What Happens to Pharmacists if the Heath care bill passes tonight ?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I for one had no idea 9 years ago that when Bush was elected our country would hit the crapper.

. Lesson learned


I dunno, sounds like pretty cut and dried blame there. There's even a direct relationship:

Bush gets elected into office: Country hits crapper.

Well hey ,lesson learned!

You usually only "learn a lesson" after an acknowledged mistake and if you're not accusing GW of mistakes (blame), then this wouldn't have made any sense.

If you didn't intentionally do that, then I apologize. Seemed an AWFUL lot like blame.

Members don't see this ad.
 
teachers are not being paid well because its run by the government. everything government in American history= average condition .... most of us will be in debt after pharmacy school.... if we get 35% pay cut.... we cant pay that loan back...

Guess you guys wants to be like the Pharmacist in Japan where health is run by the government
 
I kinda wish that if business increases for pharmacists and all these chain pharmacies are making more money, that they can afford to pay techs more than they do. 10 bucks an hour for all the work they do really does suck.


Are you referring to certified pharmacy techs? If not, try starting at minimum wage ($7.25 here). But I took minimum wage so that I could get the experience so that's what matters more to me right now.


Woot, time to go to culinary school.


:laugh:

Why not truck driving school? :rofl:

:laugh:

...Hence my priority being hot wings at the moment :)

:laugh: I noticed that lol

lol I'm having a blast reading everyone's opinion!:laugh:

As you can see, I am too lol. Pretty interesting.

What surprises me about this whole discussion is how much people are focusing on SALARIES, instead of the fact that we will be insuring MILLIONS OF AMERICANS who right now have no access to health care.

Some are more in it for the Salary, then others are in it for the passion just like a lot of people who decide to be teachers (elementary - high school) although they know it's not a great salary. There's a big difference in if pharmacists make six-figure salaries than if pharmacists start making 40,000.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Really? The funny thing is, NYC teachers I believe are in a union but they are paid a lot less than the teachers out here on Long Island who don't have unions. (A lot of teachers try to get jobs in Long Island.)


Unionized Rhode Island Teachers Refuse To Work 25 Minutes More Per Day, So Town Fires All Of Them

A school superintendent in Rhode Island is trying to fix an abysmally bad school system.


Her plan calls for teachers at a local high school to work 25 minutes longer per day, eat lunch with students once in a while, and help with tutoring. The teachers' union has refused to accept these apparently onerous demands.

The teachers at the high school make $70,000-$78,000, as compared to a median income in the town of $22,000. This exemplifies a nationwide trend in which public sector workers make far more than their private-sector counterparts (with better benefits).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/24/rhode.island.teachers/index.html

Half the students are failing every subject, with 55 percent skilled in reading and 7 percent proficient in math, officials said.

...


A spokesman for the union said the teachers had accepted most of the changes, but wanted to work out compensation for the extra hours of work.
The superintendent said the two sides could not agree on a pay rate.

Average salary for teachers in NJ and CA is ~60k. Some of my teachers were making ~80k/year in HS... not a bad gig for getting summers off + all those other benefits.
 
Last edited:
So you think a Pharmacists in your town will make the same as yesterday ?

Hello wake up before you miss your flight ?

The '' Law of unintended consequences'' just passed so we all will suffer....It will not be perfect and some people must pay for it.= doctors, nurses , pharmacists
 
Average salary for teachers in NJ and CA is ~60k. Some of my teachers were making ~80k/year in HS... not a bad gig for getting summers off + all those other benefits.

I had no idea that high school teachers could make that much but maybe that's in the some places. That's good for a high school teacher. I could be wrong because I haven't researched it but I don't think it's like that here in the GA or any nearby states.
 
Please check if that is true... I dont think High school teachers make that much......
 
Please check if that is true... I dont think High school teachers make that much......


http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

Finding accurate beginning and average salaries for teachers by state is a tricky business. We've combined data from multiple sources, including the National Education Association, job surveys, and private data analyses to try to build the most accurate list of teacher salaries by state. We will update this page every time we get more information!

State Average Salary
California $59,825
Conneticut $59,304
Illinois $58,686
New Jersey $58,156
New York $57,354
Massachusets $56,369
Michigan $54,739
Rhode Island $54,730
Maryland $54,333
Delaware $54,264

Oh by the way , when I retired my salary was $77, 000.00 plus bonuses that yielded me closer to $88,000. That was of course due to longevity and education I had a masters plus 30 credit hours toward another masters.

At least in my school districts ... a Master's degree or higher was required before hiring teachers...
 
Azn, I hope you're not blaming G.W. for this mess.

A lot of things that we're experiencing now could've been avoided had good ol' Non-inhaler made some better choices.

