As a former Ph.D. economics student and a future doctor, very few issues bother me as much as the healthcare system in the USA. It is rife with inefficiencies and abuses and is in great need of reform. And, quite honestly, anyone who has ever taken introductory microeconomics and macroeconomics classes can solve most of our healthcare system's problems.
There are a couple of problems plaguing the healthcare system that can be solved by anyone who understands "barriers to entry". Barriers to entry are obstacles that prevent would-be participants from entering a market. In any market, there are two groups of actors: buyers (demanders) and sellers (suppliers). In the healthcare market, the suppliers need help. And we can fix what ails the supply side through the simple removal of three entry barriers.
In order to become a doctor in the USA, you need to complete 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, and then 3-8 years of residency (depending on specialty). At the earliest, a person can start practicing on his or her own when he or she turns around 30. How many other careers have this sort of a strenuous education program?
In addition to the 12+ years of training after high school, we need to look at the educational costs imposed on aspiring physicians. The average college graduate in 2009 left school with $25,000 in loan debt. Medical schools' tuitions and other costs are close to $50,000 annually. So, it is not uncommon for students to leave medical school with over $250,000 in total debt. And, on top of that, recent medical school graduates cannot make enough to pay back those student loans until after residency is completed. So, today's doctors oftentimes have to make student loan payments into their late 30's and early 40's.
Another (although smaller) entry barrier is the specter of malpractice lawsuits and malpractice insurance. It is not uncommon for doctors in certain specialties (like OB/GYN) to pay $50,000 yearly in malpractice insurance. Granted, insurance rates vary greatly by the specialty and the state, but that does not mean changes should not be made to the system.
(Note: people become physicians because they want to do something great for their fellow human beings; they want to make a difference by helping people and they have the skill-set to do so. They are, in other words, better people than you will ever be. When they make mistakes, I have no problem holding them accountable. But, do not forget that doctors are humans just like you: you probably screw up all the time and I am pretty sure people cut you some slack. So, why shouldn't you give your doctors the same treatment)?
Now that we know the main three entry barriers (training time, costs of education, and malpractice issues) in the healthcare provider market, I can recommend some simple reforms to get more doctors into the healthcare field to meet the ever-increasing demand for healthcare services.
In terms of training time, the answer is to shorten college and medical school course requirements. Specifically, do not make would-be doctors take unnecessary classes during college; additionally, in terms of medical school, perhaps we can cut it down to three years. Of course, the top priority should be to do something about residency. My roommate will be a resident at Stanford, and he says that he will spend half of his 80-hour week on meaningless paperwork. And he has to deal with that for his entire 4-year residency. Why are doctors wasting 40 hours a week on paperwork? They could be learning important medical stuff instead, and, therefore, cut their residencies in half. This change definitely needs to happen.
As for education costs, you can start with opening more medical schools across the USA. Additionally, we could subsidize students (like most western countries do).
In terms of malpractice insurance, it is quite simple: cap the amount of damages a doctor can be responsible for. And, for those few physicians who are truly negligent, revoke their licenses. We do not want bad doctors around doing bad things to helpless people.
The healthcare system in America is too large (about 16% of GDP) to allow to run this inefficiently. And, I might add that our problems are not beyond fixing yet. I just hope that you all have the sense to propose these reforms to your Congresspersons so we can save our healthcare system before it flat-lines.
Showing posts with label Education finance reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education finance reform. Show all posts
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Notes About Your Author and His Intellectual Support for Public Funding of Higher Education Tuition
I just thought I would follow up my previous post with my basic philosophy on education.
Learning multiple disciplines has been one of the great joys of my life. I have a degree in economics, but I also have minors in math, physics, and Asian studies. I also have had the chance to study multiple languages during my study abroad experiences in Japan and South Korea.
All of the aforementioned learning chances came my way because I went to college and made the most of it. These opportunities have made me a better person by training me to think logically, instilling in me a sense of civic duty, and increasing my interest in world affairs. Essentially, I am a better American because I made the decision to go to college.
And that is why I believe college should be heavily subsidized by government entities: good education turns Americans into better Americans. Society in general benefits from having an educated workforce (not just professionally, but also in terms of general citizenship). The government benefits in terms of educating its citizens because educated people tend to be more productive in the economy and more active in politics. The more active in politics people become, the more likely that political outcomes will be more balanced and wise for society at large. And the better political outcomes are, the less necessary it will be to tinker with governmental systems.
