What effect will Republican dominated government have on med students?

[hopeful28]

Do you think it's possible with Bush as president, a republican dominated congress, and senate that they may try to eliminate student loan funding or reduce it? This is really bothering me because as of right now, the maximum Stafford loan you can borrow for med school is $38,500. But they always include the following statement in any government financial aid literature, "pending further congressional approval". Well, since republicans are traditionally penney pinchers, do you think that they would try and reduce or eliminate this type of funding?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[adismo]

The Republican Bush may become President next month, but Democrats still have a stong presence in Congress. I hope and pray that the good ol' boys don't get anywhere in trying to limit educational funds available for medical students. Like a fair number of my colleagues, my parents are not from the physician strata. I've studied hard to move up in the world and get accepted to medschool, just to have this overgrown daddy's boy come in and limit loan funding for medstudents.

If Bush does this, all the more reason for me to apply for the HSPS military scholarships. Input anyone?

 

[PimplePopperMD]

The effect of a Bush white house will be extreme on medical students.

1.) George W. will put to death all medical students who mistake the "freshman nerve" for a real nerve.

2.) George W. will put to death all medical students who are deemed to be, in his opinion or in James Baker's opinion, to be "major league dinguses".

3.) George W. will put to death all medical students who are democrats, and yet resist his demand to "be brought together with the republicans".

And, my friends, that is just the beginning. A Bush presidency will bring even more laughter than the Quayle vice-presidency. Don't you love these republicans?

 

[gower]

Let's go back to the good old days when only the right people, those that could afford it
out of mater and pater's bank account, went to medical school. It will lend a touch of class, sadly lacking now, to the professions. And yes, when mostly Anglo-Saxon white Protestant males could become MDs. Think of all the money it will save in taxes. And when high grades and MCAT scores were of little importance as long as you went to the right college and joined the right fraternities. And if people were too
poor to pay for medical care that was their problem. Think of it, natural selection at work weeding out all those lazy, low class undesirables. Sock it to them! Those were the days my friend, we thought they would never end. And drat World World II, when the GI Bill democratized education. All that tax money spent on subsidizing veterans overreaching ambitions. Wasn't it reward enough that could be proud to have served their country and to have had the opportunity to die for it? At least they could have restricted it to the officer class.
What has this country come to?

 

[Floyd77803]

Come on now, do you think George W. gives two ****s about stafford loans? he's trying to reduce spending and since loans are generally repaid they aren't a top priority. If he does anything to healthcare it will be to attempt a reform, maybe it will work, or maybe it won't, but as far as i'm concerned it will be a lot better for doctors then Gore's idea for socialized health care.

 

[BigSkyDreams]

Howdy,

Gower I like your style!

If it were not for the government's willingness to co-sign my loans, thus my eductation, I would have ended up working in the mine like the rest of the gang. (Might still if I don't get in this year!) But through the military and GI Bill (Government)I have been able to rise above my environment. I support educational loans, as well as affordable healthcare and insurance, for the non-wealthy. Of course if I didn't I would be a hypocrit too take the 'I've got mine, screw the rest' mentality. Republican and Democrates look to bend the working poor over because they can. Power is intoxicating. The best we can hope for is gridlock.

And for all you proud people who have never taken a hand out, make sure you don't go to a state school or buy gas or food or clothes or drive on highways ... , it is rumored that these things have all been subsidized by the government, just like that burned out crack addict on the Welfare. (Clothes? What does he mean? Anyhting that is imported into the US is protected by the US Navy, a Government agency, think about the actual cost of those Cheap VCR's when you add in the cost for just ONE battle ship. And don't get me started on the wheat and cattle industries!!!!)

Please continue paying your taxes, I depend on you! Thanks for the loans, I promise to pay some of the money back!

------------------
BSD
______
Work under the assumption that you will be happy one day

 

[gower]

I have nothing against white Anglo-Saxon males, or females, or any other group. Indeed, they are now another minority possibly soon needing protection against discrimination themselves. I was, though in sarcasm, pointing out what once existed in this country. There was far more bias against all kinds of people than many young people know about. The Founding Fathers (I don't recall any mothers) of the United States were white, male, most of English descent, hence Anglo-Saxon. Bias was not only against Blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics, but against the Irish (there were once signs in saloons "dogs and Irish not allowed", against Jews and Catholics (Jack Kennedy was the first president of Irish ancestry), we recently came close to having the first Jewish vice-president). Blacks and Hispanics were long discriminated against in professional school admission, that barrier first breached in the 1960s; the barrier to Jews was first breached about 1950.
In truth, medical school admission was for the longest time largely the province of the well-to-do, whites, chiefly of what is called "Anglo-Saxon" heritage. (Even Anglo-Saxon is a misnomer; the English are a mixture of Angles, Saxons, Danes and Norwegians (Germanic groups), Normans (themselves of Viking ancestry), Celts (once spread all across Europe), the present day Welsh and Irish). King Arthur was a Celt, a Briton (hence Britain) fighting the Angles and Saxons. A large part of what is now England was once a Danish province; King Canute was a Dane. (The Vikings, by the way, got all the way down to the Mediterranean and the Middle East; the Rus (hence Russian) were Norwegians who went east.
Largely until after WWII, you or your family had to pay your own way into the private medical schools, there were no grants or gifts. The state universities, called Land Grant universities were supported by state grants of land and funded by taxes (oh, the horror).
Now, the USA is a magnificent conglomeration of peoples from everywhere in the world and medical school classes reflect that diversity. In the future there may even be peoples from Star Trek Land graduating from Earth's medical academies. I can appreciate WASP (even that name is commonly meant as a slur) sensitivity, no different from that of other minorities. Now they will understand what it is to be a minority. Let us all hope that our tax dollars will continue to be used for the public's benefit. Excellence can be found among all humanity.

