Latest development on PSLF

[distressstudent]

https://nytimes.com/2017/03/30/business/student-loan-forgiveness-program-lawsuit.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Likkriue]

What a shame. Not surprising since there is no way the government can discharge the amount of loans they are giving out like candy......

 

[dudeethatsrad]

What a shame. Not surprising since there is no way the government can discharge the amount of loans they are giving out like candy......

Well, you have to imagine it is/was accounted for in the federal budget in some regard. However, cuts to arts and education programs in order to fund weekly trips to Mar-a-Lago have to come from somewhere, right?

 

[Likkriue]

Well, you have to imagine it is/was accounted for in the federal budget in some regard. However, cuts to arts and education programs in order to fund weekly trips to Mar-a-Lago have to come from somewhere, right?

They did admit they miscalculated the loan amount that is about to be discharged under PAYE/IBR. Probably the same thing happened here. Whats scary is that the folks that took out loans 10 years ago is a fraction of the loans coming up for PAYE and IBR.

Its almost time for the first members of PLSF to get forgiven. What happened is that they probably took a look at the total amount estimated to be discharged and it was far higher than anticipated. In order to balance the budget they decide to mysteriously pull the rug on a few folks here and there. "Oh the two years you did at this center doesn't count sorry." "Yeah that place you just spent 8 years working at doesn't qualified".

Like screw this crap, Im not hopping on ANY federal loan forgiveness that does not give me the money ahead of time. Pinky promising me that my loans are going to be gone after 10, 20, 30 years? No thanks.

 

[Likkriue]

Feds may have underestimated cost of student loan forgiveness

There you go, I found it. That was the link that talked about the ridiculous miscalculation they had projected in 2007. And these loans are a fraction of what they are now.

 

[Cello]

What a shame. Not surprising since there is no way the government can discharge the amount of loans they are giving out like candy......

Why not? They do it for the banks and war all the time.

 

[Likkriue]

Why not? They do it for the banks and war all the time.

I don't think they prioritize us over important things like banks and war.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Wow, a government program that doesn't work and is not soluble money wise. I'm super shocked. Who could have ever seen this happening?

 

[Cello]

I don't think they prioritize us over important things like banks and war.

Of course this is true, but I hope that you are joking about the importance of war and banks over the future of the nation.

 

[Likkriue]

Of course this is true, but I hope that you are joking about the importance of war and banks over the future of the nation.

Sarcasm lol.

 

[Cello]

Sarcasm lol.

Phew! You never can be too sure given the views of some posters on this forum.

 

[Likkriue]

Goodluck telling the government to discharge about 1.3 trillion in loans though.

 

[Master Yoda]

It feels like the bubble is about to burst!

 

[allantois]

Not that dentists should have counted on PSLF anyway.

 

[Incis0r]

Huge discussion of this taking off on REDDIT: U.S. Education Department Says Many Student Loan Forgiveness Letters May Be Invalid • r/personalfinance

 

[kidsaremypassion]

They did admit they miscalculated the loan amount that is about to be discharged under PAYE/IBR. Probably the same thing happened here. Whats scary is that the folks that took out loans 10 years ago is a fraction of the loans coming up for PAYE and IBR.

Its almost time for the first members of PLSF to get forgiven. What happened is that they probably took a look at the total amount estimated to be discharged and it was far higher than anticipated. In order to balance the budget they decide to mysteriously pull the rug on a few folks here and there. "Oh the two years you did at this center doesn't count sorry." "Yeah that place you just spent 8 years working at doesn't qualified".

Like screw this crap, Im not hopping on ANY federal loan forgiveness that does not give me the money ahead of time. Pinky promising me that my loans are going to be gone after 10, 20, 30 years? No thanks.

THIS. I still think its just too risky to base your entire financial livelihood on the government being kind to you. Plan for the worst; hope for the best.

 

[Grinz]

Lots of misinformation being spread on this thread. Did anyone actually read the article? It's not talking about government employees or 501(c)(3) employees. There is no way this is going to affect a dentist or any healthcare provider working in public health, FQHC, VA, etc. - go read the post on predental forum I made.

