Loan Calculator

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
dudestheman90

dudestheman90

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
1 $180,000.00 $0.00
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Well good thing for you you aren't interested much in pod school and have a significantly less expensive pt school you have been accepted to. I will take my chances on my debt.
 
Snowman211 said:
Well good thing for you you aren't interested much in pod school and have a significantly less expensive pt school you have been accepted to. I will take my chances on my debt.
Click to expand...

On avg. where I live, PT and Nursing programs cost around 60-80k which is significantly much cheaper. What I posted previously was a low and rough estimate of the cost. When you include the costs to0 travel and housing for clinicals, car gas, and other hidden fees like board exam costs, ect... your tuition is more likely to hover around 50k per year, 200k total. The Interest will accumulate for 17 years (starting with pod school 4 yrs), 3 year residency, 50k salary isn't enough to start making payments since some of that salary is already going to paying taxes and housing costs, plus 10 years as your hopefully situated and making a decent income working in the field. Also some of the loan will be covered by 6.8% and some of it by 7.9+% interest. Technically the debt will be more around 280-320k, Again a rough but close estimate. You just have to make sure that this is what you really want to do, its a huge financial obligation. You have to look at the risks and benefits, nvr go into something blindly. The dental students pay 1.5 - 2 times as much the cost of medical school, so you really want to make sure you like teeth. Again, I know the reality of things suck, but you need to confront these issues b4 you dive into it. Also people need to have a real expectency of their success in podiatry and chances of obtaining a residency. You don't want to go in and end up failing out, with not way to pay back your loans. Again I think if money is the motive, then people should consider alternate career options. I guess if a person has rich parents or a full scholarship that would be an exception, if not, It's important to really look at what exactly are your aims and goals in life. Good Luck in your decision, I was accepted to PT school, but I still can do podiatry if I want. I'm just trying to help those poor souls that may not realize what their getting themselves into, in regards to financial bankruptcy.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
dudestheman90 said:
On avg. where I live, PT and Nursing programs cost around 60-80k which is significantly much cheaper. What I posted previously was a low and rough estimate of the cost. When you include the costs to0 travel and housing for clinicals, car gas, and other hidden fees like board exam costs, ect... your tuition is more likely to hover around 50k per year, 200k total. The Interest will accumulate for 17 years (starting with pod school 4 yrs), 3 year residency, 50k salary isn't enough to start making payments since some of that salary is already going to paying taxes and housing costs, plus 10 years as your hopefully situated and making a decent income working in the field. Also some of the loan will be covered by 6.8% and some of it by 7.9+% interest. Technically the debt will be more around 280-320k, Again a rough but close estimate. You just have to make sure that this is what you really want to do, its a huge financial obligation. You have to look at the risks and benefits, nvr go into something blindly. The dental students pay 1.5 - 2 times as much the cost of medical school, so you really want to make sure you like teeth. Again, I know the reality of things suck, but you need to confront these issues b4 you dive into it. Also people need to have a real expectency of their success in podiatry and chances of obtaining a residency. You don't want to go in and end up failing out, with not way to pay back your loans. Again I think if money is the motive, then people should consider alternate career options. I guess if a person has rich parents or a full scholarship that would be an exception, if not, It's important to really look at what exactly are your aims and goals in life. Good Luck in your decision, I was accepted to PT school, but I still can do podiatry if I want. I'm just trying to help those poor souls that may not realize what their getting themselves into, in regards to financial bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

They're*

I really don't understand how some of ya'll got into professional programs when you lack grammar skills learned in elementary school.
 
Ahh just another one of the ways the baby boomers have royally screwed over the millenials or anyone going to school now. I just wonder what those do who already have 80-100k from undergrad.
 
Snowman211 said:
Well good thing for you you aren't interested much in pod school and have a significantly less expensive pt school you have been accepted to. I will take my chances on my debt.
Click to expand...

Again, when you compare PT vs. DPM if money is really your problem then look at this: Is the extra tuition cost for 4yrs more important than the 30-40yrs of your practice

Based on salary.com for both (which I disagree with for being too highly inflated) Just looking at the average salary for Physical Therapist is $75K (10percentile $65K, 90th percentile $86K)...Podiatrist mean is $176K (10th percentile $88K, 90th percentile $310K)

According to the Bureau of Labor a DPM avgs. $118K per year and PT is $76K

I am not taking loans, housing, or interest rates into the consideration but when you look at that PTs have to go through 3yrs and DPM for 4yrs +2yrs.
From some of the PT schools I was searching around in MI I noticed it is roughly $60K at UM Flint and CMU, $75K for a MI resident at Oakland & GVSU for the 120 credits for just tuition alone.
Stat-checking I learned that if you went to GVSU and Oakland's PT schools and you were from out of state it would cost nearly the same or LESS to go to their programs than Barry, Scholl, DesMoines, NY, and Kent State.

