Obama might get harder on the for profits

[dichloromethane]

This isn't meant to be a political thread, but it looks like Obama will have a second term.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

I'm independent, but I think Obama may be beneficial for dental professionals. Maybe with Obama's push against for-profit schools, the possible saturation may be off-set.

Obama's loan repayment will be a windfall for any pre-dental or dental student with their tuition. Although that same loan repayment "cut" will just add to our deficit, at least the tuition bubble may subside.

This might be a good thing for us. Now, on the other hand, lower fees + loan repayment + bad economy = more applicants.

I know the pharmacy people would love it. They take over-saturation to a whole new level. Watch out JD, the PharmDs are coming.

Food for the brain.

What do you think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jmh018]

I think that Romney is going to get more than 300 electoral votes. I wouldn't count on Obama to do anything he promises anyway.

 

[shootingstar7]

Obama leading by 1 point in the polls does not equal a second term. Four years ago today he was ahead by 7.6 points and today he is ahead by .7 points. Thats well within the margin of error.

 

[sacapuntas]

What does being hard on for-profit schools have to do with dental saturation? We don't have any for-profit dental schools.

 

[jmh018]

Obama leading by 1 point in the polls does not equal a second term!!

Gallup, the most accurate poll in every election has Romney up by 1 to 3 over sampling democrats by 5 or 6 points. It's going to be Romney.

 

[shootingstar7]

What does being hard on for-profit schools have to do with dental saturation? We don't have any for-profit dental schools.

Isnt LECOM for profit?

 

[sacapuntas]

Isnt LECOM for profit?

No....none of them are.

 

[SoulPower]

No....none of them are.

Umm Midwesterns, Western. Pretty much any school that only has GP and no research = for profit school.

 

[Bis-GMA111]

.

 

[Bis-GMA111]

i completely disagree...not investing in research (or as much in research) doesn't make you a "for profit school". if that were the case a majority of osteopathic med schools would be "for profit". only 1 osteo med school is atm.

devry is a "for profit institution."

 

[DDS Perez]

I think that Romney is going to get more than 300 electoral votes. I wouldn't count on Obama to do anything he promises anyway.

👍

 

[sacapuntas]

Umm Midwesterns, Western. Pretty much any school that only has GP and no research = for profit school.

Again, no dental school is for profit. Not sure if you are being facetious or not, but they are all non-profit institutions according to their tax designation.

 

[dichloromethane]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ctions_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

You cannot use a single measure for accuracy when it comes to ellection. RCP compiles all the polls from FOX to CNN.

Obama being hard on for-profits may help dentists pushing against opening up these new schools for the same reason Obama is hard in for-profits in the first place:

They're mills that lead to unemployment and over-saturation.

I also think that the loan repayment is a big windfall to pre-dental and pre-med students.

 

[Life Sucks]

So if you can't afford Dental school,no soup for you...
Too bad, 90% take out loans....
I should've move to Switzerland while I had a chance, we're doomed.

 

[sacapuntas]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ctions_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

You cannot use a single measure for accuracy when it comes to ellection. RCP compiles all the polls from FOX to CNN.

Obama being hard on for-profits may help dentists pushing against opening up these new schools for the same reason Obama is hard in for-profits in the first place:

What has Obama done to be hard on for-profits?

What new schools opening are for profit?

They're mills that lead to unemployment and over-saturation.

What schools are the mills? The new schools? They aren't for profit. They could be 'mills' as you are saying, but what does Obama have on his agenda to address them? Nothing.

I also think that the loan repayment is a big windfall to pre-dental and pre-med students.

People throw this around all the time on the forum and no one ever shares the actual plan. I would be curious if there is something out there other than the IBR where you pay 10% of your income beyond 1.5x the poverty line and after 30 years (or something, cant remember) your loans are forgiven EXCEPT that forgiveness is counted as income, interest included. If this is the plan you are touting, no thanks.





You are full of empty rhetoric in my opinion. Feel free to post up info that shows otherwise.

 

[NDPitch]

If Romney doesn't win, the future for our country could be pretty scary. Our debt is now 35% higher per capita than Greece...

This is scary stuff.

 

[UltimateHombre]

Again, no dental school is for profit. Not sure if you are being facetious or not, but they are all non-profit institutions according to their tax designation.

This is 100% correct!! No dental school is for-profit!!

Isnt LECOM for profit?

Umm Midwesterns, Western. Pretty much any school that only has GP and no research = for profit school.

You are getting "private" confused with "for-profit". Midwestern, Western, Roseman, LECOM are all private universities, just like Harvard, Columbia, and Penn, but they don't have the reputation. But as far as funding and taxes go from the government, they operate very much the same. Albeit, the ives have much larger alumni endowments and research grants, but this has little to do with the government.

For-profit = A company that has shareholders, they have quotas and are run like a business. That is why places like University of Phoenix, Devry, Kaplan, etc will make outbound calls to try and increase student enrollment. Their "enrollment councilors" used to be paid on commission, until legislation was enacted making this not possible, as it was extremely unethical.

