"Loan payments will be capped at 10 percent of a student’s disposable income (it’s currently 15 percent) and any debt remaining after 20 years will be forgiven (the current threshold is 25). For public servants – including teachers, nurses, or members of the armed forces – that cap is 10 years."
Now, I have every intention of paying back every penny I am borrowing for school, but I found this interesting.
More generally, the reform cuts out the middle man banks in the student loan process, lending the money directly from the government. I don't think there is expected to be much difference noticeable to students but, in general, I approve for a couple reasons:
1. although there are no credit restrictions on student loans, those of us with significant bruising might have a better experience with the fed than with for-profit lending institutions, and
2. after TARP, I am having a harder and harder time feeling bad for banks generally.
Earlier in the thread, you mentioned a couple of things that caught my attention:
" I carry health insurance on my children but not on myself, so..."
"what I find detrimental is the economic situation that must first be fixed unless we want the entire unemployed population looking for those handouts..."
"The point is not so much a pride thing about taking a "hand out" as it is that I have prioritized my finances. I am in excellent health and can afford to pay for the medical services that I require on an as needed basis. I carry health insurance on my children because it is more beneficial financially to me to pay for the insurance vs pay for well baby checks and immunizations. I'm under no illusions that some people cannot afford their healthcare be it health insurance or the services needed. It doesn't benefit me financially, period."
" In case you haven't been reading thoroughly every post I have has arguments for the general working American populace. Sounds to me like you trust your government enough to take care of you and your child. That's the significant difference between you and I, I do not. I believe in me and my abilities to take care of my family, I do not depend on government officials who are only concerned with getting their earmarks passed to worry about this little Oklahoma chick and her babies. "
Where this fits into the context of our discussion is in your insistence that the new bill would not benefit you personally and I'm wondering why that is so.
Also, I am wondering (honestly) how a divorced, unemployed, single mother of 3 who lost the family home during the divorce (the link to your thread response about second career students) gets by paying for school, day to day living expenses, rent, childcare for 3 while you're in school, etc., and still manages to pay out of pocket for her own medical care plus pay health insurance premiums for her children. Are your little ones covered under COBRA from the plan you had while you were employed? Your ex-husband's plan? COBRA premiums are ridiculously high. How do you manage??
LOL, way to research there! I get by with the fact that I had a significant savings account as well as retirement accounts that I can tap into if needed and a pretty hefty severance package (both of which I kept in my divorce :) just in case you were wondering). I live fairly comfortably on what I have, thank you for your concern. I dont actually believe the ENTIRE law would be detrimental to me in particular, I think it will be bad for the economy which is already struggling and bad for the future of the country and the future of my children. Kinda like the whole social security thing, I've been paying in and now its rumored (again) that I won't receive it when I retire (of course thats another topic but just using it to compare). I haven't thought much about the implications to ME PERSONALLY as you keep insisting, I actually do think about people other than myself. For your other questions, I believe there could be regulations placed on the insurance companies that would keep costs for medical services as well as insurance premiums to a more reasonable rate. This is tricky for me because I do believe in capitalism as opposed to socialism so I don't even necessarily love the idea of enforcing so much regulation but if it is for the good of the people then it must be done. I am not keen on mandates nor am I keen on congress opting themselves out if its so great (I know you feel that has no validation so no reason to point that out again, I, however; do) I think if its good enough for the people of our great nation then it should be good enough for them. I take offense to the fact that we're paying congressmen $175k a year while they're talking about Guam capsizing and tipping over due to population but yet we want to stifle the incomes of doctors who save lives every single day to a much more meager salary (if the rumors I hear are correct, I have yet to find that info in the healthcare bill and I am actually trying to read it, although its a tough read when one doesn't speak legalise). I am not attempting to argue with you, I am simply stating my point of view, which is no more founded in any fact or evidence than yours is. I respect the fact that you may be right and I may be wrong or visa versa. I find it peculiar that you're so interested in my personal situation above what I've freely mentioned, but I don't mind sharing.
LOL, way to research there! I get by with the fact that I had a significant savings account as well as retirement accounts that I can tap into if needed and a pretty hefty severance package (both of which I kept in my divorce :) just in case you were wondering). I live fairly comfortably on what I have, thank you for your concern. I dont actually believe the ENTIRE law would be detrimental to me in particular, I think it will be bad for the economy which is already struggling and bad for the future of the country and the future of my children. Kinda like the whole social security thing, I've been paying in and now its rumored (again) that I won't receive it when I retire (of course thats another topic but just using it to compare). I haven't thought much about the implications to ME PERSONALLY as you keep insisting, I actually do think about people other than myself. For your other questions, I believe there could be regulations placed on the insurance companies that would keep costs for medical services as well as insurance premiums to a more reasonable rate. This is tricky for me because I do believe in capitalism as opposed to socialism so I don't even necessarily love the idea of enforcing so much regulation but if it is for the good of the people then it must be done. I am not keen on mandates nor am I keen on congress opting themselves out if its so great (I know you feel that has no validation so no reason to point that out again, I, however; do) I think if its good enough for the people of our great nation then it should be good enough for them. I take offense to the fact that we're paying congressmen $175k a year while they're talking about Guam capsizing and tipping over due to population but yet we want to stifle the incomes of doctors who save lives every single day to a much more meager salary (if the rumors I hear are correct, I have yet to find that info in the healthcare bill and I am actually trying to read it, although its a tough read when one doesn't speak legalise). I am not attempting to argue with you, I am simply stating my point of view, which is no more founded in any fact or evidence than yours is. I respect the fact that you may be right and I may be wrong or visa versa. I find it peculiar that you're so interested in my personal situation above what I've freely mentioned, but I don't mind sharing.