 

[Nanook]

When the heck did Bush *ever* mention lowering or eliminating student loan packages? When was this *ever* a Republican stance?

There are a number of problems with student loans (the easy availability of them are the #1 reason that college costs have skyrocketed in the past 15 years), but never has any Republican or other politician (except perhaps Libertarians) proposed eliminating them. They are not a huge tax drain on our system.

One thing the Republicans will be in favor of, which should make all current and future med school students sit up and take notice, is eliminating Clinton's ridiculous taxation of the NHSC, HPSP, and similar scholarships, which makes recipients of said scholarships, especially those who attend private or out-of-state schools, lose most of their monthly stipend to taxes.

The average working American already pays 40% of his/her income in taxes. Enough is enough, already.

 

[hopeful28]

Originally posted by Nanook:
When the heck did Bush *ever* mention lowering or eliminating student loan packages? When was this *ever* a Republican stance?

There are a number of problems with student loans (the easy availability of them are the #1 reason that college costs have skyrocketed in the past 15 years), but never has any Republican or other politician (except perhaps Libertarians) proposed eliminating them. They are not a huge tax drain on our system.

One thing the Republicans will be in favor of, which should make all current and future med school students sit up and take notice, is eliminating Clinton's ridiculous taxation of the NHSC, HPSP, and similar scholarships, which makes recipients of said scholarships, especially those who attend private or out-of-state schools, lose most of their monthly stipend to taxes.

The average working American already pays 40% of his/her income in taxes. Enough is enough, already.

Don't get to worried, I only posted this thread because of the possibility of this happening. Bush never mentioned any plans of eliminating student loans in his agenda. The reason that I have posted this is because I felt that this could be a possibilty with Bush in office since republicans for the most part would rather help the rich get richer rather than the poor (who are the people that rely on student loans). I feel in some ways that Bush may have a hidden agenda.

 

[Monkey]

Another thing to consider is that if there is anything that George W. Bush does differently than the current Congressional Republican leadership it is in his education policy-making. It's true that most of his policy does concern elementary and secondary school. However, there are elements of his policy directed toward further help for college and post-graduate work--not toward removing that help.

 

[CAT]

Originally posted by Nanook:
One thing the Republicans will be in favor of, which should make all current and future med school students sit up and take notice, is eliminating Clinton's ridiculous taxation of the NHSC, HPSP, and similar scholarships, which makes recipients of said scholarships, especially those who attend private or out-of-state schools, lose most of their monthly stipend to taxes.

Excuse me but it was under REAGAN when scholarships, assistanships etc. first became taxable. In that lovely 1986 law to help the rich stay richer, grad students etc. had to begin paying income tax not only on their small stipends (around $8k per year then) but also on the amount of tuition money that was waived on their behalf. In many cases these tuition fees were never even paid by anyone - simply waived - yet on W-2 forms those fees were listed as income. Out-of-state students at state schools really had a hardship. I believe some reform has corrected this now.

 

[Nanook]

To CAT:

I did a little research to check on your above statement. Well, it turns out you were right, in a technical sense. Apparently, the taxation was based on a 1986 tax revision (Reagan Administration), but was not enforced by the IRS until a re-interpretation by them that took place around 1994-97, i.e, the Clinton Administration. So in a sense, I was also right. However, I probably should have done my homework before I spouted my mouth off a bit too soon. Thanks for not "slamming" me.

Hopefully this law will be removed soon.

For further clarification, here is an excerpt from a joint statement by the AAMC/AACOM:

On August 29, 1997, the NHSC sent notification to health professions schools and students of their intention, based on the result of a new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpretation, to begin withholding
federal income tax on the entire amount of scholarships awarded to NHSC scholarship recipients. According to the IRS, taxation of the entire scholarship amount is required to comply with a change in the
tax code, specifically a 1986 amendment to 26 USC 117 (c).
In 1994, the NHSC sought clarification of the 1986 amendment to section 117 (c) from the IRS. The IRS interpretation concluded that NHSC scholarships are awarded as payment for substantial future
services and therefore are not excludable from gross income under section 117 (c). The IRS distinguishes NHSC scholarships from other award programs administered by the Department of Health and
Human Services such as Scholarships for Students with Exceptional Financial Need (EFN), Financial Assistance for Disadvantaged Health Professions Students (FADHPS), and Mental Health Clinical
Traineeship (MHCT). The IRS concluded that these programs "do not impose the same substantial quid pro quo service requirements on the participants as are imposed upon NHSC participants" and
therefore are not subject to the same federal taxation.