Here is a good recent article on for-profit schools: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ver-students/2012/07/29/gJQA3zm6IX_story.html

Private = No shareholders. Not operated by the government. Receive very little, to no funds from federal and state governments. No tax payers money goes to help or fund the school, that is why tuition and acceptances are not biased to instate residents. However, they do get certain types of tax breaks, loans, and grants for expansion. Since they receive little to no governmental funds, that is why their tuition is usually extremely high... to offset the funds they are not getting the government.

Public = No shareholders. Mainly operated and funded trough both federal and state governments. Tax payers money goes directly toward operations, that is why tuition and acceptances are favored toward instate applicants. They get more tax breaks, loans, grants etc. Since they receive a lot of funds from the government, they are able to offer lower tuition to instate students.

 

[SoulPower]

Rather than quote your whole message Hombre, I'll just write a response.

Yes you are correct that I did misuse my words.

BUT to say that all these new schools opening has nothing to do with guaranteed federal grants, and tuitions that cost an arm and a leg AND no one is profiting I call bs on that. If these institutions are only training people and running a clinic why are they so damn expensive? Someone is making money off of these educational enterprises.

 

[jpark1800]

This isn't meant to be a political thread, but it looks like Obama will have a second term.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

I'm independent, but I think Obama may be beneficial for dental professionals. Maybe with Obama's push against for-profit schools, the possible saturation may be off-set.

Obama's loan repayment will be a windfall for any pre-dental or dental student with their tuition. Although that same loan repayment "cut" will just add to our deficit, at least the tuition bubble may subside.

This might be a good thing for us. Now, on the other hand, lower fees + loan repayment + bad economy = more applicants.

I know the pharmacy people would love it. They take over-saturation to a whole new level. Watch out JD, the PharmDs are coming.

Food for the brain.

What do you think?

I think Obama is going to win. The National poll DOES NOT MATTER. The swing state polls matter and Obama is winning in these. I don't want him to, but he will win. I think the Senate will still be Dem, and the House of Reps will be Republican (unless some idiot comes up with a gods will comment). THE STATUS QUO WILL BE MAINTAINED. NOTHING WILL CHANGE. I GUARANTEE IT.

Obama is no good for dentists. Sure he is cracking down on for-profit-schools, but this isn't our greatest threat. A major threat to dentists is the Comprehensive Dental Reform Act, sponsored by Bernie Sanders and Eliajh Cummings, which gives the dental therapists more power. Obama will add more regulations, add more taxes, and he might just get his hands on dentistry as well. He is a puppet of the trial lawyers, who like to sue healthcare professionals (such as DDS) at the tiniest thing. The dems seem to always target the private practice healthcare professionals, instead of the corrupt large healthcare organizations.

His foreign policy isn't perfect, but its better than most presidents. Maybe his downsizing of the military will give less opportunity for military dentistry?? I don't know.

He is no good. Neither is Romney, who would bend over backwards to please dental chains (another major threat) who are funded by his buddies on wall street. But at least Romney won't add taxes, won't socialize dentistry, won't add more regulations.

Doesn't matter who you vote for. They both suck. Both are corrupt fools.

 

[sacapuntas]

Rather than quote your whole message Hombre, I'll just write a response.

Yes you are correct that I did misuse my words.

BUT to say that all these new schools opening has nothing to do with guaranteed federal grants, and tuitions that cost an arm and a leg AND no one is profiting I call bs on that. If these institutions are only training people and running a clinic why are they so damn expensive? Someone is making money off of these educational enterprises.

Tuition at Temple: 54228 http://www.temple.edu/bursar/about/tuitionrates.htm

Tuition at Western: 60950 http://www.westernu.edu/financial-budgets-dentistry

Tuition at LECOM: 48000 http://lecom.edu/financial-aid.php/School-of-Dental-Medicine-Tuition-Fees/49/2205/621/2486





So your school is right in the middle of these 'for-profit' institutions.


I agree these prices are ridiculous, but to call some schools for profit and some others not for profit makes no sense.

 

[UltimateHombre]

BUT to say that all these new schools opening has nothing to do with guaranteed federal grants, and tuitions that cost an arm and a leg AND no one is profiting I call bs on that. If these institutions are only training people and running a clinic why are they so damn expensive? Someone is making money off of these educational enterprises.

I agree with you, but to say that only the new schools are at fault is simply incorrect. The OOS costs for most of the public schools is right on par for private school tuition. And many of the public schools will not allow you to obtain instate residency; they make you sign an affidavit saying you won't before you enroll. So i think that dental education as a whole is at fault.

We can't blame the "new" schools and forget about the "old" privates that have increased their tuition just the same as the new. Harvard, Penn, Columbia, Case, Nova, USC, UOP, Loma Linda, BU, Tufts, NYU... they are also all at fault for "tuition gouging". The publics are also the same... look at the OOS tuition for any of them, outrageous!!