To those of you out there who think the USA can't afford to heavily subsidize our universities, I say "poppycock". Between all levels of government, the USA spends about $6 trillion annually (that is about 40% of GDP). Australia, which has a reasonably-subsidized higher education system, has a government that spends about $354 billion out of $1.2 trillion; that means 32% of Australia's GDP comes from government spending (much less than in the USA). And, yet, the Aussies still have enough money to help citizens pay for college*, basic health care, and a respectable military.
This information makes me ask: what is wrong with us for tolerating our government's negligence?
*I should note the average Aussie does graduate with about $17,000 of debt (which is still considerably less than Americans' $25,000 in student debt) but he or she can count on getting a much higher starting salary than an American; so, Aussies have a much better chance of paying of their student debt faster.
Learning multiple disciplines has been one of the great joys of my life. I have a degree in economics, but I also have minors in math, physics, and Asian studies. I also have had the chance to study multiple languages during my study abroad experiences in Japan and South Korea.
All of the aforementioned learning chances came my way because I went to college and made the most of it. These opportunities have made me a better person by training me to think logically, instilling in me a sense of civic duty, and increasing my interest in world affairs. Essentially, I am a better American because I made the decision to go to college.
And that is why I believe college should be heavily subsidized by government entities: good education turns Americans into better Americans. Society in general benefits from having an educated workforce (not just professionally, but also in terms of general citizenship). The government benefits in terms of educating its citizens because educated people tend to be more productive in the economy and more active in politics. The more active in politics people become, the more likely that political outcomes will be more balanced and wise for society at large. And the better political outcomes are, the less necessary it will be to tinker with governmental systems.
To those of you out there who think the USA can't afford to heavily subsidize our universities, I say "poppycock". Between all levels of government, the USA spends about $6 trillion annually (that is about 40% of GDP). Australia, which has a reasonably-subsidized higher education system, has a government that spends about $354 billion out of $1.2 trillion; that means 32% of Australia's GDP comes from government spending (much less than in the USA). And, yet, the Aussies still have enough money to help citizens pay for college*, basic health care, and a respectable military.
This information makes me ask: what is wrong with us for tolerating our government's negligence?
*I should note the average Aussie does graduate with about $17,000 of debt (which is still considerably less than Americans' $25,000 in student debt) but he or she can count on getting a much higher starting salary than an American; so, Aussies have a much better chance of paying of their student debt faster.
The College Gamble
For much of the past century, completing a college education was an accomplishment most students would be proud of. Today, college training is mostly a joke. Higher education is, in economics parlance, no longer an investment good (something that will improve future production): it is mostly a consumption good (something that satisfies a current economic want).
To prove that college in the USA is not much of an investment for many students, please read these 21 statistics on college trends: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/student-loan-debt-hell-21-statistics-that-will-make-you-think-twice-about-going-to-college.
I hope that article bothered you as much as it did me. I just would like to note the points that really stood out to me.
First is the insane increase in tuition levels. The general price level has increased 250% (inflation) since the late 1970's (e.g., eggs today are 2.5 times more expensive than they were in 1979). College tuition has increased over three times faster than inflation (tuitions have increased 900% since the late 1970's). This drastic increase in college tuition has led to a total outstanding student debt of almost $1 trillion!
The second issue I had concerns the quality of education students are getting. Only 50% of students have ever taken a single course that made them write more than 20 pages. 32% of students have never taken a course that makes them read more than 40 pages in a week. Crazy, right?
The third problem that really bothered me is that one-third of all bachelor's degree holders end up getting jobs that don't require college degrees anyway. What is the point for millions of people to go to college if they will end up with jobs they could've gotten without going to college? Well, it's just four years of partying and drunken fornication for students (as I will explain), and billions of dollars of revenue for schools' administrators.
The final disturbing fact I found in this article was that 51% of a typical college student's time is spent socializing, while only 7% of his or her time is spent studying. Additionally, at least 35% of college students spent less than FIVE hours studying every week. (How does this not sound like a huge adulthood-postponing party? And, how does this not sound like schools being useless in terms of teaching students and making them work hard)?