Why would it be okay if I could apply for 501(c)(4) status today and get it in three to six months - do nothing for 10 years and have the taxpayers foot the bill for my education? It's not and that's what the department of education is saying. You can't just work for a "nonprofit" like the corrupt Citizens United organization and have your loans forgiven.

 

[Likkriue]

Lots of misinformation being spread on this thread. Did anyone actually read the article? It's not talking about government employees or 501(c)(3) employees. There is no way this is going to affect a dentist or any healthcare provider working in public health, FQHC, VA, etc. - go read the post on predental forum I made.

Why would it be okay if I could apply for 501(c)(4) status today and get it in three to six months - do nothing for 10 years and have the taxpayers foot the bill for my education? It's not and that's what the department of education is saying. You can't just work for a "nonprofit" like the corrupt Citizens United organization and have your loans forgiven.

Let's wait till October comes and see how many people are actually forgiven. I will bet your tune will change.

 

[Grinz]

Let's wait till October comes and see how many people are actually forgiven. I will bet your tune will change.

What I'm saying is that this article is interviewing and quoting Natalie Abrams, a gender studies major from UCLA, who works for a 501(c)(4) organization and if you go to the department of educations website and go to their loan forgiveness section it clearly says that PSLF only applies only applies to government employees and 501(c)(3) employees who've served for 10 years. So sucks to suck but sounds like either Natalie Abrams and others didn't do their DD and are just expecting taxpayers to foot the bill.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Seriously, how did people think this was going to end up?

When a deal sounds too good to be true....

 

[Cello]

I am not sure that I understand some of the comments in this thread.

The government had a deal with these students. The students (presumably) fulfilled their obligation and now it is up to the government to uphold its end of the bargain. There is nothing generous or kind about an institution (public or private) that takes your money and then stiffs you at the end of it.

 

[Big Time Hoosier]

I am not sure that I understand some of the comments in this thread.

The government had a deal with these students. The students (presumably) fulfilled their obligation and now it is up to the government to uphold its end of the bargain. There is nothing generous or kind about an institution (public or private) that takes your money and then stiffs you at the end of it.

It's the government. What did you expect? Something is costing them a lot more than planned. Surprised? They're going to claw back as much as possible. Surprised? I'm blown away by how much people trust the government, especially snowflake millennials. Anyone who thinks the solution to society's ills is a larger, more powerful central government is an absolute idiot.

Big Hoss

 

[GypsyHummus]

I am not sure that I understand some of the comments in this thread.

The government had a deal with these students. The students (presumably) fulfilled their obligation and now it is up to the government to uphold its end of the bargain. There is nothing generous or kind about an institution (public or private) that takes your money and then stiffs you at the end of it.

Do you actually trust the government to go through with its promises? Anyone who had trust in our elected officials in congress to do simple math is themselves, simple.

 

[Incis0r]

I am not sure that I understand some of the comments in this thread.

The government had a deal with these students. The students (presumably) fulfilled their obligation and now it is up to the government to uphold its end of the bargain. There is nothing generous or kind about an institution (public or private) that takes your money and then stiffs you at the end of it.

The PSLF website explicitly states that you are not guaranteed forgiveness and that you apply for it after 10 years of qualifying monthly payments. There was no bargain to begin with, only the opportunity for one. In fact, the application for PSLF has not even been released yet since no-one is eligible for forgiveness until Oct. 2017.

 

[Incis0r]

Question #5 on Page 2 of 13: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...service-loan-forgiveness-common-questions.pdf

 

[Cello]

Question #5 on Page 2 of 13: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...service-loan-forgiveness-common-questions.pdf

Of course an act of Congress can change any program. The same is true for Social Security and Medicare, though I doubt you would ever find similar fine print in those programs because it would be far too political and would probably lose someone their job. If Congress decided to change or end Social Security tomorrow, then lots of retired Americans would be out on the streets.

That said, the Social Security Administration can't just arbitrarily deny benefits to recipients... Congress can vote to end the program or change qualifying conditions, but the agency itself can not just decide to stiff a few SS recipients here and there in order to remain solvent.

If there wasn't a legal case to be argued here, then the American Bar Association wouldn't have taken up the lawsuit.

