Bill introduced to eliminate PSLF

[deleted480308]

I am just curious, what keeps you going? What’s your purpose, given how little faith in humanity you seem to have?

Sorry for being a bit personal and asking tangential questions. I was always interested in how pure libertarians justify their existence.

Justify my existence? Who do you propose I must justify my existence to?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JP2740]

Justify my existence? Who do you propose I must justify my existence to?

I swear this pseudo-intellectual **** is getting weirder and weirder as the years go by. Now I have to be mad about PSLF going in order to justify my existence to an SDN user?

 

[IslandStyle808]

The private market would absolutely provide primary care, the private matket will provide literally almost anything people will pay for....and we were far more than isolated huts before we started a welfare state

Yep, what we had back then would now be termed today sweatshops....

The primary care market would definitely not be enough to satisfy doctors in extremely small towns if the people cannot afford it there.

 

[SunsFun]

That's not true. If your parents make a million dollars a year, but are unwilling to help you pay for it, then tuition is just as big of a hurdle for you as it is for someone who comes from a low income family. This is not about rich vs poor, don't try to push that narrative. Plenty of people, me included, will be paying for medical school 100% with loans. The earning potential of becoming a doctor is still worth it, though, and that's why I decided to go. And, I would be out of my mind to expect to have a portion of that tuition subsidized by the rest of society. It's absurd. If the debt wasn't worth it, then I wouldn't have entered medical school. Expecting some other person to pay my debt while my dreams are realized is not only a slap in the face, its unsustainable. Should every single profession then be subsidized? If everyone is subsidizing every one else, then wouldn't we just all be better off paying for our own choices?

Your argument is circular. I don’t know which part to answer.

Let’s get few things out of the way:
1. It is often (not always) rich vs poor since rich are more likely to help with tuition.
2. You made a financially-driven choice to pursue medicine. The calculations may look a lot different for someone who got into medicls school to work as a pediatric endocrinologist in inner-city academic center. Those people may need more financial support than you to chose to go to medical school in the first place.
3. Someone who has family and kids may need more help than you.
4. Someone who only got into a more expensive school or needs to stay geographically close to their family, may need more help than you.
5. Lastly, as I have said before, I do not equate medicine to other jobs. Many people (IMO rightfully so) do it for reasons other than potential future earnings.

 

[68PGunner]

Yep, we had back then would now be termed today sweatshops....

The primary care market would definitely not be enough to satisfy doctors in extremely small towns if the people cannot afford it there.

That’s what NPs are for. Real physicians for people who can afford it while MAGA people settling for second quality care.

 

[SunsFun]

Justify my existence? Who do you propose I must justify my existence to?

Oh you don’t have to answer. I was just curious. Libertarian logic makes perfect sense to me, I just don’t understand the why behind it...

 

[SunsFun]

Most people I know had no assistance from their family and not a single one of them are talking about or caring about this

Well, most people I know do not go to medical school in the first place. That still doesn’t answer the question I asked.

 

[Mass Effect]

Anyone who thinks they can get rid of PSLF without grandfathering in all those who've taken out loans in the last 10 years with the understanding of the PSLF option and having applied to and been accepted for PSLF is painfully naive. It won't happen without a class-action lawsuit. It's not about not being responsible for your loans. It's about taking out loans under the government's false premise. If PSLF was not available, some would have chosen a cheaper school or a different path.

 

[GypsyHummus]

My dream is to major in eating pizza and playing video games. Is it moral for society to foot the bill for my Undergraduate major that I view as a calling?

I am just curious, what keeps you going? What’s your purpose, given how little faith in humanity you seem to have?

Sorry for being a bit personal and asking tangential questions. I was always interested in how pure libertarians justify their existence.

 

[Perrotfish]

My dream is to major in eating pizza and playing video games. Is it moral for society to foot the bill for my Undergraduate major that I view as a calling?

It is immoral for society to allow you to take out nondischargable loans for that asinine major at the age of 18 and then give you no way out of the debt. If someone gave you money to play Halo the blame rests with the banker. In fact nondischargable debt is immoral under any circumstances. It would also be immoral to deny you a chance at social mobility (if you wanted to major in engineering) because of the class you were born into.

You could argue that we need to be more paternalistic and provide more underwriting for our student loans. People deserve a chance to major in engineering, but maybe not art history. You could also argue that income based repayment is not the best option for discharging bad loans. Maybe we just need to go back to simple bankruptcy. However allowing colleges and lenders to victimize students is not an answer, and neither is denying poor students an education available to the wealthy.

 

[SunsFun]

My dream is to major in eating pizza and playing video games. Is it moral for society to foot the bill for my Undergraduate major that I view as a calling?