So factor in the fact that the top 10% of PTs make about equal to the bottom 10% DPMs.

So if you are all in it for the money or out of it b/c the fear of loans then statchecking will show that by the time you are 10yrs out of med vs. PT schools you will have more money saved for a house if you go DPM over PT

Just saying!
 
dudestheman90 said:
You won't start making 176k per year as a pod. Btwn 60-100k is more accurate, which is similar to the starting pay of RN's and PT's. PT's and RN's in management can make well over 100k.
Click to expand...

First, I know! Which is also why I said I didn't believe salary.com's listings on mean salary. But I am just saying that PTs pretty much rarely ever make over $95K a year, but DPMs do make more maybe due to the need for surgery by a DPM. Even the Physical Therapist at Henry Ford in MI they don't even make $80K and it is one of the top PT offices in SouthEast Michigan.

All I am saying is that if you compare the first 10yrs out of DPM school (including residency) vs. first 10yrs out of PT school I am pretty sure that a DPM would make most likely $80-$100K more in salary. Then take the next 10yrs after that and you would look at a much bigger number

I am just basing it off salary facts from past podiatrist and the knowledge from a PT from a top office at Henry Ford
 
I don't find this thread depressing actually. It seems some people have a depressing outlook on things, but I am much more optimistic. I have more debt than what you used to figure out your calculations and I'm not terribly concerned about paying back my loans. Sure, I have and will continue to have to budget and be wise with my money, and may not be able to afford the 10 year payment plan initially, but there are over options such as income based repayment or longer loan repayment times. I see it as a smart investment in my future with huge potential and of course risk is involved. But I'm confident and optimistic and I see no reason to be pessimistic.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
ldsrmdude said:
I don't find this thread depressing actually. It seems some people have a depressing outlook on things, but I am much more optimistic. I have more debt than what you used to figure out your calculations and I'm not terribly concerned about paying back my loans. Sure, I have and will continue to have to budget and be wise with my money, and may not be able to afford the 10 year payment plan initially, but there are over options such as income based repayment or longer loan repayment times. I see it as a smart investment in my future with huge potential and of course risk is involved. But I'm confident and optimistic and I see no reason to be pessimistic.
Click to expand...

Exactly - well said sir :thumbup:
 
I read the initial post, and it seems to claim you need to make 250k a year to sustain a 2k per month loan... What?! Even If you make 100k a year and pay back your 2k a month for about 25k a year, you still earn more money than over 50% (its actually MUCH closer to 75%....) the people in the USA.... So... That calculator is messed up.
 
dudestheman90 said:
Lol agian i know you were taught throughout you whole life, be optimistic yadda yadda, Guys there has to come a point in your life where you have to admit, okay "this is the reality of the situation, now this is what i have to do". Believe me i was in school, i was given the whole 360 on life. The calculator is very accurate and real! That 250k debt is only a nice figure, its really going to be more towards 300k in debt. With lower reimbursements for docs and less quality of care on the horizon, really think here.
Click to expand...

Dudesman, I don't ever plan on making 300k a year being a Dr., nor do I see the desire in making such huge earnings based on other people's illness. Which I think brings us to a major flaw in the way we as Americans view our healthcare compared to the rest of the world. I think the majority of people only want to be a doctor because the see the $$$ and not the affect they will have on people's lives. Maybe for me the desire to be a doctor is about helping those in need, not about the money I will be making, is a result of all the health issues I have gone through in my life that because of the insurance I had, was able to get the treatment I needed. The quality of care is not going to go down, that is just a scare tactic the extreme right is using, and apparently working, to try to persuade those that access to quality care is a privilege not a right. When our healthcare system is ranked 37th out of 191 countries, with the highest per capita expidenture, our quality as it stands is terrible for the amount that we spend. Until the way we view the purpose of healthcare in this country changes, no matter how many patients we will be seeing our quality of care will never improve.
 
dudestheman90 said:
Lol agian i know you were taught throughout you whole life, be optimistic yadda yadda, Guys there has to come a point in your life where you have to admit, okay "this is the reality of the situation, now this is what i have to do". Believe me i was in school, i was given the whole 360 on life. The calculator is very accurate and real! That 250k debt is only a nice figure, its really going to be more towards 300k in debt. With lower reimbursements for docs and less quality of care on the horizon, really think here...who do you think will pay for obamacare and 16 trillion dollars in debt? You! and your tax money, that's why taxes are set to go up in january. 1/4th of your future income will be taken out in taxes. I posted the link for he calculator a few posts above, try it out for yourself
Click to expand...