It is obvious to me that financing and quality issues need to be addressed immediately in terms of higher education. I really think my GRP idea is a good place to start in terms of combating student debt (if you missed my post on the GRP, read it here: http://theyoungandthescrewed.blogspot.com/p/solution-to-young-americans-current-and.html). Or, we could just have the federal government totally subsidize university education like many countries do. (I prefer the latter option, but, either one works for me. Under both systems, though, students need to be held accountable in terms of yearly testing and exit exams. We need to be sure that they are actually learning something).
As for reforming the quality of college education in the USA, I believe it starts with lower education. If you need any more proof that the level of education in this country is decreasing, check out this Harvard entrance exam from back in the late 1800's: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf. Honestly, I can only do the math stuff and some of the history stuff. I never learned Greek or Latin. But, that is a reflection on the lower education system. We have lost ground on college applicants from over 100 years ago!
How are we supposed to compete in the global economy when students from China and India study everything they can get their hands on while our students try to avoid studying anything? Additionally, how can we compete when the few responsible students this country has are getting destroyed by predatory financing while foreigners can come here and study at extreme discounts?
I believe these situations are of the highest national priority in terms of preparing the USA for the future. I guess media members and the political class aren't addressing our education system's failures because they will not be around to suffer the consequences of the current issues. Or maybe they're just getting paid off by the few people benefiting from this system (lenders, administrators, and some academics).
One thing is sure, though: our higher education system is not primarily about education anymore. It is about fun and money.
To prove that college in the USA is not much of an investment for many students, please read these 21 statistics on college trends: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/student-loan-debt-hell-21-statistics-that-will-make-you-think-twice-about-going-to-college.
I hope that article bothered you as much as it did me. I just would like to note the points that really stood out to me.
First is the insane increase in tuition levels. The general price level has increased 250% (inflation) since the late 1970's (e.g., eggs today are 2.5 times more expensive than they were in 1979). College tuition has increased over three times faster than inflation (tuitions have increased 900% since the late 1970's). This drastic increase in college tuition has led to a total outstanding student debt of almost $1 trillion!
The second issue I had concerns the quality of education students are getting. Only 50% of students have ever taken a single course that made them write more than 20 pages. 32% of students have never taken a course that makes them read more than 40 pages in a week. Crazy, right?
The third problem that really bothered me is that one-third of all bachelor's degree holders end up getting jobs that don't require college degrees anyway. What is the point for millions of people to go to college if they will end up with jobs they could've gotten without going to college? Well, it's just four years of partying and drunken fornication for students (as I will explain), and billions of dollars of revenue for schools' administrators.
The final disturbing fact I found in this article was that 51% of a typical college student's time is spent socializing, while only 7% of his or her time is spent studying. Additionally, at least 35% of college students spent less than FIVE hours studying every week. (How does this not sound like a huge adulthood-postponing party? And, how does this not sound like schools being useless in terms of teaching students and making them work hard)?
It is obvious to me that financing and quality issues need to be addressed immediately in terms of higher education. I really think my GRP idea is a good place to start in terms of combating student debt (if you missed my post on the GRP, read it here: http://theyoungandthescrewed.blogspot.com/p/solution-to-young-americans-current-and.html). Or, we could just have the federal government totally subsidize university education like many countries do. (I prefer the latter option, but, either one works for me. Under both systems, though, students need to be held accountable in terms of yearly testing and exit exams. We need to be sure that they are actually learning something).
As for reforming the quality of college education in the USA, I believe it starts with lower education. If you need any more proof that the level of education in this country is decreasing, check out this Harvard entrance exam from back in the late 1800's: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf. Honestly, I can only do the math stuff and some of the history stuff. I never learned Greek or Latin. But, that is a reflection on the lower education system. We have lost ground on college applicants from over 100 years ago!
How are we supposed to compete in the global economy when students from China and India study everything they can get their hands on while our students try to avoid studying anything? Additionally, how can we compete when the few responsible students this country has are getting destroyed by predatory financing while foreigners can come here and study at extreme discounts?
I believe these situations are of the highest national priority in terms of preparing the USA for the future. I guess media members and the political class aren't addressing our education system's failures because they will not be around to suffer the consequences of the current issues. Or maybe they're just getting paid off by the few people benefiting from this system (lenders, administrators, and some academics).
One thing is sure, though: our higher education system is not primarily about education anymore. It is about fun and money.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
A Solution to Young Americans' Current and Future Financial Problems: Part II
Good evening all!
If you did not read yesterday's article, this post will not make sense to you. So, please read yesterday's entry before reading this article (here is the link: http://eaynuf.blogspot.com/p/solution-to-young-americans-current-and.html).