Your analogy is extremely flawed. I am curious as to how you cannot seem to grasp the obvious difference. Are you in medical school yet? Applying?

 

[chooks]

The writing for PSLF was on the wall years ago when the WSJ had an op-ed discussing about how strange it is that doctor's loans were getting paid off by tax dollars. Framed in that manner (and in our day and age, the framing is pantamount), PSLF is a political albatross that would have died one way or the other. It was not politically going to survive. The public perception is that doctors are overpaid as it is (as an aside -- while hospital administrators making millions are ignored, reminding me of the saying that the Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world she does not exist...and lives in Chicago). It is not hard to garner public support for removing loan forgiveness for "all those rich doctors".

My current understanding, which is as vague as others, is that current enrollees are grandfathered in. For those who have yet to make career decisions based on this program, at least you know where things are going and can plan accordingly.

 

[LongDucDong]

Your argument is circular. I don’t know which part to answer.

Let’s get few things out of the way:
1. It is often (not always) rich vs poor since rich are more likely to help with tuition.
2. You made a financially-driven choice to pursue medicine. The calculations may look a lot different for someone who got into medicls school to work as a pediatric endocrinologist in inner-city academic center. Those people may need more financial support than you to chose to go to medical school in the first place.
3. Someone who has family and kids may need more help than you.
4. Someone who only got into a more expensive school or needs to stay geographically close to their family, may need more help than you.
5. Lastly, as I have said before, I do not equate medicine to other jobs. Many people (IMO rightfully so) do it for reasons other than potential future earnings.

My argument isn't circular. It's simple, and logical.
1. It isn't rich vs poor for one very simple reason: if the market is free, the poor have the freedom to become the rich based upon the choices that they make. Again, stop trying to create some sort of class warfare simply because it advances your argument if the warfare exists.
2. The inner city, academic, pediatric endocrinologist made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
3. Someone with a family and kids made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
4. Someone who only was accepted to an expensive school made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
5. Whatever your reasons are for pursuing medicine are your own, however, no one but you should be responsible for figuring out how to make that choice financially feasible.

 

[GypsyHummus]

That’s why we as tax payer shouldn’t be gaurenteeing 18 year olds getting loans.

I say, raise the minimum age for people to go to college to 20, and in order to recive federal funds, the student had to have worked for at least 2 years after high school. This would help students understand the market a bit better and what people are and aren’t willing to pay for. It would also help them become more mature.

And cut funding to colleges. It’s redilculous that colleges get away with rising tuition costs and can have state of the art gym facilities.

Do you know how many Journalism Majors are out there working for Starbucks right now?

It is immoral for society to allow you to take out nondischargable loans for that asinine major at the age of 18 and then give you no way out of the debt. If someone gave you money to play Halo the blame rests with the banker. In fact nondischargable debt is immoral under any circumstances. It would also be immoral to deny you a chance at social mobility (if you wanted to major in engineering) because of the class you were born into.

You could argue that we need to be more paternalistic and provide more underwriting for our student loans. People deserve a chance to major in engineering, but maybe not art history. You could also argue that income based repayment is not the best option for discharging bad loans. Maybe we just need to go back to simple bankruptcy. However allowing colleges and lenders to victimize students is not an answer, and neither is denying poor students an education available to the wealthy.

 

[GoldenFish]

That's not true. If your parents make a million dollars a year, but are unwilling to help you pay for it, then tuition is just as big of a hurdle for you as it is for someone who comes from a low income family. This is not about rich vs poor, don't try to push that narrative. Plenty of people, me included, will be paying for medical school 100% with loans. The earning potential of becoming a doctor is still worth it, though, and that's why I decided to go. And, I would be out of my mind to expect to have a portion of that tuition subsidized by the rest of society. It's absurd. If the debt wasn't worth it, then I wouldn't have entered medical school. Expecting some other person to pay my debt while my dreams are realized is not only a slap in the face, its unsustainable. Should every single profession then be subsidized? If everyone is subsidizing every one else, then wouldn't we just all be better off paying for our own choices?

Higher tuition isn't a bigger barrier to entry for lower-income students, because some people w/ rich parents don't have their parents help w their tuition? You've got to be kidding me. Also, don't you think more well-off families are going to be more likely to help out w/ tuition (or living expenses etc) than a low-income family?

Also, we know that people from well-off backgrounds have more opportunity in life period, including more resources, a better learning environment and better schools to help them even get to medical school in the first place. Tuition is absolutely a bigger hurdle for people making lower income.