It will be much more than 1/4 income, lol. But it will be much more than a quarter of EVERYONEs income.

The calculator may be right in the amount of money owed, but it's wrong to suggest that you need to make 300k to pay it back...
 
^^ do you know how many toenails need to be clipped to make 300k?!
 
dudestheman90 said:
Money will always play a role regardless if your in it to help people. If you found out your going to be making 60k a year as a doctor would you bother going to med school? I think the answer would be "No". Sorry guys but that's reality under a socialistic economy. If you don't believe me than look at how france's and britain's healthcare system works and see how much docs make over there. This is a process called globalization and our capitalistic free enterprise system is being done away with. UfC your argument is flawed. So the gov't is making you now pay interest as you go and your saying thank you, please screw me again. The right way is capitalism not socialism. The gov't is going to cap your salary, this isn't the American way, and yet you say thankyou to them! While Ceo's are making millions off your hard work. Well if that's what you want, your going to get it in 2014. If your going through 12 years of schooling, you deserve to be fairly compensated not smacked with high tuition rates at 8% interest. Now your probably wondering why any school would not give you this info. Duh!!! they want your money! LOL it's a no-brainer, they don't really care about you! they have to fill their seats so they can get paid.
Click to expand...

You're right. You win, we're all screwed...

And to your argument that RN's will make more and be so much better off because of their "hourly" schedule, they won't get paid as much if the hospital is getting less in reimbursements for the work they do. PT's as well. Basically every health profession is going to see changes but to say that it is not worth it to pursue still is kind of short sighted. Best of luck in your career pursuits though!
 
Dudestheman90, first off its UCF not UFC, I can't stand UFC. Second off, a socialized healthcare system is totally different than a socialized economy. You cannot make a correlation between the two, that is a slippery slope you are using to make an analogy. When it comes to healthcare, it should never be privatized because this is why we have such an expensive system, in which millions of people cannot afford and therefore go without insurance. Doctors in GB make roughly 113K a year, not including their 20-50% increases if they work over their 40 hours per week as government contracted employees (http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/doctors/pay-for-doctors/). They are by no means struggling to get by in these "socialistic" countries. Perhaps you should watch the Frontline series "Sick Around the World", to get a true image of just how wasteful and expensive our system is compared to the rest of the industrialized world. I'm not sure why this country has such a fear of taxes, yet wonders why there are roads that aren't maintained, tuitions that are so expensive, healthcare that many can't afford, services that the rest of the world takes for granted which we will never have. For instance, just this past election cycle there was a 1/2cent sales tax increase proposal that would fund our grossly underfunded schools. Of course it was overwhelming defeated, now we have schools closing, musical and science programs being cut, and charges for playing sports. Yet the same people who voted against anything that they see as "socialistic", are up in arms about the closures and new fees. My mind just continues to be boggled by the views of some people who believe healthcare is a privilege only those with money should have.
 
say you are debt for: $180k

and say you are lucky enough to land a job that gets you say 120k in your first 2 years. Why would you not just pay yourself as you make say: 40k, and dump the rest on the loan. In the matter of 5 years you should be close to paid off on loan.

Then you be living a great quality of life, and literally fly by any income of PT, and many NP and PA's exponentially as your career grows.




ps: I'm lucky enough to have a wife that works. My plan is to pay my loan 5-6 years, and then she can quit or go PT raising the family, and I will not be stressing over school loans. I also want to take out as little as possible through school.
 
I find it funny how Dudesman talks about everyone else being in denial and socialized medicine will ruin us and that medical professionals will be ****ed salary wise as if he knows anymore than the rest of us when nothing has even taken effect yet.

'Also ucf, i do believe healthcare is a privilege, not a right. I don't believe in self-entitlements, my paycheck i work hard for, i shouldn't have to give a larger chunk of my paycheck since sum1 is to lazy to work and doesn't want to buy private health '
Click to expand...