Yes, somebody or some entity is making money, but it is anyone's guess where the tuition is going??? I just know it is not going to shareholders or the dental faculty.

 

[SoulPower]

At saca;

I admitted that I incorrectly used "for-profit" above. But the point stands that at least Columbia/NYU/Harvard. These schools are furthering the knowledge and clinical tx practices of the dental profession with their tuition and grants via research and publications.

A school w/o such programs is for lack of a better word, a dental mill that is spitting out dentists.

Just to make it clear. I'm not saying that high tuition = for profit. Dental education is rising across the board and it's getting on the edge of ridiculous; I hope some of you predents think about your future debt to income and decide if some of these school's education costs are really worth it.

And about temple's edu cost; believe me I'm not happy about what I pay. But it's what I chose and you gotta stick it out.

 

[DMDWANNABEE]

I think the number of dental schools will continue to climb regardless of who holds the presidential office.

Regardless though, I would say Obama's support of the ACA's provision regarding the establishment of dental therapists would be the bigger issue. I feel that dental therapists would increase perceived competition/saturation much more than the addition of new dental schools.

 

[byuAD]

Umm Midwesterns, Western. Pretty much any school that only has GP and no research = for profit school.

Umm Midwestern actually has a lot of current research and some well funded.
Any new dental school that has opened in the last 10 years, everyone says "Wow, look at the tuition, they must be for-profit!" (Although it is very possible there is monetary motivations in opening these schools) In reality, these people haven't looked at the current tuition of most private schools. All are sky high. That's just fact. Next.

 

[jpark1800]

Puerto Rico dental school is best. Harvard is the worst. All others suck. The End.

And speaking of puerto rico, they are actually voting on whether they should become a state or not. Of course it has to go to US congress for approval. 51 stars on the flag FTW 👍

 

[goffdent]

State schools, who's main intent is to promote dentists in their own state= NOT for profit.
Private schools may have interest in that as well, especially if they're subsidized, but unreasonably high tuition = for profit.

 

[sacapuntas]

State schools, who's main intent is to promote dentists in their own state= NOT for profit.
Private schools may have interest in that as well, especially if they're subsidized, but unreasonably high tuition = for profit.

#1 There is a hard definition for profit vs non-profit and ALL dental schools are non-profit.

#2 When is tuition 'unreasonably high' and who is gaining from the tuition?

 

[goffdent]

#1 There is a hard definition for profit vs non-profit and ALL dental schools are non-profit.

#2 When is tuition 'unreasonably high' and who is gaining from the tuition?

No.. you're right.. they're completely in it for the butterflies it gives them in their stomach just knowing they helped you gain an education.

Tuition is unreasonably high when it costs more than MOST people's houses, not to mention the fact that one could go to med school for a 1/3 of the price in many states, and also attend a med school that does not see a thousand "treatment-paying" patients a day.

 

[sacapuntas]

No.. you're right.. they're completely in it for the butterflies it gives them in their stomach just knowing they helped you gain an education.

Tuition is unreasonably high when it costs more than MOST people's houses, not to mention the fact that one could go to med school for a 1/3 of the price in many states, and also attend a med school that does not see a thousand "treatment-paying" patients a day.

Who is arguing tuition isn't high? That is different than saying a school is 'for profit'.

Also, similar to the previous dental student taking a stand against 'for profit' dental schools, Iowa charges 56,270 for OOS tuition...not so different than the new 'for profit' dental schools.

 

[UltimateHombre]

Who is arguing tuition isn't high? That is different than saying a school is 'for profit'.

Also, similar to the previous dental student taking a stand against 'for profit' dental schools, Iowa charges 56,270 for OOS tuition...not so different than the new 'for profit' dental schools.

+1

The cost of dental education is more or less the same around the US, but public schools get an extra boost from the tax payers money.

What we pay extra for private school or OOS tuiton, is made up for by federal and state money for the instate public school attendees.

Hypothetical Ex:
All Dental Schools cost 50K...
Private or OOS tuition - student is responsible for all 50K
Public instate tuition - student is responsible for 25K, tax payers/government responsible for 25K

 

[SoulPower]

Umm Midwestern actually has a lot of current research and some well funded.

When I interviewed there I asked about research. They said they had none despite what I had read on their website. Straight from my interviewers mouth, "We are only interested in turning out general practitioners"

 

[jeffity]

When I interviewed there I asked about research. They said they had none despite what I had read on their website. Straight from my interviewers mouth, "We are only interested in turning out general practitioners"

I'm not currently interested in it, so I haven't looked into what's going on. But outside of dental, I know there's research going on. I get emails about it. No idea of the extent, but according to my emails there have been 10 research projects for dental approved so for 2012-2013. I'm no researcher, so I don't know exactly what you asked or what they told you. But in general, it's a clinical school. But it sounds like if you're into it, they try to accommodate.

 

[goffdent]

I retract my previous statement which was made out of frustration.There's no doubt they're all expensive, sickeningly expensive sometimes.