As promised, I will provide a brief outline of my plan to fund the GRP accounts program. Before I can start, let us look at how much I believe it will cost to start our GRP accounts and the federal government's 2011-2012 budget.
According to my estimate (it is a crude estimation, but I believe 10-15% of our total outstanding debt of $930 trillion will be sufficient to get our program off and running. I came up with this solution basically by taking the total amount of debt students will pay back and dividing that value by the standard number of years it will take to make those payments). So, let's just say we need about $120 billion (about 15% of outstanding debt) to get this retirement account program started.
Let us turn our attention now to the federal budget. The most instructive explanation of our government's budget can be found here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php.
As we can see at the aforementioned link, the US government's deficit will be well over $1 trillion dollars this fiscal year. The largest expenditures as depicted in the pie chart are defense, healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid payments), pensions (Social Security and government worker pensions), and welfare. These four slices of the budget pie comprise about 79% of the government budget.
(Side note: the alert reader will notice that the pie chart on the website I linked to above seems to be flawed. Specifically, the summation of the percentages of the pie chart only equal 88%. I believe the missing 12% accounts for the funding of government agencies like the FBI, CIA, Department of Justice, etc).
So, let's look at the defense budget first. The defense department's total budget in 2011-2012 will be $925.2 billion. (Interestingly, that amount is very close to the total outstanding student loan debt number I stated yesterday). Anyway, I believe we can cut some significant spending from the defense budget (and actually turn some of it into public profits).
While this may not be popular, I believe we should rent out our overseas bases (currently there are 662, not even including Afghanistan's 411 bases). Operating those bases costs us $42 billion or so annually (http://www.fpif.org/articles/bring_war_dollars_home_by_closing_down_bases?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FPIF+%28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+%28All+News%29%29). We can save that amount every year by completely shutting down those bases (sorry South Korea and other allies, but you guys are big boys now and can handle your own crap).
But, if we keep those bases open and rent them to the host country, we can make a profit. If we rent those bases out for a total of $10-20 billion (plus the cost of operating the bases), the government will essentially make and save $50-60 billion annually that can be put towards our GRP accounts.
In addition to this, I believe we can cut more from defense spending. Just cancel the whole war in Iraq thing. It costs us around $5 billion per month ($60 billion per year) and it does not seem to be helping us in any area (giving Middle Easterners freedom, gaining access to oil, increasing goodwill in the region and combating terror).
Another option we can do is a combination of small (but meaningful) cuts in pensions and health care spending. For instance, a total 2% cut from both of those slices of the budget pie will amount in about $30 billion in spending freedom. (I know trying this may be a political death wish, but it really is in the government's interest to get the GRP started as soon as possible, as I pointed out in yesterday's post).
We can also look at cutting funding for welfare programs. A modest 2.5% reduction in welfare spending will free up $10 billion.
Other ideas include 1% taxes on Pigovian goods like cigarettes and soda. Or, we can partially roll back the Bush tax cuts. Those cuts might have cost the federal government $300 billion annually (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/1206/What-will-deal-on-Bush-tax-cuts-mean-for-the-federal-deficit). If we partially roll those tax breaks back (say only allow $150 billion in Bush tax cuts) we can totally pay for this program in full (and really rich people will still get pretty nice tax breaks).
In sum, I have provided several different avenues for the Feds to fund this program. It is now up to everyone to pressure our officials and make the GRP a reality.
If you did not read yesterday's article, this post will not make sense to you. So, please read yesterday's entry before reading this article (here is the link: http://eaynuf.blogspot.com/p/solution-to-young-americans-current-and.html).
As promised, I will provide a brief outline of my plan to fund the GRP accounts program. Before I can start, let us look at how much I believe it will cost to start our GRP accounts and the federal government's 2011-2012 budget.
According to my estimate (it is a crude estimation, but I believe 10-15% of our total outstanding debt of $930 trillion will be sufficient to get our program off and running. I came up with this solution basically by taking the total amount of debt students will pay back and dividing that value by the standard number of years it will take to make those payments). So, let's just say we need about $120 billion (about 15% of outstanding debt) to get this retirement account program started.
Let us turn our attention now to the federal budget. The most instructive explanation of our government's budget can be found here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php.