You don't sound like you need to be any kind of doctor, you sound like you only care about whoever/whatever can get you the most money. Poor does not equal lazy, you know. Tell that to the newly enlisted soldier making 18k or the single parent working two jobs to pay for school, or even the regular college student who doesn't have enough of a job to afford privatized health. People shouldn't have to go broke just to stay alive, and life shouldn't be granted to only the person who can throw down the most money, If you love money so much, why not go out of medicine and into something like investment banking
 
Last edited:
I don't understand this knee-jerk panic reflex that comes along with the phrase "socialized healthcare." We are NOT going into a socialized healthcare system. The government will regulate insurance companies, not the doctors themselves. This is not a single payer insurance system like you see in Canada where the government collects the funds from a single pool and uses that to pay for all medical expenses. As a side note, the average income of a general practitioner in Canada/UK is around ~$100,000 a year. This is definitely lower than the US average salary of a GP which is somewhere around ~$165,000 a year, however you have to keep in mind that these governments heavily subsidize the cost of medical school in these countries. This means you are going to graduate from school with a LOT less debt and still have a great job and make good money. Not to mention you won't have to deal with the pain of dealing with insurance companies that US doctors probably spend 50% of their time doing when they could be seeing patients.

The healthcare system in the US is REALLY messed up. 70% of bankruptcies in this country are because of insane medical costs. And 2/3rds of those people already have some kind of health insurance and STILL went bankrupt! This is why the government needs to regulate insurance companies. There's nothing wrong with health insurance companies making a profit, but clearly there needs to be some damage control. This is part of what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act seeks to do. Everyone should have heath insurance. People never plan to get sick, but they do. Accidents happen.

The PPACA states that the compensation of physicians will change from the quantity of patients they see to the quality of the care they give, not necessarily that it will go down. How will this be implemented? Who knows. Will it work? We'll see. However, I strongly agree that something needed to be done in order to address the healthcare issues in this country. President Obama tried to address this with his "Obamacare" law and I feel it is definitely a step in the right direction. We are the only 1st world country without universal healthcare. What is the point of the US having the greatest healthcare in the world if nobody can afford it? That's why I like PPACA. It still allows for private health insurance companies to compete under the supervision of government regulation. It's a nice compromise between capitalism and the more socialist healthcare systems like you see in the UK or Japan.

Odds are you will still be making more as a physician here in the US than you will anywhere else. And that's okay because you have a lot more debt from school here than you will elsewhere. The government will not cripple it's healthcare by slashing the wages of physcians while the prices of medical school skyrocket. Only when the cost of medical school gets subsidized will the government be able to have significant control over physician salaries. And who knows what will happen then.

This is not an easy field. It takes a lot of time and money. However, as long as you make intelligent financial decisions and live well within your means even after residency, I can't see how you couldn't spend a very good portion of your life living comfortably, especially if you have a working spouse. Income Based Repayment will keep your loans from crippling you financially until you get some real money, and then from there you prioritize the next 5 years or so to paying off the rest of your debt.
 
I agree totally with EK18. The problem I see with a lot of future doctors is that so many of them want giant money, right now, to get all the big ticket stuff. People don't want to live within their means anymore
 
EK18 said:
I don't understand this knee-jerk panic reflex that comes along with the phrase "socialized healthcare." We are NOT going into a socialized healthcare system. The government will regulate insurance companies, not the doctors themselves. This is not a single payer insurance system like you see in Canada where the government collects the funds from a single pool and uses that to pay for all medical expenses. As a side note, the average income of a general practitioner in Canada/UK is around ~$100,000 a year. This is definitely lower than the US average salary of a GP which is somewhere around ~$165,000 a year, however you have to keep in mind that these governments heavily subsidize the cost of medical school in these countries. This means you are going to graduate from school with a LOT less debt and still have a great job and make good money. Not to mention you won't have to deal with the pain of dealing with insurance companies that US doctors probably spend 50% of their time doing when they could be seeing patients.

The healthcare system in the US is REALLY messed up. 70% of bankruptcies in this country are because of insane medical costs. And 2/3rds of those people already have some kind of health insurance and STILL went bankrupt! This is why the government needs to regulate insurance companies. There's nothing wrong with health insurance companies making a profit, but clearly there needs to be some damage control. This is part of what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act seeks to do. Everyone should have heath insurance. People never plan to get sick, but they do. Accidents happen.

The PPACA states that the compensation of physicians will change from the quantity of patients they see to the quality of the care they give, not necessarily that it will go down. How will this be implemented? Who knows. Will it work? We'll see. However, I strongly agree that something needed to be done in order to address the healthcare issues in this country. President Obama tried to address this with his "Obamacare" law and I feel it is definitely a step in the right direction. We are the only 1st world country without universal healthcare. What is the point of the US having the greatest healthcare in the world if nobody can afford it? That's why I like PPACA. It still allows for private health insurance companies to compete under the supervision of government regulation. It's a nice compromise between capitalism and the more socialist healthcare systems like you see in the UK or Japan.