Do you actually trust the government to go through with its promises? Anyone who had trust in our elected officials in congress to do simple math is themselves, simple.

Do you trust the police or fire department to show up when you call 911? That's the government. Would you want to be the one pointing and laughing at the family whose home burned down because they were "simple" enough to believe that the government would follow through?

 

[Incis0r]

Of course an act of Congress can change any program. The same is true for Social Security and Medicare, though I doubt you would ever find similar fine print in those programs because it would be far too political and would probably lose someone their job. If Congress decided to change or end Social Security tomorrow, then lots of retired Americans would be out on the streets.

That said, Social Security can't just arbitrarily deny benefits to recipients... Congress can vote to end the program, but the program can not just decide to stiff a few SS recipients here and there in order to remain solvent.

If there wasn't a legal case to be argued here, then the American Bar Association wouldn't have taken up the lawsuit.

I understand what you're saying, but PSLF cannot be compared to Medicare/Social Security.

• People are PROMISED a benefit in Medicare/social security. Pay in with taxes now, and enjoy benefits later. That's the contract.

• With PSLF, people are told up-front: make 120 monthly payments first, and then you can APPLY to see if you are eligible for forgiveness. They do not make any guarantees for forgiveness at the time you make the payments towards your loans. Therefore, if they deny forgiveness, they are not breaking any contract because no contract existed.

• You are right - this would be terrible if these people were promised loan forgiveness when they made those payments. But this promise was never made by the government. Instead, they were told to 1) make the 120 monthly payments first then 2) apply and see if you are eligible.

 

[Cello]

It's the government. What did you expect?

Apparently they have $20 billion for a wall on the border where a wall already exists...

Something is costing them a lot more than planned. Surprised? They're going to claw back as much as possible. Surprised?

Ehem. That wall I mentioned? Or maybe the F-35 JSF program? The new Ford class carriers? How about the Zumwalts? And that multibillion dollar ballistic missile shield which is 50% effective against targets flying a known course? Any of these multi-billion dollar boondoggles sound familiar? They all cost a lot more money than they were supposed to and yet somehow they got funded.

Priorities.

I'm blown away by how much people trust the government, especially snowflake millennials.

Next you'll be calling someone a **** I suspect.

Anyone who thinks the solution to society's ills is a larger, more powerful central government is an absolute idiot.

Said the Confederacy right before they seceded from the Union, experienced hyperinflation, political infighting, and such dysfunction in their confederated government (which argued about who had to field how many troops to fight the Union) that Jefferson Davis himself conceded the experiment had been a complete and miserable failure.

 

[Likkriue]

They got funded because there is a company behind it milking all the cash. Discharging loans isn't lining anyone's pockets, in fact it's thinning theirs.
Like I said, when they actually discharge the loans, I'll eat crow.

 

[Cello]

I understand what you're saying, but PSLF cannot be compared to Medicare/Social Security.

• People are PROMISED a benefit in Medicare/social security. Pay in with taxes now, and enjoy benefits later. That's the contract.

• With PSLF, people are told up-front: make 120 monthly payments first, and then you can APPLY to see if you are eligible for forgiveness. They do not make any guarantees for forgiveness at the time you make the payments towards your loans. Therefore, if they deny forgiveness, they are not breaking any contract because no contract existed.

• You are right - this would be terrible if these people were promised loan forgiveness when they made those payments. But this promise was never made by the government. Instead, they were told to 1) make the 120 monthly payments first then 2) apply and see if you are eligible.

I certainly never signed any contract for Social Security benefits. In fact, I assume they won't be around by the time I retire thanks to the irresponsible spending habits of the generations before us.