And it ALL started with Reagan's nonsense "trickle down" crap. Give more money to rich people, and will they pass it on? Hell no, they'll save it... that's why they're rich and we're not.

Because most of the high school and much of the college educated population of this country cannot even calculate or tell you what "percent" is, it appealing to their sense of fairness and entitlement to have 5% of the country, which is already paying 90% of the taxes, to pay even more and at a higher rate than currently.

But of course, paying more for a plane ticket because their obese body is spilling over into the next one (they are very wealthy in terms of body mass) sounds unfair to them.
 
No, you are completely screwed. Do you think the government will let you make 100,000k a year without regulation? Do you think somehow you will not have to pay more taxes? Do you have a clue how much taxes someone with a 6-figure salary pays now? Or maybe you think that is unfair so stick it to them!

What makes you think Obama will stop here? Oh, in case you missed it, he just piggy-backed a student loan takeover in the health care bill. So now you are double-screwed. Tell me one government program that works? And where exactly will the money for the bill come from?

Capitalism died tonight, and so did your future large salary. If you think I am wrong, why not see how pharmacists are regulated in Canada and the UK. But don't worry, Obama will forgive your student loan. You just will not have any money because you will be paying taxes at the rate of Sweden. But hey, you will have free health care, even if you wait 2 years for that hip replacement and die of infection in the crappy hospitals.

You earn high, you get taxed high. Think about it as supporting your nation.

Insurance companies need to feel the pain. It's about damn time.
 
On a somewhat serious note, I have only one non-partisan comment. The problem with taxing high for high earnings is the rich people take their business elsewhere. GDP goes down as capital is spent more on imported services than domestic products (and their exports). Ask an economist, it's ECO101.

Then again, I'll admit I know nothing. That's what I've been told in school. So I have no problem being wrong. Ignorance is like my own Tiger Woods speech.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
:thumbup:
It is appalling that you are against poor people having more access to health care. Yeah, sure, I guess it's okay for that poor 5 year old girl who lives near the dumpster in the street with a leg infection to not get healthcare because her mom can't afford it since she's been out of a job. You really shouldn't be serving people at all if your prime concerns are "well, wah, what will happen to my 6-figure salary?" Truly sad.
 
teachers are not being paid well because its run by the government. everything government in American history= average condition .... most of us will be in debt after pharmacy school.... if we get 35% pay cut.... we cant pay that loan back...

Guess you guys wants to be like the Pharmacist in Japan where health is run by the government

When has this happened in the U.S. across the board for any profession...uh...ever?
 
teachers are not being paid well because its run by the government. everything government in American history= average condition .... most of us will be in debt after pharmacy school.... if we get 35% pay cut.... we cant pay that loan back...

Guess you guys wants to be like the Pharmacist in Japan where health is run by the government

Is the sky falling yet? I won't believe it until I smell brimstone ...
 
reform is needed, no one will argue that but not like this

there's many problems with this bill but the biggest thing IMO is how we are letting the government make decisions instead of doctors and their patents

it might benefit pharmacists a little due to more prescriptions

but it will ultimately hurt us due to higher taxes

oh and lol at people thinking everyone getting health insurance and putting the government in control is somehow hurting insurance companies

you're all ****ed
 
R-Tenn Marsha Blackburn

BLACKBURN: My colleagues are celebrating the birth of a great new entitlement program today. Only they see dependency on the Federal government and the death of freedom as a cause for celebration. My colleagues celebrate this day as being like the day when Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid were passed. They forget that today those programs are insolvent and will likely crush our children under their debt. My colleagues are overjoyed that soon their goal of having Americans dependent on the Federal government for mortgages, student loans, retirement and health care will be realized.

That is a chilling goal. My colleagues cheer that this bill is paid for. They ignore the fact that it is our children who will pay for their greed. My colleagues shame us for scaring the American people about the contents of this bill. We know the consequences of this bill will be frightening and horrible. Freedom dies a little bit today, unfortunately some are celebrating and I yield back

:laugh:
 
Whats really funny to see people who are pursing a pharmD, the same people that said "I want to become a pharmacist to help people" on their interview date, are the same ones that are the thinking the sky is falling due to the new healthcare bill.
If you are worried so much about your salary, then you are in the WRONG career. You can make a lot of money doing non healthcare work.

With that aside, we can all agree healthcare reform was necessary.

People worried about the economy: If you are worried about the economy and its current state, then the last thing you want is the federal deficit growing. In the long run, the healthcare bill will decrease the federal deficit. Do some research. Do you know how much uninsured people visiting the ER increase the cost of healthcare for all of us? Most of the people that are ininsured visit the ER because no one asks for insurance, help is provided first, when the same people do not pay their bills, the cost is spread over the people that do have healthcare. If you insure more people, the healthcare costs will decrease. That is just one thing, with preventative care, the same people may not long term conditions and less cost to the economy.