 

[GoldenFish]

My argument isn't circular. It's simple, and logical.
1. It isn't rich vs poor for one very simple reason: if the market is free, the poor have the freedom to become the rich based upon the choices that they make. Again, stop trying to create some sort of class warfare simply because it advances your argument if the warfare exists.

Do you seriously deny that the circumstances one is born into make a difference in their life or what they can achieve? Or that certain policies don't disproportionately hurt those less well-off?

 

[Neopolymath]

Do you seriously deny that the circumstances one is born into make a difference in their life or what they can achieve? Or that certain policies don't disproportionately hurt those less well-off?

They (the people in this thread saying asinine things because "principles") suffer from the just world hypothesis. You can't help people like that.

 

[deleted480308]

Do you seriously deny that the circumstances one is born into make a difference in their life or what they can achieve? Or that certain policies don't disproportionately hurt those less well-off?

I 100% think having more money makes things easier, that’s why I work so hard for my kids.

 

[Terror Billy]

My argument isn't circular. It's simple, and logical.
1. It isn't rich vs poor for one very simple reason: if the market is free, the poor have the freedom to become the rich based upon the choices that they make. Again, stop trying to create some sort of class warfare simply because it advances your argument if the warfare exists.
2. The inner city, academic, pediatric endocrinologist made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
3. Someone with a family and kids made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
4. Someone who only was accepted to an expensive school made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
5. Whatever your reasons are for pursuing medicine are your own, however, no one but you should be responsible for figuring out how to make that choice financially feasible.

Perhaps you should have spent more time volunteering with underserved populations or actually taken an interest in other peoples' lives who didn't have the privilege that you exude... because what you say comes off as pure asinine rhetoric I would expect out of an RNC mouthpiece. The reality is that the market isn't that free, that tax bill was written by lobbyists representing 1% of the 1% in this country, you tell me if that is what our founding fathers intended? And then.. you tell me if the many other societal hinderances in place allow the poor truly to "become the rich."

 

[68PGunner]

The writing for PSLF was on the wall years ago when the WSJ had an op-ed discussing about how strange it is that doctor's loans were getting paid off by tax dollars. Framed in that manner (and in our day and age, the framing is pantamount), PSLF is a political albatross that would have died one way or the other. It was not politically going to survive. The public perception is that doctors are overpaid as it is (as an aside -- while hospital administrators making millions are ignored, reminding me of the saying that the Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world she does not exist...and lives in Chicago). It is not hard to garner public support for removing loan forgiveness for "all those rich doctors".

My current understanding, which is as vague as others, is that current enrollees are grandfathered in. For those who have yet to make career decisions based on this program, at least you know where things are going and can plan accordingly.

FYI, nobody is enrolled into PSLF right now. You don’t enroll into the program unless you make 120 months of qualifying payments. It will be very interesting on the determined metrics for the grandfather clause.

 

[LongDucDong]

Perhaps you should have spent more time volunteering with underserved populations or actually taken an interest in other peoples' lives who didn't have the privilege that you exude... because what you say comes off as pure asinine rhetoric I would expect out of an RNC mouthpiece. The reality is that the market isn't that free, that tax bill was written by lobbyists representing 1% of the 1% in this country, you tell me if that is what our founding fathers intended? And then.. you tell me if the many other societal hinderances in place allow the poor truly to "become the rich."

First of all, I was the first generation of my family to attend college, and grew up exceedingly middle class, but I appreciate the unfounded judgment anyways. Second, its my experience with underserved populations that informs my worldview. I truly believe, and disagree if you'd like, that the means by which to make the less advantaged become the more advantaged is freedom, not subsidies (whatever form those subsidies may take). There is value unlike anything else that comes from personal responsibility, accountability, and ultimately success. Don't be so closed-minded as to write my views off simply because you disagree. I have just as much desire as anyone to see people succeed, of any and every walk of life, circumstance, or financial station.

You stated that the market isn't that free. I agree. It should be much more free. You hate the tax bill? Good, me too (although I expect for different reasons). The way to combat societal hindrances is not to simply place different hindrances on others so that everyone is equally hindered. Rather, we should be removing hindrances from everyone. Liberty leads to equality, not the other way around. Disagree if you want, but don't question my motivations just so you don't have to come up with an argument.

 

[GoldenFish]

I truly believe, and disagree if you'd like, that the means by which to make the less advantaged become the more advantaged is freedom, not subsidies (whatever form those subsidies may take).

What you don't seem to understand is that being born into certain circumstances, such as poverty, severely hinders or completely prevents you from achieving the same things as someone born into much better circumstances. The only way to give the person dealt an extremely bad hand (by absolutely no fault of their own) the "freedom" to achieve things is by the very subsidies you deride.

There is value unlike anything else that comes from personal responsibility, accountability, and ultimately success.