As we can see at the aforementioned link, the US government's deficit will be well over $1 trillion dollars this fiscal year. The largest expenditures as depicted in the pie chart are defense, healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid payments), pensions (Social Security and government worker pensions), and welfare. These four slices of the budget pie comprise about 79% of the government budget.
(Side note: the alert reader will notice that the pie chart on the website I linked to above seems to be flawed. Specifically, the summation of the percentages of the pie chart only equal 88%. I believe the missing 12% accounts for the funding of government agencies like the FBI, CIA, Department of Justice, etc).
So, let's look at the defense budget first. The defense department's total budget in 2011-2012 will be $925.2 billion. (Interestingly, that amount is very close to the total outstanding student loan debt number I stated yesterday). Anyway, I believe we can cut some significant spending from the defense budget (and actually turn some of it into public profits).
While this may not be popular, I believe we should rent out our overseas bases (currently there are 662, not even including Afghanistan's 411 bases). Operating those bases costs us $42 billion or so annually (http://www.fpif.org/articles/bring_war_dollars_home_by_closing_down_bases?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FPIF+%28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+%28All+News%29%29). We can save that amount every year by completely shutting down those bases (sorry South Korea and other allies, but you guys are big boys now and can handle your own crap).
But, if we keep those bases open and rent them to the host country, we can make a profit. If we rent those bases out for a total of $10-20 billion (plus the cost of operating the bases), the government will essentially make and save $50-60 billion annually that can be put towards our GRP accounts.
In addition to this, I believe we can cut more from defense spending. Just cancel the whole war in Iraq thing. It costs us around $5 billion per month ($60 billion per year) and it does not seem to be helping us in any area (giving Middle Easterners freedom, gaining access to oil, increasing goodwill in the region and combating terror).
Another option we can do is a combination of small (but meaningful) cuts in pensions and health care spending. For instance, a total 2% cut from both of those slices of the budget pie will amount in about $30 billion in spending freedom. (I know trying this may be a political death wish, but it really is in the government's interest to get the GRP started as soon as possible, as I pointed out in yesterday's post).
We can also look at cutting funding for welfare programs. A modest 2.5% reduction in welfare spending will free up $10 billion.
Other ideas include 1% taxes on Pigovian goods like cigarettes and soda. Or, we can partially roll back the Bush tax cuts. Those cuts might have cost the federal government $300 billion annually (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/1206/What-will-deal-on-Bush-tax-cuts-mean-for-the-federal-deficit). If we partially roll those tax breaks back (say only allow $150 billion in Bush tax cuts) we can totally pay for this program in full (and really rich people will still get pretty nice tax breaks).
In sum, I have provided several different avenues for the Feds to fund this program. It is now up to everyone to pressure our officials and make the GRP a reality.
Friday, April 22, 2011
A Solution to Young Americans' Current and Future Financial Problems
Okay, my fellow Americans. I was doing some thinking about my post from yesterday, and I really do not want the USA to become divided like I think it will (in terms of today's youths exacting revenge on tomorrow's retirees). So, I decided to stop whining and start thinking of solutions.
I think I have come up with a plan to pay off our student loan debts, save our retirements, and (mostly) preserve our government's obligations to our seniors. This idea is a student loan quasi-forgiveness plan that no one has thought of yet: I call it the "graduate retirement program" (GRP).
Before I explain how the GRP should work, let me quickly review the facts. Today's college graduate will leave school with over $24,000 in student loan debt; the total outstanding student loan debt today is over $900 billion (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/education/12college.html?_r=3&hp).
Compounding graduates' student loan troubles is their inability to find work (as noted here: http://eaynuf.blogspot.com/2011/04/brief-look-at-our-countrys-political.html).
Furthermore, we young Americans have the prospects of funding 76 million Baby Boomers through retirement, paying off the nation's $15 trillion debt, dealing with rising healthcare costs, raising families in a comparatively expensive world, and funding our own retirements (this all is discussed here: http://eaynuf.blogspot.com/p/young-and-screwed-americas-youths.html). That is a ton of responsibility.
The GRP will serve the purposes of getting money back into the economy, paying off our student loans, and starting our retirement programs early so we can take advantage of the miracle that is compounding interest.