Worried about your salary: If the drug companies are loving this bill, and more people are going to be covered, and more people having drug coverage. I do not think that the salary will decrease, if anything there will be more demand or it will stay roughly around the same area. Im sure you have taken Econ as a pre req, so supply and demand. If anything, you should be more worried about saturation of pharmacist in the area you want to work.

** I support the bill even though it has a lot of exceptions and sweet deals for certain states. The reality is that in order to over haul the healthcare service it was not going to be like cutting butter. There is too much opposition. The reality is that some states are better than others, some individuals are better off than others. Some states have higher average income and insurance levels, they dont find it necessary for them to get one boat with the program. With people with coverage already, the last thing they want is more people with coverage because they think the quality of service of their plans will decrease because of a saturation of people have coverage.

The reason I support this bill is because:

1. There is medical and medicare. Medical takes care of the people below poverty, and medicare takes care of people above 65. Neither system is perfect, however there is a gap for people that make above poverty line but are unable to get insurance because of the cost. I would like the government to have a subsidy for these people. Remember ECON!! By giving subsidies instead of putting caps on prices and such, both the supplier and consumer do well? google it. Main Point: Allow people that want to get coverage be able to BUY coverage.

2. Pre exisiting conditions. Do you know how hard to get an insurance if you have a preexisiting condition? My girlfriends aunt had healthcare coverage through her work, and a few years ago the company she worked for shut down. Then a few weeks/months while she was looking for a job, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer. She tried everything to get insurance, but she was unable to get it. She ended up going out of the country to get her procedure done. If you are a citizen of America, there is no reason why you should have to go out of the country because you are unable to get coverage. She spent over 20K in test and such here before she went out of country for treatment. Also, i know for a fact that insurance companies cherry pick their clients and the companies that they cover. My friend is an adjuster for a big insurance company in northern CA, and he told me that his main job is to see how much they get in premiums from a company and employees and how much their healthcare services cost. If they are negative, then they either drop the coverage or change it to something else. Main Point: Let people with pre exisiting conditions purchase insurance, make cherry picking illegal

3. I don't like the idea that someone is suffering because they are unable to see a doctor. We live in a great country, a "first world country", then we need to think like first world citizens.

Last point: Nothing is perfect, and not everyone is going to be happy. If reform was easy, then it would have been done much earlier. Reform was necessary... no matter if you wanted it or not, you know that something had to be done. However, I understand the people that don't support the bill because it goes against their religion (abortion and such) because that is their religious view. That being said, you should understand why its so complicated to make a good healthcare bill.

PS: Dont kill me for my post hahahahaha.... I just have own views... you dont have to agree with them, but hey, you read them lol
 
Whats really funny to see people who are pursing a pharmD, the same people that said "I want to become a pharmacist to help people" on their interview date, are the same ones that are the thinking the sky is falling due to the new healthcare bill.
If you are worried so much about your salary, then you are in the WRONG career. You can make a lot of money doing non healthcare work.

With that aside, we can all agree healthcare reform was necessary.

People worried about the economy: If you are worried about the economy and its current state, then the last thing you want is the federal deficit growing. In the long run, the healthcare bill will decrease the federal deficit. Do some research. Do you know how much uninsured people visiting the ER increase the cost of healthcare for all of us? Most of the people that are ininsured visit the ER because no one asks for insurance, help is provided first, when the same people do not pay their bills, the cost is spread over the people that do have healthcare. If you insure more people, the healthcare costs will decrease. That is just one thing, with preventative care, the same people may not long term conditions and less cost to the economy.

Worried about your salary: If the drug companies are loving this bill, and more people are going to be covered, and more people having drug coverage. I do not think that the salary will decrease, if anything there will be more demand or it will stay roughly around the same area. Im sure you have taken Econ as a pre req, so supply and demand. If anything, you should be more worried about saturation of pharmacist in the area you want to work.

** I support the bill even though it has a lot of exceptions and sweet deals for certain states. The reality is that in order to over haul the healthcare service it was not going to be like cutting butter. There is too much opposition. The reality is that some states are better than others, some individuals are better off than others. Some states have higher average income and insurance levels, they dont find it necessary for them to get one boat with the program. With people with coverage already, the last thing they want is more people with coverage because they think the quality of service of their plans will decrease because of a saturation of people have coverage.

The reason I support this bill is because:

1. There is medical and medicare. Medical takes care of the people below poverty, and medicare takes care of people above 65. Neither system is perfect, however there is a gap for people that make above poverty line but are unable to get insurance because of the cost. I would like the government to have a subsidy for these people. Remember ECON!! By giving subsidies instead of putting caps on prices and such, both the supplier and consumer do well? google it. Main Point: Allow people that want to get coverage be able to BUY coverage.