Again, no amount of "personal responsibility" etc is going to completely overcome being dealt a bad hand.

Don't be so closed-minded as to write my views off simply because you disagree. I have just as much desire as anyone to see people succeed, of any and every walk of life, circumstance, or financial station.

And you shouldn't be so close-minded as to assume that bootstraps alone can overcome any other poor circumstances.

Rather, we should be removing hindrances from everyone. Liberty leads to equality, not the other way around.

Again, helping those out who have horrible circumstances IS removing their hinderances. This goes back to the very function of government itself. You have yourself, as we all have, undoubtedly benefited from the services and infrastructure it provides. We all have had to contribute to it at some point.

 

[RedoxRxn]

First of all, I was the first generation of my family to attend college, and grew up exceedingly middle class, but I appreciate the unfounded judgment anyways. Second, its my experience with underserved populations that informs my worldview. I truly believe, and disagree if you'd like, that the means by which to make the less advantaged become the more advantaged is freedom, not subsidies (whatever form those subsidies may take). There is value unlike anything else that comes from personal responsibility, accountability, and ultimately success. Don't be so closed-minded as to write my views off simply because you disagree. I have just as much desire as anyone to see people succeed, of any and every walk of life, circumstance, or financial station.

You stated that the market isn't that free. I agree. It should be much more free. You hate the tax bill? Good, me too (although I expect for different reasons). The way to combat societal hindrances is not to simply place different hindrances on others so that everyone is equally hindered. Rather, we should be removing hindrances from everyone. Liberty leads to equality, not the other way around. Disagree if you want, but don't question my motivations just so you don't have to come up with an argument.

We are NOT in a free market. A free market would not bail out banks that gambled with peoples money. The bailout was corporate welfare. There are plenty other examples of corporate welfare that exist in this country.
I remember 2008 like it was yesterday. All my neighbors loosing their homes and then watching those ***** on cspan tell congress to bail them out while 1/10th of my neighborhood had for sale signs. Where was their bail out?

And then when they got their bail out I almost vomited. Why do they get welfare? I'm a free market guy but what we have now is free market for the people and welfare for corporations. Please if you agree with removing subsidies then at least include corporate subsidies.

 

[IsWhat]

This could really hurt newly minted physicians who were planning on PSLF during residency and aren’t paying off loans as aggressively as they would be without the program. Years of extra dept is coming down the pipeline for some unfortunate people if the government doesn’t grandfather everyone in.

 

[SunsFun]

My argument isn't circular. It's simple, and logical.
1. It isn't rich vs poor for one very simple reason: if the market is free, the poor have the freedom to become the rich based upon the choices that they make. Again, stop trying to create some sort of class warfare simply because it advances your argument if the warfare exists.
2. The inner city, academic, pediatric endocrinologist made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
3. Someone with a family and kids made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
4. Someone who only was accepted to an expensive school made a choice, it is neither mine nor your responsibility to finance that choice.
5. Whatever your reasons are for pursuing medicine are your own, however, no one but you should be responsible for figuring out how to make that choice financially feasible.

I am sorry for coming across abrasive but how do you expect me to take the rest of your arguments serious when in the first sentence you say “the maket is free, the poor have freedom to become the rich”. Do you live in the same reality the rest of us do?

Edit: above responses are better than mine so nevermind.

 

[Stagg737]

Did anyone not see this coming?

Yes, in fact SDN has been talking about how people shouldn't rely on it because it would likely fall through for years, and there were plenty of signs before this. A while ago the Obama administration tried to pass a bill putting a cap on the amount forgiven at $59k, so docs with that $300k in debt would still be stuck with the majority of the loan at the end of that period. This isn't news to most of the financially aware people I know, and if the financial counseling you received when entering med school didn't talk about this as a possible outcome then they did you a huge disservice.

Edit: Sorry, thought you asked if anyone actually saw it coming. As you implied, I think most people with any awareness did.



WARNING: Essay ahead in response to one post, will relate to thread but takes a while. TL;DR: explaining a potential "why" of libertarian logic.

Oh you don’t have to answer. I was just curious. Libertarian logic makes perfect sense to me, I just don’t understand the why behind it...

I'm not libertarian, but it's probably the closest thing to defining my opinion on government and individual responsibilities so I'll give you my reasoning. Imo, the core value here is autonomy and the idea that even though we cannot control other people, we can control ourselves and our own lives. So it's personal responsibility first, helping others second. It's a concept that you see literally everywhere in nature and life. As an EMT, the first lesson is to never try and save someone if the area isn't clear, otherwise you may become a casualty yourself meaning that's just one more person to rescue. On an airplane, you put your own oxygen mask on before helping others. The basic idea is that if you're not able to support yourself, you're a detriment to others around you. The goal is to limit the amount of detriment being spread to others, thus providing them with the maximum amount of autonomy.