Odds are you will still be making more as a physician here in the US than you will anywhere else. And that's okay because you have a lot more debt from school here than you will elsewhere. The government will not cripple it's healthcare by slashing the wages of physcians while the prices of medical school skyrocket. Only when the cost of medical school gets subsidized will the government be able to have significant control over physician salaries. And who knows what will happen then.

This is not an easy field. It takes a lot of time and money. However, as long as you make intelligent financial decisions and live well within your means even after residency, I can't see how you couldn't spend a very good portion of your life living comfortably, especially if you have a working spouse. Income Based Repayment will keep your loans from crippling you financially until you get some real money, and then from there you prioritize the next 5 years or so to paying off the rest of your debt.
Click to expand...

a voice of reason, and well said at that.
 
This is getting a little political here...

I will just add. Nobody knows what the new health care law will truly bring (not even the politicians that voted for it). We each have our own ideas of what will happen ( I personally think the health care system will turn into the DMV 2.0 . Don't have your form correctly filled out? BACK OF THE LINE WITH YOU!)

Financially - Ill give you a few scenarios

a) You graduated in the bottom 20% of your class (or just unlucky). Could not find a residency and now you get to pay uncle Sam $200,000. Or you complete your residency but were unable to obtain a decent job and make 50k or less. Or even worse you don't finish your DPM and your out 200,000. Either case...good luck trying to repay it. I have no clue how anyone could. Perhaps become a public school teacher for 10 years ?

b) You graduate. Get hooked up with a good residency. Get very lucky with landing a good job and make 100k post graduation. Which case yes, 15-20 years you could repay your loan.

In either event, yes I see your point. DPM is not as financially rewarding as other professions. The price you pay for partial autonomy I guess?
 
I'm on my mobile so it's very difficult to multi-quote, and I don't want to post pad the crap out of this so I will post my response to what a lot of you are saying in one post.

1) Medical school cost. Someone said they want their medical school subsidized because prices are skyrocketing.... Excuse me? Who do you think gives you your subsidized loans? Why do you think school prices have raised so dramatically in the last 15 years?? Subsidized loans and availability. Sparing the economic lesson, when more people have access to a good/service, prices go up. As long as the government keeps granting education loans (and subsidizing them!!) to everyone, the price of education WILL increase. If a school needed to compete in a market for a group of 50 students who could afford school, they would lower their price tags to make themselves more attractive, whereas if 500 people could all afford school and the price didn't matter because the government issued you a loan, price would skyrocket. That's what we see happening with education right now. Some of you might even refer to this as a "bubble."

2) socialized healthcare is certainly analogous to a socialized economy. They work identically. If you socialize healthcare, you create a system that forces all healthy people to provide for all the sick. This is the same in a socialized economy. The industrious people must provide for those who lack skills/cannot work/lazy/whatever. Same concept. One group must care for another, they are analogous.

3) This notion that healthcare is a "right" is ludicrous. Everyone seems to think that denying someone health insurance is a death sentence. Do some research! Healthcare does NOT equal health. Your genetic predispositions, your lifestyle, your job, your eating habits, your values, etc etc determine your health. Just because you have healthcare does not mean you will automatically be healthy, and the opposite is true as well: not having healthcare is not a death sentence. Health insurance is a service that costs a fee. The system is undermined once you force everyone to be on the system.

4) Since when has it been a prerequisite to becoming a doctor to "want to help people." Sure that is a noble cause - and i don't deplore that ideal - but go be a social worker, or kindergarten teacher or fireman if that's all you want to do. The schooling is faster and cheaper. What's wrong with wanting the thrill of surgery? Wanting to work for yourself? A love for biomechanics if the lower extremity? Does anyone here have the authority to tell me that any of these reasons are less valid than "I want to help people"? I doubt it...

5) Was medicine always this flawed? Was medicine in a crisis in the 60s? 70s? Or has it been recent regulations for treating patients that have forced providers to be selective and costly? Someone mentioned that its the governments job to force regulations on health insurance companies because people are getting sick and stuck with a bill. If the company breaches the contract, the patient can take them to court. If the patient had a lousy policy and was an alcoholic smoker with Diabetes, then yeah, I can see them having to foot some money here...
 