As far as PSLF goes, from the article it sounds like these borrowers were approved for PSLF. They had their loans transferred to FedLoan which then arbitrarily denied loan forgiveness to a small number of borrowers. Some of those borrowers filed suit against the Department of Education with the American Bar Association (remember, the bar associations are about as law-savvy as you get). The Department of Education responded that the FedLoan's "certification forms can not be trusted." FedLoan then elaborated that their forms do not reflect a final agency decision from the Education Department. Clearly, there is confusion as to who can deny loan forgiveness in the first place. Also, this has nothing to do with Congress, so point number 5 on the studentaid.gov site is irrelevant. What FedLoan is doing is probably illegal, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

To the posters here who simply throw their hands in the air and say "what do you expect? This is what the government does." No. Actually, the government does what the voters tell it to do. If you don't like something, make some noise. Don't chastise others for standing up for themselves or having expectations from the government that is supposed to represent them. The New York Times did us all a service by exposing this to public scrutiny. Now it is up the public to make enough noise to enact real change in Washington. Your legislators want to stay in office, and they don't do that if they have pissed off constituents willing to vote them out when they don't fulfill their promises.

 

[jadedphysiotherapist]

I don't think they prioritize us over important things like banks and war.

Phew! You never can be too sure given the views of some posters on this forum.

......

I certainly never signed any contract for Social Security benefits. In fact, I assume they won't be around by the time I retire thanks to the irresponsible spending habits of the generations before us.

As far as PSLF goes, from the article it sounds like these borrowers were approved for PSLF. They had their loans transferred to FedLoan which then arbitrarily denied loan forgiveness to a small number of borrowers. Some of those borrowers filed suit against the Department of Education with the American Bar Association (remember, the bar associations are about as law-savvy as you get). The Department of Education responded that the FedLoan's "certification forms can not be trusted." FedLoan then elaborated that their forms do not reflect a final agency decision from the Education Department. Clearly, there is confusion as to who can deny loan forgiveness in the first place. Also, this has nothing to do with Congress, so point number 5 on the studentaid.gov site is irrelevant. What FedLoan is doing is probably illegal, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

To the posters here who simply throw their hands in the air and say "what do you expect? This is what the government does." No. Actually, the government does what the voters tell it to do. If you don't like something, make some noise. Don't chastise others for standing up for themselves or having expectations from the government that is supposed to represent them. The New York Times did us all a service by exposing this to public scrutiny. Now it is up the public to make enough noise to enact real change in Washington. Your legislators want to stay in office, and they don't do that if they have pissed off constituents willing to vote them out when they don't fulfill their promises.

This is gold. As in I'm in agreement gold.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Of course an act of Congress can change any program. The same is true for Social Security and Medicare, though I doubt you would ever find similar fine print in those programs because it would be far too political and would probably lose someone their job. If Congress decided to change or end Social Security tomorrow, then lots of retired Americans would be out on the streets.

That said, the Social Security Administration can't just arbitrarily deny benefits to recipients... Congress can vote to end the program or change qualifying conditions, but the agency itself can not just decide to stiff a few SS recipients here and there in order to remain solvent.

If there wasn't a legal case to be argued here, then the American Bar Association wouldn't have taken up the lawsuit.



Do you trust the police or fire department to show up when you call 911? That's the government. Would you want to be the one pointing and laughing at the family whose home burned down because they were "simple" enough to believe that the government would follow through?

You shouldn't trust social security, and nobody else should either. Save up your own money for retirement. The only thing you can count on the government (federal) is to take way to much out in taxes and give it to someone else.

The camels back has to break somewhere with all the spending, and it is mathematically impossible to just "tax the rich" until they "pay their fair share". Someone has to take the hit, and the calculated hit is the people who can still bring in sizable incomes. Why does a dentist need student loan forgiveness when he makes 120k+/year?

As far as the police and or fire truck argument, that falls into the hands of local government, which I would trust far more than the federal, especially in more conservative areas like the Midwest . At least with local government you interact with those people.

 

[Big Time Hoosier]

Do you trust the police or fire department to show up when you call 911? That's the government. Would you want to be the one pointing and laughing at the family whose home burned down because they were "simple" enough to believe that the government would follow through?

There's a Supreme Court ruling stating that the above have no legal obligation to actually assist you. Also, thanks for providing examples of government corruption and incompetence to help support my argument.

Big Hoss

 

[Cello]

You shouldn't trust social security, and nobody else should either. Save up your own money for retirement. The only thing you can count on the government (federal) is to take way to much out in taxes and give it to someone else.