This primary goal of autonomy places significant emphasis on each individual being personally responsible for their own decisions. Many times people make bad decisions (like paying $30k+/yr to go to college and get a useless degree which will likely land them a job at Starbuck's), which is fine to a libertarian as they have the right of autonomy. However, when that poor decision becomes a detriment to others and limits the autonomy of others (like asking people to subsidize that college kid who chose to spend $30k+/yr for a useless major), there is a problem. This doesn't mean that we just do everything completely independently, but it does mean that we put a high emphasis on personal responsibility and being held to the consequences of one's own decision. For an example, let's look at Perrotfish's analogy of the drowning man in various scenarios:

A man who can't swim is walking down a path and sees a lake. He knows he can't swim, but decides to start wading farther and farther out into the lake until suddenly he steps off a ledge. He is now drowning. A stranger who is sitting nearby sees the entire event happen. The question is "Is the stranger obligated to/should they attempt to rescue the drowning man?"

The answer to that question depends on the ideology of the individual answering. A pure libertarian would say "Of course not!", because the drowning man made a decision which led to the consequence of possibly drowning. Furthermore, the stranger is not obligated to put their own life at risk in order to save someone else. However, most people are not absolutists with their beliefs and would answer "it depends". Does the stranger know how to swim? How far out in the water is the drowning man? Is the drowning man significantly larger than the stranger/would his thrashing likely lead to both their death? Does the stranger know the drowning man can't swim? How does the stranger know the drowning man isn't faking? So most people who have time to think through the situation would probably say they need more information.

Let's change the scenario up a bit. This time the stranger is sitting by the shore and sees a man get physically thrown off a bridge by another person. The man hits the water and starts drowning. Again, the question is "Is the stranger obligated to/should they attempt to rescue the drowning man?". To which a pure libertarian would again respond "Of course not!", because even though the drowning man wasn't responsible for being in the situation of drowning, the stranger is still not obligated to put their life at risk. Like the last scenario, most people would say that it depends on the context of the situation as I described with the previous questions.

In both scenarios, the drowning man can represent a person in a poor situation, and the stranger actually represents autonomy (not the libertarian). By saying the stranger is obligated to try and save the drowning man (aka help someone in a poor situation), the libertarian is either putting their autonomy at risk or even worse giving it up. The first scenario described above can be an analogy for anyone in a poor situation as a result of their own decisions. People make stupid decisions that are completely in their control all the time, and I don't think it's very hard to understand the libertarian viewpoint of not wanting to give up their autonomy in those situations. The second scenario is an analogy for those who end up in a poor situation either through means they didn't have control over or because they were always in that situation. I think this is the aspect of pure libertarians saying "I'm not obligated to help" that most people don't get, but is really not that hard to understand if you understand that a libertarian values individual autonomy and free will of the individual (for every individual) above all else.


Now, that doesn't mean libertarians are against helping other people. In fact, the few people I know who openly identify as libertarian are actually some of the more compassionate and giving people I know. However, each one of them ensures that their own and their families lives are stable first. Something which is again abundant in nature and part of the natural psychology of most living things and not just humans (you protect your family and yourself first in emergencies and help others when you are able). So in a way, it's a system which abides more by the laws of nature and natural instinct/psychology/evolution/whatever you want to call it, than other systems which are modern constructs formed by abstract societal concepts, many of which attempt to fight the forces of nature. It's simply an acknowledgement of natural processes and an attempt to live within them rather than a constructed ideology.

The other aspect of this is that the libertarians I know wanted to provide aid to others, they just didn't want to be told how to do so. They had no problems donating to charities, school systems, providing scholarships, etc and were more than willing to take advice when someone said "this is a need in our community". However, they did not want to give their money to a government which they believe is inefficient and likely misappropriates much of it's funding, and they didn't want to be forced to give money to a cause they did not feel was aligned with their personal views. This goes back to that principle of autonomy of the individual, and being able to help others how they see fit instead of being mandated.


To bring this back full circle libertarian view on higher education, I'll talk about my personal opinion on it (as I think it probably aligns with many libertarians' views). I personally see our current higher education system as a failure, as well as much of our elementary and secondary education system. Not only because of sky-rocketing tuition or insane debt burdens, but because we now allow almost anyone to go to college (and in fact encourage everyone to go to college) regardless of whether they are legitimately qualified to attend college (which many aren't given that the average college freshman supposedly reads below what's considered a high school freshman reading level). So we send people to college who have no idea what they're going to do with their career, who frankly shouldn't even get accepted to college, charge them outrageous tuition which leads to so much debt many may never pay it off, and then expect taxpayers to foot part of the bill through subsidies and loan forgiveness? How does that make sense? To a libertarian it doesn't. To them, expecting the taxpayer or anyone to foot the bill of an individual who made a poor life decision is a violation of the taxpayers' individual autonomy, never mind the fact that those federal loans have only led to tuitions skyrocketing even higher which only further exacerbates the amount taxpayers will have to pay in the future.