MaxillofacialMN said:
I'm on my mobile so it's very difficult to multi-quote, and I don't want to post pad the crap out of this so I will post my response to what a lot of you are saying in one post.

1) Medical school cost. Someone said they want their medical school subsidized because prices are skyrocketing.... Excuse me? Who do you think gives you your subsidized loans?].
Click to expand...

Nobody. Seriously, the government no longer offers subsidized loans to students going to professional school. Me and you are going to have to pay for every cent and then some when you calculate interest. Loans aren't a "get out of jail free card" they're more of a business transaction. The government is going to make money off of you.

The cost of schooling in other developed countries is capped and more regulated. I believe it is somewhere around 3500 pounds a year in the UK (which is quite expensive relatively speaking I hear). Because it's more or less left to the private sector here, costs aren't truly regulated and can skyrocket freely. Schools don't have to cap or monitor how much they charge for tuition; they just tell the government a number and then you can secure a loan for that amount. It's not a truly subsidized education because the cost (plus interest) still ultimately falls on you. That's why the student loan system is so broken. Costs will always and forever increase because there is no regulation until ultimately people will simply default on their student loans (similar to how all those people defaulted on their mortgages which caused the housing crisis).
 
EK18 said:
Nobody. Seriously, the government no longer offers subsidized loans to students going to professional school. Me and you are going to have to pay for every cent and then some when you calculate interest. Loans aren't a "get out of jail free card" they're more of a business transaction. The government is going to make money off of you.

The cost of schooling in other developed countries is capped and more regulated. I believe it is somewhere around 3500 pounds a year in the UK (which is quite expensive relatively speaking I hear). Because it's more or less left to the private sector here, costs aren't truly regulated and can skyrocket freely. Schools don't have to cap or monitor how much they charge for tuition; they just tell the government a number and then you can secure a loan for that amount. It's not a truly subsidized education because the cost (plus interest) still ultimately falls on you. That's why the student loan system is so broken. Costs will always and forever increase because there is no regulation until ultimately people will simply default on their student loans (similar to how all those people defaulted on their mortgages which caused the housing crisis).
Click to expand...

Well, considering the government JUST stopped subsidizing medical loans THIS year, I don't think we can see any effect it may have on school prices. The real problem is availability (I'm just fundamentally opposed to subsidization). If everyone is automatically approved for a medical school loan, then there is no competition. Schools know they can charge 70k a year and students will "be able" to pay because the loan is guaranteed to be there. Why do you think pod schools are drastically less expensive than DO schools? Supply and demand. You might argue that loans don't deter anyone from pursuing an education even if loans weren't guaranteed. This is flagrantly false insomuch that this entire thread was started by someone saying that 200k in debt is far too much! None of us bat an eyelash at this figure because we think, "if I was guaranteed to default they'd never loan it to me." Now look around and tell me how many students have defaulted on their loans in the past 4 years! Simply not the case! If a bank determined (and I'm not saying they would) that 200k is too risky to lend to podiatry students for an education, they have no choice but to lend the money. Podiatry actually has the highest loan default rate among any medical/dental specialty. This would no be the case if we allowed banks to calculate risk in our loans, and perhaps they wouldn't agree to she'll out 200k for four years. Perhaps they think only 150k is "reasonable" and that's all they are willing to loan you. If that's the case the schools MUST oblige or they could not fill their seats. Now, they have no problem filling their seats because the money will be there.

The problem here isn't the regulated school prices from the government, rather it's our mixed market economy. When government forces loans to any price-tag the school names, the price will naturally skyrocket. What if the government ran all our schools? What if they capped tuition? Who pays for simulation labs? Good professors? Clinical time? Does this burden fall on the government and therefore the taxpayer? Or perhaps schools need to get by with charging only 10k a year and just cut costs/spending and ultimately you lose educational benefits.

If you say the government needs to cap tuition at 5k a year and the government heavily subsidized the school, how much does each school get? Is it based on how many students they have? How "good" of a program they have? Who determines "good?" And if it IS based on students, don't you think the schools would double or triple their enrollment for more money regardless of whether or not they can sustain so many?

Do you see the problem with all this regulation? It forces A&B to tell C&D what to do. In a truly free market this isn't a problem. In a regulated market, the government (A&B) makes mistakes and is tyrannical against the people (C&D).
 