2. Pre exisiting conditions. Do you know how hard to get an insurance if you have a preexisiting condition? My girlfriends aunt had healthcare coverage through her work, and a few years ago the company she worked for shut down. Then a few weeks/months while she was looking for a job, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer. She tried everything to get insurance, but she was unable to get it. She ended up going out of the country to get her procedure done. If you are a citizen of America, there is no reason why you should have to go out of the country because you are unable to get coverage. She spent over 20K in test and such here before she went out of country for treatment. Also, i know for a fact that insurance companies cherry pick their clients and the companies that they cover. My friend is an adjuster for a big insurance company in northern CA, and he told me that his main job is to see how much they get in premiums from a company and employees and how much their healthcare services cost. If they are negative, then they either drop the coverage or change it to something else. Main Point: Let people with pre exisiting conditions purchase insurance, make cherry picking illegal

3. I don't like the idea that someone is suffering because they are unable to see a doctor. We live in a great country, a "first world country", then we need to think like first world citizens.

Last point: Nothing is perfect, and not everyone is going to be happy. If reform was easy, then it would have been done much earlier. Reform was necessary... no matter if you wanted it or not, you know that something had to be done. However, I understand the people that don't support the bill because it goes against their religion (abortion and such) because that is their religious view. That being said, you should understand why its so complicated to make a good healthcare bill.

PS: Dont kill me for my post hahahahaha.... I just have own views... you dont have to agree with them, but hey, you read them lol

Your opinions = idealist liberal talking points.

To pay for this thing, it is going to cost 400 billion in higher taxes and a 500 billion CUT in planned payments to hospitals, hospices, and nursing homes for medicare patients.

We need healthcare reform, yes, but not rushed like this. Obama wanted to assure his place in history (and he has). It will not affect us that much in terms of salary so people should stop whining about that. It will possibly affect our taxes depending on the tax bracket and we will have to carry insurance whether we want to or not. Thank god I work where I work. You honestly think that quality of care won't be compromised when all these newly insured people flood a system that is already practically running on a skeleton crew?
 
Your opinions = idealist liberal talking points.

To pay for this thing, it is going to cost 400 billion in higher taxes and a 500 billion CUT in planned payments to hospitals, hospices, and nursing homes for medicare patients.

We need healthcare reform, yes, but not rushed like this. Obama wanted to assure his place in history (and he has). It will not affect us that much in terms of salary so people should stop whining about that. It will possibly affect our taxes depending on the tax bracket and we will have to carry insurance whether we want to or not. Thank god I work where I work. You honestly think that quality of care won't be compromised when all these newly insured people flood a system that is already practically running on a skeleton crew?

To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.

In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

The 500 billion in cut payments to hospitals/clinics will supposedly be counter-balanced by the drop in uninsured/uncompensated costs incurred upon the hospitals.
 
Are you referring to certified pharmacy techs? If not, try starting at minimum wage ($7.25 here). But I took minimum wage so that I could get the experience so that's what matters more to me right now.

It depends where you live. In some places un-certified techs start off at more than 10/hr.
 
The 500 billion in cut payments to hospitals/clinics will supposedly be counter-balanced by the drop in uninsured/uncompensated costs incurred upon the hospitals.

I just don't see that happening though. I can only hope, but I will believe it when I see it. ERs cannot refuse care and when there is someone in the ICU without insurance, no doctor is going to put that patient out on the street because they can't pay. We had a patient incur 2 million dollars once. The lifetime on his insurance was maxed. We know we will never see that money. He was there for weeks in ICU before passing away...now his wife will have that burden. Sad.
 
Who wants to help make sense of Part II - Student Loan Reform? :confused:
 
Who wants to help make sense of Part II - Student Loan Reform? :confused:

I was trying to make sense of it too...I think it is going to increase the pell grant and some other stuff for undergrads. So, lower income and undergrads will benefit. Not sure how we will benefit, though, except maybe the loan forgiveness after 10 years if you work in a certain place.
 
I was trying to make sense of it too...I think it is going to increase the pell grant and some other stuff for undergrads. So, lower income and undergrads will benefit. Not sure how we will benefit, though, except maybe the loan forgiveness after 10 years if you work in a certain place.

Yeah, so it is primarily making sure there is enough money for lower income students and extra money for minority-serving schools.. what about this:

Section 2203. Termination of Applicable Interest Rates. This section makes a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program limiting interest rate applicability to Stafford, Consolidation, and PLUS loans to those loans made
before July 1, 2010.


?
 
For those who don't ready the Congressional Budget Office's updates...