Now you can suggest free higher education like Bernie wanted, but you still get the same problems from a libertarian point of view. You still have people attending college with no idea what they'll do upon graduation, many of whom will waste 4 years partying for a degree that doesn't matter, many of whom shouldn't get accepted to college in the first place, and then have them enter society with a watered down degree and end up as a barista at Starbuck's anyway, and on top of it charging the taxpayers even more money now because they're paying for the full tuition of everyone. The only difference the free ride makes is that the barista is now some person with no debt at the expense of living off of taxpayer dollars for 4 years instead of them being a college grad with no marketable skills and debt as the result of their own poor decisions. To the issue of people who are in poor situations through no fault of their own getting into college or medical school, there are better ways to approach the situation than a free ride for all or massive amounts of loan forgiveness. Unfortunately, most of those start with fixing the lower educational levels to ensure people are more intelligent and informed before applying for college, which is a whole other subject I'm not going to delve into right now.

As to the issue with PSLF, I personally think it's ridiculous for people making physician salary to have that option, even with the current cost of medical school. That program was meant for individuals seeking careers which pay so little that they would literally never get out of debt, like teachers. It was not meant for people making 6-figure salaries or more who would rather buy a nice house and care instead of living more prudently and paying off their debt. There's a huge difference between forgiving the loan of someone making $30k/yr (pre-tax, the average starting wage of teachers) who has $31k in debt (the average debt of a teacher) and can only reasonably put 2-3k (or less) towards loans each year vs. someone making $200k+/yr with $300k in debt who could reasonably put $100k or more towards loans each year. It's not only different for the person in debt, it's a huge difference for the debt collector and how much they're going to have to forgive (which ultimately comes out of taxpayers' wallets). When it comes down to it, I'm not personally against PSLF altogether, I just think it's ridiculous for medical students and doctors to think they'll be able to utilize it, or even that it's justified in the vast majority of cases. Imo, it's just a way for the physician to push their debt and personal responsibility onto others.

On a side note, sorry this was so long and got a bit off topic. I'd be happy to continue discussing the more philosophical points of political views or societal structures in PM or the SPF, but after this I'll be sticking to the PSLF aspect of the topic if I continue to post in this thread.

 

[deleted480308]

What you don't seem to understand is that being born into certain circumstances, such as poverty, severely hinders or completely prevents you from achieving the same things as someone born into much better circumstances. The only way to give the person dealt an extremely bad hand (by absolutely no fault of their own) the "freedom" to achieve things is by the very subsidies you deride.



Again, no amount of "personal responsibility" etc is going to completely overcome being dealt a bad hand.



And you shouldn't be so close-minded as to assume that bootstraps alone can overcome any other poor circumstances.



Again, helping those out who have horrible circumstances IS removing their hinderances. This goes back to the very function of government itself. You have yourself, as we all have, undoubtedly benefited from the services and infrastructure it provides. We all have had to contribute to it at some point.

It is not the goal of govt to ensure the same odds of two disparately wealthy people achieving the same thing (elon musk’s kid will likely do better than mine as elon is kicking my ass right now). The only thing the govt is responsible for is making sure our kids have the same legal right to compete...nothing more

We are NOT in a free market. A free market would not bail out banks that gambled with peoples money. The bailout was corporate welfare. There are plenty other examples of corporate welfare that exist in this country.
I remember 2008 like it was yesterday. All my neighbors loosing their homes and then watching those ***** on cspan tell congress to bail them out while 1/10th of my neighborhood had for sale signs. Where was their bail out?

And then when they got their bail out I almost vomited. Why do they get welfare? I'm a free market guy but what we have now is free market for the people and welfare for corporations. Please if you agree with removing subsidies then at least include corporate subsidies.

yep, end all subsidies and bail outs...I agree

 

[educ8r]

PSLF helps sweeten the pot for those who earn less because they've decided to go into public service instead of the private sector. It is just the same as the loan repayment available through Teach For America, Americorps, the Peace Corps, the military, and, to a lesser extent, the NIH (which is, unlike the others, somewhat competitive). But another way to look at it is that it enables those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, who could only have gotten through med school with huge loans, to give back to their communities by taking public service jobs. I think this is something that society should invest in. It will make the communities in which we all live better places.