EK18 said:
. Costs will always and forever increase because there is no regulation until ultimately people will simply default on their student loans (similar to how all those people defaulted on their mortgages which caused the housing crisis).
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't read this the first time around I guess. You couldn't be further from the truth here. It WAS the regulation that caused the bubble! Government was forcing lending companies to approve loans to people who the banks knew could not pay back. When everyone can afford anything because they think Uncle Sam has got their back, they'll reach for the stars. People assume the banks won't loan them money they won't be able to pay back. Have you heard of anyone say "I qualify for X amount."? They are referring to the amount of money the banks are willing to lend them on a transaction. When the government forces this number to become inflated (by loaning to unworthy people), prices too will skyrocket artificially. This is a natural and predictable reaction of the market. To suggest that somehow government didn't regulate the market enough to stop the housing bubble is silly. It was the government's hand in forcing banks to loan, not the banks at all.
 
Your genetic predispositions, your lifestyle, your job, your eating habits, your values, etc etc determine your health.
Click to expand...

Can you please tell me how job and values determine health? And also, can you tell me why people who aren't lucky enough to get a high paying job/a job that gives health insurance don't deserve to be able to go to a doctor if they need one? Also, how does everyone having health care undermine the system, how would that change the quality of care they recieve?
 
Homo sapien said:
Can you please tell me how job and values determine health? And also, can you tell me why people who aren't lucky enough to get a high paying job/a job that gives health insurance don't deserve to be able to go to a doctor if they need one? Also, how does everyone having health care undermine the system, how would that change the quality of care they recieve?
Click to expand...

Sure! An historic example would be coal miners. They have terrible lung conditions. A more popular and recent example is a NFL player. Their bodies and brains are extremely damaged after playing the sport.

Values: An obvious example is STDs. If you and your sexual partner only have/will have sex with each other you have a 0% chance of contracting an STD, including AIDS, which significantly impacts your health.

I don't think luck has much to do with getting a high paying job, but that aside, I don't remember mentioning anything about "deserving" anything. Deserving is a tricky word, and I suppose that in this case, if you can't afford a service (eg healthcare), then I suppose you don't "deserve" it because you don't have the means necessary to pay for it. However, if a patient walked into your clinic and had no insurance but desperately needed help with a diabetic ulcer that could kill them/lose a limb, would you not write that person a prescription for antibiotics/treat them however you would? Perhaps you'd let them die/lose their leg because they can't pay, but I probably wouldn't. Your choice though.

Everyone guaranteed healthcare gives everyone the idea that they can do whatever they want to themselves and they won't have to pay. People who are responsible with their bodies will no longer have financial incentive to wash their hands, eat healthily, or exercise. Again, health insurance is based on the idea of healthy people paying for sick people. If you are guaranteed health insurance, and there is no financial incentive to remain healthy, everyone becomes sick and no one is able to pay, and costs skyrocket. That's how it undermines the system. If, perhaps, everyone had enough money to put themselves on the insurance policy because everyone's jobs were lucrative enough to do so, then I see no problem with everyone being on the plan. But healthcare is a service, and is not a right, and so forcing everyone to be insured, especially those who are poor (and therefore most likely to be the least healthy) and cannot afford their care, hurts everyone.
 
Maxillofacial, your previous post only works if everyone is stupid. Just because someone gets affordable health care it doesn't mean they are stupid and won't wash their hands, work out, eat right, not smoke, watch their sexual partners, or anything else.

And as far as pre-existing conditions, what happens with born conditions vs. job related conditions vs. lifestyle conditions. Will there be different types of insurance for all that?
 
Homo sapien said:
Maxillofacial, your previous post only works if everyone is stupid. Just because someone gets affordable health care it doesn't mean they are stupid and won't wash their hands, work out, eat right, not smoke, watch their sexual partners, or anything else.

And as far as pre-existing conditions, what happens with born conditions vs. job related conditions vs. lifestyle conditions. Will there be different types of insurance for all that?
Click to expand...

If people are stupid? Or just acting naturally? If I knew I had a large deductible, I would be much more inclined to take care of myself. If, however, all of my medical bills were always paid for, yeah I'll act more recklessly, drink, smoke, w/e, the health bills are "free." That's human nature, not being "smart" or not.

For all these conditions, we let the market decide what to do with these people. We've had about 160 years of private insurance in this country and I would say that it worked out just fine. I'm not an actuary, so I don't claim to know how risk works in these situations, but I do know that people will take care of themselves better if they know they know it is their responsibility.
 