Budgetary Impact of the President's Proposal to Alter Federal Student Loan Programs

This afternoon CBO responded to Senator Gregg's request for estimates of the budgetary impact of the President's proposal to eliminate the federal program that provides guarantees for student loans and to replace those loans with direct loans made by the Department of Education.

The Federal Family Education Loan Program (guaranteed loan program) provides federal guarantees on loans for higher education that are administered and funded by private lenders. The guarantee ensures that lenders will receive almost all of the principal and accrued interest owed to them if borrowers default. The William D. Ford Direct Loan Program offers eligible borrowers nearly identical loans that are administered by the Department of Education and funded through the U.S. Treasury. Under the President's proposal, all federal student loans originated after July 1, 2010, would be made by the direct loan program.

CBO constructed two estimates of the budgetary impact of that proposal. One estimate follows the methodology delineated by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA), which CBO is required to use in cost estimates for most credit programs including student loans. The other estimate was done on a so-called "fair value basis" that provides a more comprehensive measure of cost by including administrative costs and the cost of market risk (the risk that losses from defaults will be higher during periods of market stress, when resources are scarce and hence most valuable). The idea of a fair value estimate is to represent what a private entity would need to be paid to assume the costs and risks to the government from providing loans or guarantees.

Taking into account administrative costs and the cost of risk increases the estimated costs of both the guaranteed and direct loan programs: Using the fair-value methodology, CBO estimates that under current law, the net budgetary costs of new direct and guaranteed student loans during the 2010-2020 period would total about $158 billion, as compared to total net receipts for the government of $25 billion using the FCRA methodology.

CBO estimates that the President's proposal would generate significant cost savings using both the FCRA and fair value approaches, but the savings would be smaller under the fair-value approach. (Both estimates were constructed relative to CBO's most recent set of baseline budget projections, which were issued earlier this month.) Using the FCRA methodology, CBO estimates that replacing new guarantees of student loans with direct lending would yield savings in mandatory spending of about $68 billion over the 11 years from 2010 through 2020. That figure represents the estimated savings in mandatory costs that would be shown in a CBO cost estimate for legislation under consideration by the Congress. However, adjusting for the projected increase in annual discretionary administrative costs in the direct loan program, the net reduction in federal costs from the proposal would be about $62 billion. On a fair value basis, incorporating administrative costs and the cost of risk, CBO estimates that replacing new guarantees of student loans with direct lending would yield savings of about $40 billion over the 2010-2020 period. The primary reason for that $22 billion difference is that payments from the government to lenders are risky—they terminate when a borrower defaults on or prepays a loan. Those payments are less valuable to lenders and less costly to the government when the cost of that risk is taken into account, so terminating those payments by eliminating the guaranteed loan program yields smaller savings for the government.

Student Loan Reform in Health Bill Would Save More Than $60 Billion and Invest in Access to College

By Gillian Brunet and Chuck Marr
March 19, 2010




The health reform legislation heading for a vote in Congress within the next few days includes major reforms to the student loan system that would save more than $60 billion over ten years and invest more in educational opportunity for millions of aspiring students.

Under the proposal, the federal government — which now pays banks generous subsidies to provide a large share of taxpayer-subsidized student loans — would instead provide all such loans directly. This change would generate more than $60 billion in savings between 2010 and 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), much of which would go to protecting and expanding Pell Grants to help low- and moderate-income students afford college. While critics have branded the proposed changes in student loans a "government takeover" and claimed it would cost jobs, both claims are inaccurate.
Proposal Would Eliminate Wasteful Subsidies and Improve Efficiency

To make college more affordable for lower-income and middle-class families, the federal government provides subsidized loans through two programs: the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, which subsidizes banks and other financial institutions to make the loans, and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, which makes the loans directly to families. The loans made through the two programs are essentially identical for borrowers since the loan limits, maximum fee amounts, and maximum interest rates are all set in statute. [1]

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under both Presidents Bush and Obama, the Government Accountability Office, and CBO have all concluded that the DL program is more efficient from the perspective of taxpayers because it provides essentially the same loans at lower taxpayer cost. The legislation would end FFEL and rely on the DL program to provide all taxpayer-subsidized student loans. This would save $68 billion in mandatory spending over the 2010-2020 period, according to CBO.[2]

Not only is paying banks to make the loans less efficient than making them directly, but recent events have demonstrated that private-lender funding is not always reliable. In 2008 the debacle in the subprime mortgage securitization market spilled into the student loan market, forcing private-sector lenders to ask the federal government to step in and provide capital; Congress responded by passing the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loan Act of 2008. Relying on the DL program to provide loans would prevent such a situation from recurring.
Given that the federal government already bears virtually of the risk (97 percent) of defaults on "private" FFEL loans, channeling all loans through the DL program would pose little additional risk. The reform would eliminate private lenders' role at the front end of the loan process (i.e., originating the loan), where it has been problematic,[3] but retain a major role for private entities at the back end of the process — i.e., servicing the loan.
Under FFEL, the financial institution that originates a loan also services it. In contrast, under the DL program, loan servicing contracts are awarded to private entities through a competitive bidding process, which is a more efficient approach. By expanding the DL program, the proposal should increase this efficiency.[4]
Main Criticisms of Proposal Are Groundless