The camels back has to break somewhere with all the spending, and it is mathematically impossible to just "tax the rich" until they "pay their fair share". Someone has to take the hit, and the calculated hit is the people who can still bring in sizable incomes. Why does a dentist need student loan forgiveness when he makes 120k+/year?

As far as the police and or fire truck argument, that falls into the hands of local government, which I would trust far more than the federal, especially in more conservative areas like the Midwest . At least with local government you interact with those people.

None of the people in the NYT article were dentists. And it should be noted that PSLF is also used by people who don't traditionally have high salaries like firefighters. In fact, the article claims that up to 25% of American workers are likely eligible for the PSLF program.

Now, with respect to government, your Representative covers your district. If you are unhappy about something, call their office. They actually value feedback from their constituents. Your Senators represent your state, and their staff will also happily take a phone call from you. You are also free to attend town hall events and bring up issues that concern you. If you really want to make a difference, out of 79,000 registered lobbying organizations, the ADA is the second largest lobbying organization on The Hill. Get involved and make a difference, your government is more receptive than you may realize.

Now, to the claim that local governments do it better. If that's true, then why do local DOTs almost universally need federal funding for their big projects? Why do local police departments need the help of the FBI when there is a terror attack or a really technical crime occurs that is beyond the breadth and experience of what their department can reasonably investigate? Why is it that state governments need federal assistance for disaster relief if they are so much better than the feds at managing their resources?

If you want a perfect example of a federal program working better than what the states can manage, look no further than Medicare (federal) and Medicaid (state-run). Medicare is widely considered to be a successful program, though providers may gripe about reimbursements and paperwork. Medicaid on the otherhand is an unmitigated disaster. How many dentists accept Medicaid?

Here in Arizona, state legislators cut the adult Medicaid benefit (AHCCCS) for dental care during the recession to save money. The cuts saved the state around $2.6 million. But those patients now cost the state $36 million in ER visits where they receive antibiotics and opiates for a dental problem that is better left to a dentist who can perform a simple extraction. The definition of jumping over dollars to save dimes.

There's a Supreme Court ruling stating that the above have no legal obligation to actually assist you. Also, thanks for providing examples of government corruption and incompetence to help support my argument.

Big Hoss

Which ruling is that?

And your original argument was the following:

Something is costing them a lot more than planned. Surprised? They're going to claw back as much as possible. Surprised?

From the examples I gave above that is not always true. In fact, it is often not true.

 

[Big Time Hoosier]

None of the people in the NYT article were dentists. And it should be noted that PSLF is also used by people who don't traditionally have high salaries like firefighters. In fact, the article claims that up to 25% of American workers are likely eligible for the PSLF program.

Now, with respect to government, your Representative covers your district. If you are unhappy about something, call their office. They actually value feedback from their constituents. Your Senators represent your state, and their staff will also happily take a phone call from you. You are also free to attend town hall events and bring up issues that concern you. If you really want to make a difference, out of 79,000 registered lobbying organizations, the ADA is the second largest lobbying organization on The Hill. Get involved and make a difference, your government is more receptive than you may realize.

Now, to the claim that local governments do it better. If that's true, then why do local DOTs almost universally need federal funding for their big projects? Why do local police departments need the help of the FBI when there is a terror attack or a really technical crime occurs that is beyond the breadth and experience of what their department can reasonably investigate? Why is it that state governments need federal assistance for disaster relief if they are so much better than the feds at managing their resources?

If you want a perfect example of a federal program working better than what the states can manage, look no further than Medicare (federal) and Medicaid (state-run). Medicare is widely considered to be a successful program, though providers may gripe about reimbursements and paperwork. Medicaid on the otherhand is an unmitigated disaster. How many dentists accept Medicaid?

Here in Arizona, state legislators cut the adult Medicaid benefit (AHCCCS) for dental care during the recession to save money. The cuts saved the state around $2.6 million. But those patients now cost the state $36 million in ER visits where they receive antibiotics and opiates for a dental problem that is better left to a dentist who can perform a simple extraction. The definition of jumping over dollars to save dimes.



Which ruling is that?