 

[deleted480308]

PSLF helps sweeten the pot for those who earn less because they've decided to go into public service instead of the private sector. It is just the same as the loan repayment available through Teach For America, Americorps, the Peace Corps, the military, and, to a lesser extent, the NIH (which is, unlike the others, somewhat competitive). But another way to look at it is that it enables those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, who could only have gotten through med school with huge loans, to give back to their communities by taking public service jobs. I think this is something that society should invest in. It will make the communities in which we all live better places.

The federal tax payer should not at all be on the hook for paying people to work for private nonprofit and municipalities.....those entities should pay their own employees

 

[masaraksh]

We all have to weigh our decisions given our priorities in life and our resources.....no one else should have to pay your loans just so you can feel more comfortable making decisions you want and that’s what you are asking for

Yes and the poor person with Medicaid on the street with an open fracture should fend for themselves given their priorities in life and resources.

 

[masaraksh]

pslf is actually asking your neighbors to pay your debt

but how is your decision the responsibility of your neighbors to pay?

It’s not. You are perhaps forgetting the “public service” part that is in the name and a fraction of debt is “forgiven”

You’re taking jobs that help our most in need “neighbors” and for doing so your “neighbors” forgive part of your debt.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes and the poor person with Medicaid on the street with an open fracture should fend for themselves given their priorities in life and resources.

My personal tragedy doesn’t give me domain over other people’s stuff and autonomy....so yes

It’s not. You are perhaps forgetting the “public service” part that is in the name and a fraction of debt is “forgiven”

You’re taking jobs that help our most in need “neighbors” and for doing so your “neighbors” forgive part of your debt.

”public service” is just a cute label, the jobs are any nonprofit or public entity

And the “neighbors” getting treated aren’t the ones paying the bill, or they would just pay the bill. You are asking the taxpayer in manhatten to pay for the patient in miami and that’s inappropriate

 

[LongDucDong]

We are NOT in a free market. A free market would not bail out banks that gambled with peoples money. The bailout was corporate welfare. There are plenty other examples of corporate welfare that exist in this country.
I remember 2008 like it was yesterday. All my neighbors loosing their homes and then watching those ***** on cspan tell congress to bail them out while 1/10th of my neighborhood had for sale signs. Where was their bail out?

And then when they got their bail out I almost vomited. Why do they get welfare? I'm a free market guy but what we have now is free market for the people and welfare for corporations. Please if you agree with removing subsidies then at least include corporate subsidies.

Of course those bail outs should never have happened. The gov't kicked everyone of us in the nuts and then stole our wallets, and expected us to thank them for it.

 

[masaraksh]

My personal tragedy doesn’t give me domain over other people’s stuff and autonomy....so yes
”public service” is just a cute label, the jobs are any nonprofit or public entity

And the “neighbors” getting treated aren’t the ones paying the bill, or they would just pay the bill. You are asking the taxpayer in manhatten to pay for the patient in miami and that’s inappropriate

Have you considered moving out of the US to a country with a system more in line with your beliefs. Perhaps a place where you can sit on your tower of money and poor people around you can die on the streets. Thankfully, they will have no domain over yours or others stuff or autonomy so it'll be great.

 

[educ8r]

My personal tragedy doesn’t give me domain over other people’s stuff and autonomy....so yes
”public service” is just a cute label, the jobs are any nonprofit or public entity

And the “neighbors” getting treated aren’t the ones paying the bill, or they would just pay the bill. You are asking the taxpayer in manhatten to pay for the patient in miami and that’s inappropriate

It is both appropriate and necessary to help one's neighbor. But, greed is a winning strategy. Until you have a catastrophe and you need help. So, we have to force people to help their neighbors.

When you can see how thin the line is separating you from your neighbor in need, whether or not you live on the same street or the same city or even the same country, when you realize that you can do a small part to alleviate your neighbor's human suffering- then give gladly and rejoice that you have plenty.

 

[deleted480308]

Have you considered moving out of the US to a country with a system more in line with your beliefs. Perhaps a place where you can sit on your tower of money and poor people around you can die on the streets. Thankfully, they will have no domain over yours or others stuff or autonomy so it'll be great.

America was once a place with the level of freedom you have such disdain for.....my hope is we lean back that direction

Do you have something substantive to say?

 

[deleted480308]

It is both appropriate and necessary to help one's neighbor. But, greed is a winning strategy. Until you have a catastrophe and you need help. So, we have to force people to help their neighbors.