Critics have not contested the central facts about the reform proposal — that it would produce significant budget savings that would be used to make college more affordable. Instead, some critics, such as Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN),[5] have made the rhetorical argument that the proposal represents a "government takeover" of the student loan system.
This claim has no foundation. As noted above, the loans are already subsidized by public funds under terms set in federal statute, and taxpayers already bear virtually all of the risk of default. Moreover, under the reform legislation, private firms would continue to service loans (e.g., collect monthly payments).
Others, including a group of six Democratic senators, have expressed concern that the proposal could cost jobs. [6] In macroeconomic terms, this concern is misplaced. First, the number of jobs tied to student loans originating with banks is tiny compared with the normal amount of job turnover that takes place every month in the U.S. labor market. Second, many of the 35,000 workers in the FFEL part of the student loan industry work in the loan servicing part of the business, a task that private-sector entities would continue to perform.
Third, by using the savings from reforming the student loan program to increase funding for Pell Grants, the legislation would enable more students to attend college than could otherwise afford it. When the increase in jobs associated with this greater college enrollment is taken into account, the net impact of the legislation on jobs is likely to be a wash. And, in the longer run, investments to help students afford college would strengthen the economy.
Investing in Educational Opportunity Would Benefit Nation as a Whole

The reform proposal would take a majority of the budget savings from eliminating FFEL and channel them into Pell Grants, which make college more affordable for low- and moderate-income students. The number of students who qualify for Pell Grants has risen because the recession has limited job opportunities and caused many families' incomes to fall — and has consequently impelled many adults to return to school. This has made the program more costly. The reform proposal includes $13.5 billion to help meet the added budgetary obligations of providing Pell Grants to the increased number of students who are qualifying for and using them during the economic downturn. This would help to ensure that Pell Grants do not have to be cut back at a time when the need for them is so acute.
In addition, the reform proposal would index the maximum Pell Grant to inflation from the 2014-2015 academic year through the 2017-2018 academic year, and would provide mandatory funding to cover the costs of this indexation. In recent years, as tuition costs have increased, the average financial need remaining after Pell Grants and other aid are taken into account has risen for low- and moderate-income students. If insufficient funding is provided to enable Pell Grants even to keep pace with inflation, unmet financial need will rise much higher.
The increased funding for Pell Grants represents a sound investment for both students and taxpayers. For many students, access to college means an opportunity for a better life. Extensive data show that people with more education do better at securing and retaining jobs and have greater earnings capacity. According to the College Board, the median income for families where at least one adult has at least a four-year college degree is more than $50,000 higher than for those with only a high school education.[7] A recent Rand study found that a person's earnings capacity increases 7 to 10 percent for each additional year of educational attainment. [8]
From a taxpayer standpoint, the Rand study found that college graduates pay substantially more in taxes and receive substantially less in government services over their lifetime than other individuals.[9]
Helping Americans afford to go to college also is beneficial for the economy in the long run. Better-educated workers have higher productivity rates. While most of the benefits from attending college accrue to students in the form of higher wages, such investments in human capital also have historically been an important contributor to raising the overall standard of living in the U.S. economy.
End Notes:
[1] The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has stated that the FFEL and DL programs "make available essentially the same set of loans." See David P. Smole, "Federal Student Loans Made Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Terms and Conditions for Borrowers," Congressional Research Service, September 1, 2009. CBO has described the loans from the two programs as "nearly identical." See Congressional Budget Office, "Budgetary Impact of the President's Proposal to Alter Federal Student Loan Programs," p. 2, March 15, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11343/03-15-Student_Loan_Letter.pdf .
[2] Congressional Budget Office, "Budgetary Impact of the President's Proposal to Alter Federal Student Loan Programs," p. 1, March 15, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11343/03-15-Student_Loan_Letter.pdf . Adjusting for increased administrative costs on the discretionary side, CBO estimates net budgetary cost savings of about $62 billion over the budget window.
[3] Private lenders often package the FFEL loans they originate with higher-cost private loans, leading students to take out private student loans when they would be eligible for further federal loans, which are safer and more affordable. For example, in its 2004 10-k filing with the SEC, Sallie Mae wrote that "[O]ur largest Private Education Loan program is the Signature Loan offered to undergraduates and graduates through the financial aid offices of colleges and universities and packaged with the traditional FFELP and PLUS loan products." See The Institute for College Access & Success Project on Student Debt, "Private Loans: Facts and Trends," August 2009, http://ticas.org/files/pub/private_loan_facts_trends_09.pdf.
Previously, investigators found abuses in the processes by which some university financial aid offices select lenders. On a number of occasions, lack of strong oversight allowed improper arrangements to flourish between lenders and schools. See Government Accountability Office, "Federal Family Education Loan Program: Increased Department of Education Oversight of Lender and School Activities Needed to Help Ensure Program Compliance," p. 26, July 2007, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07750.pdf.
[4] While the student loan reform legislation would generally improve efficiency in the loan servicing market, a provision would award a certain number of contracts for loan servicing to eligible non-profit servicers. This would shrink the pool of loans subject to the competitive bidding process and thereby somewhat diminish efficiency.
[5] Sen. Lamar Alexander, "Why make government the prime source for student loans?" Washington Post, March 7, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502972_pf.html .
[6] Letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, March 9, 2010.
[7] Trends in College Pricing 2009, College Board, http://www.trends-collegeboard.com/college_pricing.
[8] Stephen J. Carroll and Emre Erkut, "The Benefits to Taxpayers from Increases in Students' Educational Attainment," p. 15, the RAND Corporation, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG686.pdf.
[9] The study estimated that the total net present-value benefit for taxpayers of having a person go from some college to a college degree was over $100,000 (in 2002 dollars).
 