And your original argument was the following:



From the examples I gave above that is not always true. In fact, it is often not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ve-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0

My basic argument is that the government is not anywhere near as competent or accountable as they would have you believe. The country was originally founded with strong local government and a relatively weak central government. The idea being that it's much easier to hold politicians accountable at the local level to effect change, rather than run everything through some distant, faceless bureaucracy. It was the Civil War that flip-flopped this arrangement. Do you really think politicians care about your phone calls and letters, when something like 90% of incumbents are re-elected year after year? Wishful thinking.

Big Hoss

 

[Big Time Hoosier]

I know this thread is discussing PSLF in particular, but don't forget that all IBR options are in trouble.

IBR and loan forgiveness

Big Hoss

 

[Scumbag_Steve]

.

 

[Big Time Hoosier]

Think about the amount of blowback legislators will receieve if they support legistlation to deny people their social security benefits. People receiving them are likely to be voters, and children of voters. "You can't take away my dad's social security benefits, he worked all his life for those and needs them to survive" will say millions of voters across the country.

Oh, don't worry. Cuts are coming to Social Security whether people like them or not. The Social Security trust fund is expected to run dry by 2033, at which point Social Security will only be able to cover about 75% of benefits.

Big Hoss

 

[Cali20002]

Oh, don't worry. Cuts are coming to Social Security whether people like them or not. The Social Security trust fund is expected to run dry by 2033, at which point Social Security will only be able to cover about 75% of benefits.

Big Hoss

"Social Security trust fund" - haha good joke.

 

[Cello]

Oh, don't worry. Cuts are coming to Social Security whether people like them or not. The Social Security trust fund is expected to run dry by 2033, at which point Social Security will only be able to cover about 75% of benefits.

Big Hoss

I doubt it. We found a way to loan the banks $1.3 trillion. We will find a way to increase the defense budget by $70 billion. We will find a way to pay $20 billion for a wall. When Obama's $750 billion infrastructure bill was called too expensive by the GOP, somehow they found the funds to support Trump's $1+ trillion infrastructure bill.

Our government can produce money to fund the things it wants to and that depends on who is in power at the time. Money is really used as a means of inflicting your ideology upon others. Don't like abortion? Cut funding. Don't like education? Cut funding. Don't like defense spending, the police, or the post office? Cut funding. Don't like it because the other party was behind it (like when Romneycare becomes Obamacare)? Cut funding.

Think about the amount of blowback legislators will receieve if they support legistlation to deny people their social security benefits. People receiving them are likely to be voters, and children of voters. "You can't take away my dad's social security benefits, he worked all his life for those and needs them to survive" will say millions of voters across the country.

Right. Which is what I meant when I said the following:

Of course an act of Congress can change any program. The same is true for Social Security and Medicare, though I doubt you would ever find similar fine print in those programs because it would be far too political and would probably lose someone their job. If Congress decided to change or end Social Security tomorrow, then lots of retired Americans would be out on the streets.

When people realize that "rich and greedy" doctors and dentists are "making out like bandits" with PSLF, there will be not nearly as much blowback from voters and legislation targeting would not be akin to political suicide. Do I think it should be eliminated? No. Do I think it could very well be eliminated before 2018? Absolutely. If we have learned anything in politics over the past few years it's that the impossible is bound to happen eventually.

As I said above, PSLF is available to many more people than just doctors and dentists. Those people will also be affected. Not equal in magnitude to cuts in SS, but enough to cause problems for legislators. The student loan crisis is fast approaching critical mass, and programs like PSLF are intended to alleviate the burden. Many lawmakers will have something to say about problems with loan repayment programs. It isn't like PSLF, IBR, and PAYE were passed in a vacuum or that they never had Congressional support.

 

[Cello]

As an aside, I do wonder if some of you feel that promises made under PSLF are somehow different than those made with HPSP or NHSC. What happens if the military decides that dental tuition is too high and just decides not to pay tuition for its scholarship recipients one year? The military is also the federal government after all and you can never be sure that Congress won't enact budget cuts... Are people being naive by joining the military with an expectation that their school will be paid for?