Prior to 1986, NHSC scholarship recipients were required to pay federal tax only on the stipend portion of the scholarship. Tuition and related expenses were excluded from gross income. Although an
unintended effect of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was to levy tax on NHSC scholarships, the provision went unnoticed and unenforced until the NHSC's 1994 inquiry. To comply with the 1997 IRS
interpretation, the NHSC began withholding the entire tax obligation from the stipend part of the scholarship, beginning December 1, 1997. Many NHSC scholarship recipients encountered drastic
reductions in the amount of their monthly stipends as a result of the IRS interpretation.

[This message has been edited by Nanook (edited 12-15-2000).]

 

[kimberlicox]

Originally posted by CAT:
Excuse me but it was under REAGAN when scholarships, assistanships etc. first became taxable."

Reagan also cut a considerable amount of funding for medical research, INCLUDING the grant I was working on for...ALZHEIMER's disease! The irony is staggering albeit tragic.

 

[pag]

Huh, Bush vs. Gore,

Surely this issue could be debated until the next election. When I examined the issues regarding health care and medical education, I saw a lot of similarities. It was the approach that was vastly different between the two. Gore proposed a ten thousand dollar tax credit to families with children entering /in college. Sounds like a great plan to me, but when I read the ultra fine detailed print that was difficult to interprit, (even to David Boies) I noticed some interesting problem for student. First, the TAX credit wasn't for everybody. In fact it potentially only helped the well to do in our society.
If your poor, you probably can't come up with ten grand to pay up front in september when most student start college. And I don't think most colleges/univ. are going to waite until the following year after taxes are filed and tax refunds arrive. Second, if you recieve this tax credit, your not eligable for most federal aid after your first year. Your only eligle for aid your first year because you can't get the tax credit until the following year that you start school. Third, the reason he wants to start this tax credit is because he wants to limit the amount of capital financial aid extracted from the budget. The fact is the better part of all high school student are going to college and its becoming a big money loser for the government. Although this is beginning to change for males. Probably because there are a great deal of opportunites among blue-collar fields.
Fourth, the tax credit wasn't available to your family after the dependant turned 23 y/o. NOt a big help to students who want to go to medical college or graduate school. Personally I don't see any reason that aid for medical students will be disturbed simply because paying back loans shouldn't be a problem for most doctor'$. If anything it will be the PhD who just don't have that luxury. One of the main reasons I didn't support gore was because the Clinton Gore administration has failed to capatalize on a lot of opportunities involving health care reform. After Hillary Clinton's fallout with
health care reform ("socialized medicine") they basically abandoned the issue. Congress simply follow an orderly list unless the president bring a particular issue to the table. The Clinton administration failed to do this even after commitee urdged the president to do so time and time again. Apparently the administration didn't feel they had enough lobbyist on there side. I think Bush just comes from a different philosophy. He believes in surrounding himself with experts in a particular field to advise him and fairness. He has already said that he believes that healthcare reform should be brought about by doctors and not politicians. And don't forget, the congress isn't dominated by conservatives like many think. Don't forget the moderates like snow, collins, jefferds, ect. who are republicans, but are relatively liberal as far as social issues are concerned. I think bush will be interesting to watch. He brings with him a wife who's a teacher, a bipartisan history, a
previous lifestyle (wild) that perhaps put him in touch with "real" people in america. To me Bush is a little more real and puts a lot of confidence in advisors as opposed to having a lot of confidence in himself. It's sort of like medicine in which GP's put confidence in specialists to help there patients. Just to much out there to know everything yourself. Anyhow, that's just my two cents.

 

[Johnboy]

How does an otherwise intelligent person come to these sorts of conclusions? How fanciful and unrealistic can you be? I can only surmise that you have spent your entire life in an academic environment and have no idea how life is conducted in the real world. Absolutely nothing will change as a result of dubya being elected. Please find something more important to worry about.

 

[pyoj]

i look at it this way:

by the time we graduate medical school, we'll be making enough money to live a comfortable live, maybe even better, and pay off loans within 10 years.

we shouldn't worry about loans being cut because medical schools can't afford to lose people like us, who are dumping loads of cash for our educational investment. plus the country needs doctors. even if there are cuts, hundreds of private loans are out there that can be tapped.

those penny-pinching republicans might be able to increase our salaries. fact of the matter is, most doctors are in the higher tax bracket.

i voted for gore, but i'm confident that bush will do a good job...why? look at his cabinet. full of minorities with moderate voices. congress is split 50-50 along moderate lines. don't worry about the justice appointments, they screwed up big time with the entire florida fiasco. they need to save face somehow.

~jay