Yeah, so it is primarily making sure there is enough money for lower income students and extra money for minority-serving schools.. what about this:

Section 2203. Termination of Applicable Interest Rates. This section makes a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program limiting interest rate applicability to Stafford, Consolidation, and PLUS loans to those loans made
before July 1, 2010.


?

Hmmmm....I can't tell if it is saying interest rates will be regulated or that ther program limiting will be terminated so that the loans might end up having higher interest rates. Booooo sry for the typos am on my phone. I wish there were no interest rates! lol
 
What I just can't understand is when America went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, taxes were lowered. These two wars have already cost the country almost a trillion dollar (costofwar.com). Health care reform is just using our tax dollars to provide service for Americans at home. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think it's time our nation should not focus on bring down health care reform and should spend our efforts on bringing the troops home.
 
What I just can't understand is when America went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, taxes were lowered. These two wars have already cost the country almost a trillion dollar (costofwar.com). Health care reform is just using our tax dollars to provide service for Americans at home. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think it's time our nation should not focus on bring down health care reform and should spend our efforts on bringing the troops home.

Taxes were lowered to stimulate spending and thereby stimulate the economy which took a pretty hard hit with 9/11. You can't do the same thing for healthcare reform- the money has to come from somewhere and in this case, it will be from increased taxes and cuts from medicare payments. As for the troops coming home, it is a nice thought, but we have come so far in this and spent so many of our resources on it, to leave those countries without stability would be a nightmare (look at the history of India when the Brits left).

EDIT: don't get me wrong. I want our troops home too. What they have them doing over there is disgusting and a complete disregard for human life. But, they have their mission. And many are content with following it through (many are not). It is a complex issue, IMO. Honestly, I think we should just leave that part of the world alone. I don't think WE can fix it. And I especially don't like how our leaders want us to go to places like that under the guise of humanitarian efforts (to bring "peace"). It is disingenuous. But then again, I am getting the feeling that everything our government does is like that.
 
Last edited:
Re. 5-year-old-girls without insurance living near the dumpster -- ever heard of CHIPS? Or Medicaid?

Re. "if you're worried about salary you went into the wrong field" -- most of us here are smart. Really, really smart in fact. Lots of As in BCPM classes, high GPAs and high achievers. High achievers usually want high salaries. OK so let's say we listen to you and we go into banking instead. Then that leaves who as the next generation of practitioners? The B/C students, low GPAs, low achievers with their hearts in the right places but their heads not in their studies. I don't know about you, but when I have needed a doctor, I don't pick the nice guy with the bleeding heart. I pick the smart guy with the razor-sharp intellect.
 
I heard that they will charge higher rates on student loans ( as a type of tax) to recover some costs for this plan. Can anyone confirm or deny this???
 
I'm all for giving people access to 'affordable' healthcare, but why is it that everyone will be REQUIRED to have health insurance or else face a penalty? I believe by 2017, if you don't have insurance, you'll be out an additional 2.5% of your income payable to the IRS. The way I see it, they're just trying to get healthy people to pay for something they may not even want. No better than the insurance companies not taking people with pre-existing conditions, they have the same philosophy: young, healthy people = low risk, low cost population.
 
You just will not have any money because you will be paying taxes at the rate of Sweden. But hey, you will have free health care, even if you wait 2 years for that hip replacement and die of infection in the crappy hospitals.