When you can see how thin the line is separating you from your neighbor in need, whether or not you live on the same street or the same city or even the same country, when you realize that you can do a small part to alleviate your neighbor's human suffering- then give gladly and rejoice that you have plenty.

you are all over the place with this, I do give to charity voluntarily. That is a far cry from someone else deciding they have a right to take from me, that's a big change and an important and dangerous distinction. No, we do not "have to force" people to help others

 

[educ8r]

you are all over the place with this, I do give to charity voluntarily. That is a far cry from someone else deciding they have a right to take from me, that's a big change and an important and dangerous distinction. No, we do not "have to force" people to help others

Unfortunately, not everyone is as charitable as you are.

 

[Roxas]

Have you considered moving out of the US to a country with a system more in line with your beliefs. Perhaps a place where you can sit on your tower of money and poor people around you can die on the streets. Thankfully, they will have no domain over yours or others stuff or autonomy so it'll be great.

You could say the same thing to any Bernie supporter. Head on over to the DPRK, I'm sure you'll finally be happy with all the "equality" and they'll be glad to have you aboard!

I do tire of the fallacy illustrated in your post. Do you not understand the world of difference between charity and coercion? Sb would be one of the first people to bring someone in off the street. iirc he has extensive experience running a charitable organization. The key is no one had to put a gun to his head

 

[Roxas]

Unfortunately, not everyone is as charitable as you are.

Then perhaps your accusations of selfishness are best served elsewhere? I see an abundance of Hollywood elite living a hell of a lot better than I do

 

[deleted480308]

Unfortunately, not everyone is as charitable as you are.

which doesn’t at all grant claim to take their stuff

 

[educ8r]

Then perhaps your accusations of selfishness are best served elsewhere? I see an abundance of Hollywood elite living a hell of a lot better than I do

What accusations? I only said that greed, or as you say selfishness, is a winning strategy.

 

[Osteoth]

Great generalizations snowflake. Save your ignorance. Best stay in California.

The stock market (economy) not doing well enough for you?

Of the demographics most likely to vote Republican, 8/10 are white and religiously affiliated, exhibiting their obvious influence on Republican politics. Furthermore, in the '17-'18 campaign cycle, the financial services industry donated the most money out of any other industry, with over 60% of it going to Republican PACs or campaigns.

This obviously leads to a characterization of the "base" of Republicans as affiliated with these various factions.

The 10 most loyal demographic groups for Republicans and Democrats
Interest Groups | OpenSecrets
Here's who makes up the Democratic and Republican Parties in one chart

 

[deleted480308]

What accusations? I only said that greed, or as you say selfishness, is a winning strategy.

respecting personal rights is a winning strategy. The point isn’t at all whether you suppose that someone else is greedy or charitable, the point is they get to decide

 

[educ8r]

which doesn’t at all grant claim to take their stuff

Of course not, if you're a libertarian. But, as you know, for me and many others, it is basic part of the social contract that allows society to function.

respecting personal rights is a winning strategy

Personal rights must be balanced with societal need. Same as the argument against anti-vaxxers.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yep, what we had back then would now be termed today sweatshops....

The primary care market would definitely not be enough to satisfy doctors in extremely small towns if the people cannot afford it there.

Primary care can be much cheaper than anyone realizes. Go do some research into Direct Primary Care and get back to me.

 

[Roxas]

Of course not, if you're a libertarian. But, as you know, for me and many others, it is basic part of the social contract that allows society to function.


Personal rights must be balanced with societal need. Same as the argument against anti-vaxxers.

You're treading in some murky waters, considering the fluidity with which that can be defined. Some view ethnic cleansing as a "societal need"

Is personal rights as a constant not a safer bet?

 

[deleted480308]

Of course not, if you're a libertarian. But, as you know, for me and many others, it is basic part of the social contract that allows society to function.


Personal rights must be balanced with societal need. Same as the argument against anti-vaxxers.

Vaccines are are awesome and should be voluntary

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I have no real stake in this argument as a whole, but why is the thread whining about having to pay back these massive loans and not the fact that these loans get bigger with every new class?

Tuition at my state med school was 24k when I started. It was 16k when a cousin started 4 years before I did. It is now 36k (I graduated in 2010 for perspective). I'm pretty sure the education isn't twice as good as when my cousin was there.

 

[intubesteak]

Lol. All of you guys whining about not getting PSLF are ridiculous. You are so concerned about "helping the poor", yet you are asking for free money so that you can live a 200k, loan-free lifestyle instead of the 150K, loan-full lifestyle. The hypocrisy is killing me.

If you really cared about social equality you would live on 60k a year, pay off your own effing loans, and then give the rest to charity. But NOBODY DOES THAT because we are all looking out for our own interests. This is human nature plain and simple.