 

[distressstudent]

As an aside, I do wonder if some of you feel that promises made under PSLF are somehow different than those made with HPSP or NHSC. What happens if the military decides that dental tuition is too high and just decides not to pay tuition for its scholarship recipients one year? The military is also the federal government after all and you can never be sure that Congress won't enact budget cuts... Are people being naive by joining the military with an expectation that their school will be paid for?

I am not too concerned if that comes to pass.
If they decide to not pay for one year, then that's one year less of payback I owe them.

As a matter of fact, if they decide to void my contract entirely now, I would be more than happy to obligate. After all, the loans aren't in my name anymore.

 

[Likkriue]

PLSF/IBR/PAYE have been explicitly used by schools to justify their tuition. This huge student loan crisis has been partially fueled by programs just like these. What should have happened is the people who can't afford school just don't go. This is the balance that keeps tuition low and sane.
Infinite loans means anyone could go to any school. Thus there is no checks and balances on tuition. Now sprinkle in a promise that your loans could be forgiven to temp people to go deep in debt just gives less incentive for tuition to drop.

When October rolls by, lets see how much loans are forgiven. Im not in any way bashing the government, I just know for a fact that PLSF/IBR/PAYE are empty promises. If its too good to be true, it most likely is.

 

[Big Time Hoosier]

As an aside, I do wonder if some of you feel that promises made under PSLF are somehow different than those made with HPSP or NHSC. What happens if the military decides that dental tuition is too high and just decides not to pay tuition for its scholarship recipients one year? The military is also the federal government after all and you can never be sure that Congress won't enact budget cuts... Are people being naive by joining the military with an expectation that their school will be paid for?

They are absolutely different. I signed a very specific contract. If they decided to not pay tuition for a year, they would be in breach of said contract and it would be void. I'd go my way and they'd go theirs. A friend of a friend of a friend had this happen. After paying for three years of medical school the Army cut him loose, apparently, because of force reduction. Imagine that? Three years of school paid for with no obligation. Also, those "promises" you mentioned come with much more serious "obligations," like if they say jump I say how high. If I say I don't want to jump, they throw me in jail.

You keep throwing out examples of Washington's inability to do anything right. If you truly disagree with me, stop supporting my argument for increased personal liberty and much more limited government. Don't play with Big Hoss' emotions like that!

Big Hoss

PS: I totally agree that the military should cap the HPSP.

 

[Incis0r]

Think about the amount of blowback legislators will receieve if they support legistlation to deny people their social security benefits. People receiving them are likely to be voters, and children of voters. "You can't take away my dad's social security benefits, he worked all his life for those and needs them to survive" will say millions of voters across the country.

God I hope you're right, but after what just happened with the FCC regulations being halted in their tracks and ISPs being allowed to sell your data, I'm not so sure anymore...

 

[Incis0r]

As an aside, I do wonder if some of you feel that promises made under PSLF are somehow different than those made with HPSP or NHSC. What happens if the military decides that dental tuition is too high and just decides not to pay tuition for its scholarship recipients one year? The military is also the federal government after all and you can never be sure that Congress won't enact budget cuts... Are people being naive by joining the military with an expectation that their school will be paid for?

I would be more inclined to trust the credibility of HPSP than PSLF for a few reasons:

• HPSP is a program that has been in existence for 45 years now. It has a proven track record. PSLF has not been in force at all yet.

• The military has, time and time again, demonstrated a precedent of grandfathering in people under previous policies. For example, they recently reduced retirement pensions, but those on the old system stayed on that previous system if they wanted. Only those joining after Jan 1, 2018 would be in the new system. I would assume this logic would apply to the HPSP as well.

• HPSP is responsible for the recruitment of vast majority of healthcare professionals in the Armed Forces. It's the main artery by which new blood joins the military. They just don't have enough direct accessions. HPSP is the big incentive.

• Present conditions/talk of the "Great Rebuilding" of our nation's military suggests DoD funding will not be drastically cut.

• What are your thoughts?

 

[MahiMahi]

I would be more inclined to trust the credibility of HPSP than PSLF for a few reasons:

• HPSP is a program that has been in existence for 45 years now. It has a proven track record. PSLF has not been in force at all yet.

