he keeps on pushing. Family B's parents don't show up to anything. They don't respond to phone calls or the kids' crap grades or the progress reports about his behavior. This kid fails. He gets pushed through the system (the same system in the same neighborhood as A) and ends up getting involved in street b.s.

So what's up? Both kids coming from the same demographics, with two very different results. Money may be involved to some degree on a grand scale (definitely in terms of nutrition), but when it comes down to it, it's all about what happens at home. Not too much a politician can do to change this. Regardless, those looking for simple solutions will think it's about tossing dollars at the problem, and do so in vain.

Ok, sorry for the derail. Back to this soon-to-fail loan forgiveness program...

 

[DocEspana]

This is not entirely true. Many religiously-affiliated hospitals still include their physicians groups under their non-profit umbrella. I wouldn't call it "rare exceptions."

As yourself and at least one other person said: Once youre out you make the decision to either become an employed physician (as the large majority of hospitals are not-for-profit) and are covered as public service or you become a private practicioner and then it becomes a bit tricky depending on where you work and the office you run... but you probably are considered for-profit. Its not a rare exception. Its the new normal. Employed physicians are the majority (plurality?) now.

 

[a runner]

everyone here really needs to pull up a chart of tuition increases over the last 40 years look at it and then look at what point we start giving out federal loans. And then realize how completely off base you all are. The timings do not match up in the least. I'm not saying there wouldn't be in packs for doing something now, only that there was no relation between tuitions be coming out of control and federal loans becoming easier to acquire. In fact it has been quite the opposite the tuitions rose sky high well before the government came in to try to help people by giving easier to acquire loans

The reason tuition didn't just rapidly start increasing when the loans became available was because it took time for culture to change. When my parents went to college in the 70's they took out a few thousand dollars in loans for their whole degree and worked the rest. They didn't want loans. We didn't become irresponsible overnight just because a law changed, there is a lag.

Federal loans being available are not enough by itself, you also have to have lines of millions of kids lining up for a college education, willing to pay any amount, not knowing what said degree will be used for. It used to be the default plan was to get a job and work after you graduate high school, now kids are pressured to go to college, even if they wouldn't want to.

 

[DocEspana]

....tuition rose first. Something everyone seems to be missing.

(its actually a lot more complex and requires looking at the trend of tuitions over decades and identifying when it began not just increasing at a steady rate, but accelerating. And then when loans were made easier and easier to attain in stepwise fashion. but in all cases, the rises in cost FAR pre-date the modifications of loan accessibility. Loans are modified as a stopgate and costs are rising prior to loan availabilit and have been rising completely independently of furhter loan modifications. The presence of loans as a reason for tuition hikes is a complete red herring and the facts back it up even if 'logic' seems to suggest otherwise)

 

[a runner]

This is not entirely true. Many religiously-affiliated hospitals still include their physicians groups under their non-profit umbrella. I wouldn't call it "rare exceptions."

I don't think this is true

Look it up if you don't believe me. Find me an example of a doctor working at a non-profit hospital that you think qualifies for PSLF, other than government (federal, state, county, city) run hospitals. I'll give a few examples and sources while you try:

Kaiser Permanente: non-profit hospital run by a non-profit foundation, but each physician practicing at any of their hospitals does not qualify, I assure you. Look at their Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente.

..."Permanente Medical Groups are physician-owned organizations, which provide and arrange for medical care for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan members in each respective region. The medical groups are for-profit partnerships or professional corporations and receive nearly all of their funding from Kaiser Foundation Health Plans. The first medical group, The Permanente Medical Group, formed in 1948 in Northern California."...

If you don't believe wikipedia, look up their business filings. They are professional corporations (for-profit by definition):
http://physiciancareers.kp.org/kaiser-home.html
http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:0::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:586493
http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/

You think religiously-affiliated hospitals are any different? I doubt it. Here's just one example that I know of, Mercy Hospitals. All physicians are employed by Mercy Medical Group, which has various subsidiaries such as Mercy Doctors Medical Group, Inc. and Mercy Medical Group of Specialists, Inc. I'm telling you, search the secretary of state website I listed above. Talk to any medical director that works at a hospital or better yet, a hospital administrator. They will tell you. If you are a physician and work at a non-government run hospital, with rare exception, your employment does not qualify for PSLF.

 

[DocEspana]

With the way this is going, I'm bowing out before it winds up being a discussion of hypothetical rather than the potential repayment cap. Because I can't tell you if cutting loan accessibility will lower education costs. I can tell you that of you think the presence of loans lead to rising tuition, you are categorically wrong. If you think it has fed into the rising cost recently, you ate most likely wrong as all the data suggests changing loan availability has haf zero impact on the rate tuition rises. But I can't say that tuition wouldn't have leveled off without it, but now you're talking about hypothetical breaks in a trend that showed no evidence of occurring to begin with.

If you're saying it will help to cut back on them..... you may actually be right. But idk of any of us are fortune tellers here.

<bows out>