Well you might, but I can say I am different than you, because I wouldn't, because goddamn, I don't want to get sick at all. Affordable healthcare doesn't mean your life will be saved. I want to be able to afford healthcare if I do get sick, but I want to preserve my health as long as I can, and that means no wild drinking, no smoking, no random ****ing, no sitting around getting fat as a cow....not to mention all that is boring.
 
Homo sapien said:
Well you might, but I can say I am different than you, because I wouldn't, because goddamn, I don't want to get sick at all. Affordable healthcare doesn't mean your life will be saved. I want to be able to afford healthcare if I do get sick, but I want to preserve my health as long as I can, and that means no wild drinking, no smoking, no random ****ing, no sitting around getting fat as a cow....not to mention all that is boring.
Click to expand...


The bolded statement is the point, I think. Healthcare doesn't save you. You save you. People don't realize this though.

68% of Americans (20 and older) are either overweight or obese.

20% of all adults smoke.

23% of the population are binge drinkers.

So, assuming 100% of people want/need/whatever health insurance, a HUGE portion of them are not taking care of themselves.

Adding those problems up, we get over 101% of the population voluntarily pursuing a high-risk behavior. While I realize this is not possible, it doesn't matter. The man who is overweight, smokes, and binge drinks could simultaneously have heart disease, lung cancer, and liver disease. You have to pay for all three, even though you are taking care of yourself. You have to come to the conclusion that regardless of whether they are the same people or not, the financial equivalent of 100% of the population is pursuing one high-risk behavior that we will all inevitably have to pay for.
 
MaxillofacialMN said:
1) Medical school cost. Someone said they want their medical school subsidized because prices are skyrocketing.... Excuse me? Who do you think gives you your subsidized loans? Why do you think school prices have raised so dramatically in the last 15 years?? Subsidized loans and availability. Sparing the economic lesson, when more people have access to a good/service, prices go up. As long as the government keeps granting education loans (and subsidizing them!!) to everyone, the price of education WILL increase. If a school needed to compete in a market for a group of 50 students who could afford school, they would lower their price tags to make themselves more attractive, whereas if 500 people could all afford school and the price didn't matter because the government issued you a loan, price would skyrocket. That's what we see happening with education right now. Some of you might even refer to this as a "bubble."
Click to expand...

Good point, MaxillofacialMN.



On a side note this is a good discussion but let's try and keep the conversation clean as per the TOS.
 
I don't know where you guys are reading this loan amount stuff, but I an assure you the maximum from a Direct Unsubsidized Loan per year is close to $45,000 a year.
 
as a result of this thread, ive decided to withdraw from podiatry school.
 
There is this misconception that "people just want free stuff". Having a single payer system, or at least a public option, like every other industrialized county has, where your "free" healthcare is a result of you being taxed at a higher rate should have been an obvious solution to our sick system. One which Mrs. Clinton championed and wanted to bring to this country. So in essence, everyone would have to pay for their healthcare through a tax. Nobody would have free access to care. But that is close to being socialistic so many americans are against this. What they don't realize is that the cost of healthcare now is the same or more without a single payer system. For instance, because of my brain tumor I had removed two years ago, it now cost me $8,000 a year just to have health insurance under my mom. Add a $500 deductible that makes it $8500, now add every time I have to go to the doctor I pay $20 for my primary, $35 to my specialist,and $75 for every time I have to go down to Miami for my yearly hospital visit. At the end of the year, my mom pays around $9,000 just for my insurance. She makes roughly $50k a year. That's 18% of her income she pays just for me! Not including her visits for her glaucoma, and celiac issues, plus our yearly prescriptions. Add that and she pays around 20% of her yearly income just on our insurance. Now take Germany as an example of a country who has a universal multi-payer system. If you chose to accept their public option, you pay 15.5% of your yearly salary for healthcare. Much less expensive that what we have here.

I think the main point here is that even with the ACA, because the public option had to be taken out for it to pass, the cost is going to continue to rise. It will continue to rise because now the insurance companies have a monopoly since there is no longer a public option provided by the federal government which would have kept prices in check.

I am taking the perspective of a patient, not doctor, which is why I am totally for at least a public option for this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Silly Willy DPM
Student Loans
Replies
9
Views
1K
DPMStudent159
D
L
GPA calculation
Replies
1
Views
1K
DexterMorganSK
DexterMorganSK
L
Is math included in science gpa calculation?
Replies
1
Views
795
I Drink Riesling
I Drink Riesling
6
  • Poll
Loan forgiveness for podiatrist?
Replies
7
Views
5K
jessicawhite293
J
doublefault
sGPA Calculation
Replies
6
Views
2K
SideShade
S
Top