• The military has, time and time again, demonstrated a precedent of grandfathering in people under previous policies. For example, they recently reduced retirement pensions, but those on the old system stayed on that previous system if they wanted. Only those joining after Jan 1, 2018 would be in the new system. I would assume this logic would apply to the HPSP as well.

• HPSP is responsible for the recruitment of vast majority of healthcare professionals in the Armed Forces. It's the main artery by which new blood joins the military. They just don't have enough direct accessions. HPSP is the big incentive.

• Present conditions/talk of the "Great Rebuilding" of our nation's military suggests DoD funding will not be drastically cut.

• What are your thoughts?

I don't see HPSP ending anytime in the next four years. However, I could see HPSP being capped to a certain limit, particularly for dental school (which is often much more expensive than medical school).

 

[MahiMahi]

Think about the amount of blowback legislators will receieve if they support legistlation to deny people their social security benefits. People receiving them are likely to be voters, and children of voters. "You can't take away my dad's social security benefits, he worked all his life for those and needs them to survive" will say millions of voters across the country.

When people realize that "rich and greedy" doctors and dentists are "making out like bandits" with PSLF, there will be not nearly as much blowback from voters and legislation targeting would not be akin to political suicide. Do I think it should be eliminated? No. Do I think it could very well be eliminated before 2018? Absolutely. If we have learned anything in politics over the past few years it's that the impossible is bound to happen eventually.

I could see some blowback if the government tried to directly eliminate PSLF for the current generation of doctors. Even if they put in some income limits to lock physicians out, there would still be a real political cost, since a very very significant number of physicians (due to the length of residency training and the non-profit nature of most hospitals and clinics) benefit massively from PSLF. Eliminate PSLF and you might eliminate a large swathe of physician voters/campaign donors.

I think what's most likely to happen is that the total amount of forgiveness for future borrowers will be limited, or, the "blank-check" amount of grad plus loans for future students will be limited.

 

[distressstudent]

I could see some blowback if the government tried to directly eliminate PSLF for the current generation of doctors. Even if they put in some income limits to lock physicians out, there would still be a real political cost, since a very very significant number of physicians (due to the length of residency training and the non-profit nature of most hospitals and clinics) benefit massively from PSLF. Eliminate PSLF and you might eliminate a large swathe of physician voters/campaign donors.

I think what's most likely to happen is that the total amount of forgiveness for future borrowers will be limited, or, the "blank-check" amount of grad plus loans for future students will be limited.

large?

 

[Grinz]

None of the people in the NYT article were dentists. And it should be noted that PSLF is also used by people who don't traditionally have high salaries like firefighters. In fact, the article claims that up to 25% of American workers are likely eligible for the PSLF program.

Now, with respect to government, your Representative covers your district. If you are unhappy about something, call their office. They actually value feedback from their constituents. Your Senators represent your state, and their staff will also happily take a phone call from you. You are also free to attend town hall events and bring up issues that concern you. If you really want to make a difference, out of 79,000 registered lobbying organizations, the ADA is the second largest lobbying organization on The Hill. Get involved and make a difference, your government is more receptive than you may realize.

Now, to the claim that local governments do it better. If that's true, then why do local DOTs almost universally need federal funding for their big projects? Why do local police departments need the help of the FBI when there is a terror attack or a really technical crime occurs that is beyond the breadth and experience of what their department can reasonably investigate? Why is it that state governments need federal assistance for disaster relief if they are so much better than the feds at managing their resources?

If you want a perfect example of a federal program working better than what the states can manage, look no further than Medicare (federal) and Medicaid (state-run). Medicare is widely considered to be a successful program, though providers may gripe about reimbursements and paperwork. Medicaid on the otherhand is an unmitigated disaster. How many dentists accept Medicaid?

Here in Arizona, state legislators cut the adult Medicaid benefit (AHCCCS) for dental care during the recession to save money. The cuts saved the state around $2.6 million. But those patients now cost the state $36 million in ER visits where they receive antibiotics and opiates for a dental problem that is better left to a dentist who can perform a simple extraction. The definition of jumping over dollars to save dimes.
.

Do you have a source for this? I would love to read more about that - for some reason it's very interesting to me!