How did you get from the United States to Sweden? That's a large gap that you just jumped over, don't be silly. :laugh:
 
I'm all for giving people access to 'affordable' healthcare, but why is it that everyone will be REQUIRED to have health insurance or else face a penalty? I believe by 2017, if you don't have insurance, you'll be out an additional 2.5% of your income payable to the IRS. The way I see it, they're just trying to get healthy people to pay for something they may not even want. No better than the insurance companies not taking people with pre-existing conditions, they have the same philosophy: young, healthy people = low risk, low cost population.

Two of the most popular provisions in the bill just passed are the one not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and the one barring insurance companies from rescinding policies when people get sick. Like them or not, these provisions are here to stay - no politician is ever going to campaign on the position of letting your insurance company dump you when you get sick. However, the only way those provisions are economically feasible is for everyone to be required to buy insurance. If you don't mandate coverage, people will just wait until they are sick to buy insurance.

So, the ultimate outcome of keeping those two provisions, but dumping the mandate through SCOTUS decisions is that private insurance companies will be so injured financially that the federal government will be forced to step in to somehow guarantee coverage in these cases. The most likely scenario is the expansion of Medicare to cover people with pre-existing conditions (single-payer), or a public option.
 
Last edited:
Everyone should just relax ... It's all just more political voodoo and sleight of hand budget calculations. Most if not all of the 'health care' provisions in the bill won't go into effect until 2014 (after the election cycles, political reasons).
The Medicare and excise taxes won't even directly affect most of you... since students make diddly squat and schools usually provide insurance.

It's a political chess game and now its the Republicans' turn to move.
 

WTF is this? Oh, yeah, that's right. The House bill that was dropped from consideration months ago. Good to know you like posting completely irrelevant links.

Also, on the face of it, mandating people purchase insurance does suck. But what's the alternative? You don't have to buy insurance if you don't want to? The only way that works is if hospitals can turn you away and deny you coverage if you can't pay. If you can't pay, and they still treat you, we all eat that cost somehow.
 
I just want to throw in a pitch to you all about advocacy. The best way to advocate for yourself and your (future) profession is to make your voice heard. Call your legislator, or e-mail them, or snail mail them. Look into groups that participate in visits to legislators. Just remember...change takes work, and everyone can do their part. :thumbup:
 
Can everyone just be happy? It's always about money to most of you, which makes me a bit sad. You realize there are people in Haiti and other countries that are living off pennies and we're all complaining because we want more than the necessities we already have. Just smile :), be glad you have your health, and be happy you have the shelter, food, families, and things for you to live everyday. We get caught up on trivial things that we forget to be happy that we already have what's important.
 
Can everyone just be happy? It's always about money to most of you, which makes me a bit sad. You realize there are people in Haiti and other countries that are living off pennies and we're all complaining because we want more than the necessities we already have. Just smile :), be glad you have your health, and be happy you have the shelter, food, families, and things for you to live everyday. We get caught up on trivial things that we forget to be happy that we already have what's important.

You sound like Oprah.
 
You sound like Oprah.
Well if someone can never be happy with just the necessities in life, I feel bad for them. We don't know how lucky we are that we are able to make it through everyday, that's all I'm saying.
 
Well if someone can never be happy with just the necessities in life, I feel bad for them. We don't know how lucky we are that we are able to make it through everyday, that's all I'm saying.

I am just joking with you. I feel ya and I totally agree. Unfortunately in this world, you need money for everything.

Does Oprah really say all that? How many billions is she worth now? :laugh:

(Yes I know she contributes a lot to charity)

lmao good point. She DOES have that big ass mansion with 40 rooms ALL to herself. I highly doubt you need to have 40 rooms to host a couple of dinner parties :)
 
No, you are completely screwed. Do you think the government will let you make 100,000k a year without regulation?

Yes. I currently work at a public hospital funded and regulated by the government, and the pharmacists get paid pretty well. We get great benefits, too.
 
I am trying to study for chemistry test on Tuesday, but it seems like this bill will pass tonight. If it final becomes law.What will happen to Pharmacists and other health care providers.
Will we suffer or gain ?


Truck driving schools will welcome all pharmacist.:laugh:
 
Honestly, I'm just worried about going in to work this weekend. Can you imagine how many people will say "The health reform bill passed. I DEMAND to have my pills for free". :smack:
 
I was quickly bored upon reading the posts on this thread, but while I was skimming I noticed that this is pretty much all about how much we will make as pharmacists. While I think that we should be rewarded by a decent salary for the amount of education we will receive, if you are going to pharmacy school or want to be a pharmacist solely based upon the income, you should switch majors now. This thread is making pre-pharm students sound like a bunch of careless greedy people that are only in this profession for the money.
 
Top