Essentially, the GRP will work like this: for every $1 college graduates with student loan debt deposit in a GRP retirement account, the government will pay $1 towards the graduates' student loan monthly payments. For example, if someone has a $300 monthly payment for 10 years, the government will pay $300 every month for 10 years to the student loan company if (and only if) the student pays an equal amount of $300 into his or her GRP account. If that same student only deposits $200 into his GRP account, the government will only pay $200 to the student loan lender; the student will have to cover the remaining $100 on his monthly student loan payment. (Obviously, this policy gives graduates strong incentives to make the full monthly payment into their retirement accounts).
This plan has several upsides. First, it helps to reduce graduate anxiety over their loan debt. Second, it allows graduates to use their money to start saving for their retirements early (which allows them to take advantage of compounding interest); this is crucial because today's young people (as I have documented here: http://eaynuf.blogspot.com/p/young-and-screwed-americas-youths.html) will not have Social Security to rely upon during retirement. Third, the potential future political problems that we will face in terms of workers versus retirees will be mitigated: essentially, today's graduates will not have as much of a reason to be pissed off in the future because they will have their own retirement accounts, their student loan debt burdens will be alleviated, and they will have more secure futures.
Notice that all three parties (graduates, governments, and loan lenders) benefit here. Graduates benefit in two ways. First, their student loans are being paid down. Second, the money that would have gone to student loan repayments is going to retirement accounts (which they were going to need anyways). Under this plan, graduates just get to start their retirement accounts sooner, which is much, much better.
The student loan companies benefit because their receipts will become more certain. Basically, because graduates are greatly and directly benefiting (in terms of starting necessary retirement accounts) from this program, they are more likely to participate fully in it; full participation in this program is strongly in their self-interest, after all. That means, for the student loan companies, that they will be more likely to get their payments on time and in full (since the government will be paying on behalf of the graduates who have made their full monthly payments into their respective GRP accounts).
Finally, the government wins in a couple ways. Officials will not have to deal with as many tough questions in terms of Social Security, student loan, and Medicare reforms. Additionally, the government will gain financially in the long run because young people were allowed to start retirement accounts early (which means these accounts will grow fantastically due to compounding interest); this substantial increase in the size of young people's retirement accounts means that the government will have less need to worry about Social Security in the future (they will still need to reform it, but the changes should be far less brutal). Lastly, the government will gain by having a more-educated workforce (which usually translates in to economic growth); because there will be a great opportunity for people to get a good deal for college in terms of repayment programs, they are more likely to go to college and finish their degrees.
I know of a couple problems people will raise with this program. For example, students who get full rides (and therefore don't have student loans to pay back) will be pissed. However, to combat this argument, students with full-rides will get the same amount from the government that the average (mathematically) graduate from the same year will be expected to pay into his or her GRP account; this government payment will have to be deposited into the full-ride student's GRP. For instance, let's say the average graduate in 2012 will have to pay $350 a month for 10 years in student loan payments; that means the full-ride student who also graduates in 2012 will receive $350 a month for 10 years directly deposited into his GRP account. A similar treatment will be applied to students who graduate with no debt (because they worked through college or parents helped them pay for school).
As for students who leave school before graduating, they will not be eligible for this program. However, to help them out, student loan reforms will need to be made in terms of bankruptcy protections (for both federal and private loans).
In terms of graduates of technical schools, they will be eligible if they took out student loans. And, they will be eligible for the full-ride treatment I explained above (in terms of receiving payments in their GRP accounts for the same length and amount that the "average" technical school graduate will pay into his or her GRP account).
Graduates of graduate and professional programs will only be eligible for this program up to 50% of their loans.
The other crucial issue is funding this program. I should have more on this issue tomorrow.
Obviously, this program is not perfect (as I explained above). But, this program will work wonders for many of today's and tomorrow's graduates struggling with student loan debt. It will help alleviate many financial and socio-political problems this country will face.
Of course, instead of doing this program, the government could just greatly subsidize higher-education (like many Westernized countries do) so their students do not graduate with so much debt. But, that would be too socialist. (Never mind the fact that governments already subsidize education up to and including the 12th grade. I really do not see what is so special about those grades; I mean, exactly why the government has singled out kindergarten through 12th grade for funding is beyond me. Higher-education is where most Americans do most of their learning, so, higher-ed should be funded the best).
At the end of the day, something needs to be done, and I think this plan is a pretty good start. If you like this idea, or believe it needs some work, please feel free to comment and tell your friends about it. Or, you can just respond with your own completely new ideas. Just, please, spread the word about this issue.
BB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)