I have no real interest in your personal situation. In all honesty, I have a difficult time believing some of what you've said here. If you're going to use your personal circumstances as a justification for your position in this argument, I think they should be consistent with your position and a source for accountability. The integrity of the reasons someone presents to back up their point of view reflects on the integrity of the presenter. Additionally, if you're going to make a half-hearted assumption about how the participants in this discussion handle their own personal affairs:
Sounds to me like you trust your government enough to take care of you and your child. That's the significant difference between you and I, I do not. I believe in me and my abilities to take care of my family, I do not depend on government officials who are only concerned with getting their earmarks passed to worry about this little Oklahoma chick and her babies.
You ought to be damn sure that you couldn't possibly be exposed as a hypocrite. Of course, there is one way to get around that - you could lie.
You can judge me all you like and when you've walked in my shoes you can tell me how you would do it differently
The above quote comes from you.
So you have a hefty savings account at age 28 after being fired 4 times from your job in communications. You've got retirement accounts that you can tap into (I'm assuming you started working at age 5? *kidding here*) and a hefty severance package. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take all of that for granted. However...
Until you've walked in the shoes of a woman who has nothing, who must depend on SOMETHING to get her and her children through difficult financial times, you don't have any more right to judge than we have to judge you.
I most certainly am not judging you in anyway. And I started working at age 15 and did well for myself. As stated in my earlier post that you went and researched, a nurses salary won't compare to what I was previously making. I apologize if it offends you that I've made some good financial decisions in my life that have resulted in me not having to be nearly as stressed right now as I could be (not to say you haven't made good decisions). I, of course, also get child support which helps ease the financial burden. I don't feel like anything I've said could be interpreted to be hypocritical. In all honesty I dont know the direct impact this law will have on my life, alot of my arguments came as we debated. I was very upfront about the fact that I'm maybe not as educated as I should be to be formulating some of the ideas that I have, which is why I'm making an effort to educate myself. You have made some points that I feel are valid and some that I feel are not so valid, but to each their own. Thats the beauty in America....freedom.
I most certainly am not judging you in anyway. And I started working at age 15 and did well for myself. As stated in my earlier post that you went and researched, a nurses salary won't compare to what I was previously making. I apologize if it offends you that I've made some good financial decisions in my life that have resulted in me not having to be nearly as stressed right now as I could be (not to say you haven't made good decisions). I, of course, also get child support which helps ease the financial burden. I don't feel like anything I've said could be interpreted to be hypocritical. In all honesty I dont know the direct impact this law will have on my life, alot of my arguments came as we debated. I was very upfront about the fact that I'm maybe not as educated as I should be to be formulating some of the ideas that I have, which is why I'm making an effort to educate myself. You have made some points that I feel are valid and some that I feel are not so valid, but to each their own. Thats the beauty in America....freedom.
No worries. I don't feel judged. I know enough to know that you don't determine my worth, so I'm not bothered by your opinion of me. I am also divorced, but don't receive child support with enough consistency for it to offset my expenses. Your financial decisions do not offend me. If you were to lie in an effort to minimize what I consider to be a valid argument, however, I would be offended.
Trying to piece together the timeline here...
You started working at 15 and did very well for yourself without a college degree. How did you make it through high school? More importantly, what were you doing at age 15 to afford you to live well through 11 years, 3 babies, 4 firings, a divorce (must have cost you a fortune in legal fees to keep that nest egg, since he fought to keep and won the house while you're the one with the kids), 2 years off for tech school (more on this later), a nursing degree, out of pocket health care for yourself and health insurance for 3 minors, plus living expenses and childcare as you are not currently employed. Whatever it was, tell me where to sign up because I'm definitely qualified, probably well overqualified.
So you're what? 29 now...Your oldest is 10 1/2, so you had him at 18-19 years old. So three years into your stellar career...You were in a scrub tech program 5 or 6 years ago. That's a 2 year program, so I'm guessing from ages 23-25. (Were you working while you were in scrub tech school?)
Had a second child 3 years ago at age 26 and your third 1 year ago at age 27-28. I'm guessing you kept your nose to the grindstone and worked through those pregnancies and through your tech schooling? Seems like you'd have to in order to keep that retirement fund nice and fat. May I ask though, why you went to school to be a scrub tech if you were already making so much money?
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to call bull**** on this one.
amends: h.r.4872 (which is the "fixes" bill that amended 3590)
sponsor: sen grassley, chuck [r-ia] (submitted 3/23/2010) (proposed 3/23/2010)
amendment purpose:...
to make sure the president, cabinet members, all white house senior staff and congressional committee and leadership staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the patient protection and affordable care act.
sorry it took me a moment to get back with you all. here is the vote for an amendment that would require elected officials to partake in the law, as you can see it was rejected, kinda makes me wonder why....right? people who have healthcare through their employers are not exempt from these new changes, why are the legislators?
thank you for responding to my question -- i do appreciate that.
this is a proposed amendment to require members of the federal government to purchase insurance specifically through the health insurance exchanges. the exchanges are going to be established to offer only people who don't have insurance through an employer the opportunity to "shop around" for insurance coverage at, supposedly, closer-to-group rates with some government protections (against being ripped off/abused by the insurance companies). anyone with insurance provided through an employer will not be eligible to participate in the exchanges. since the government officials named in the proposed amendment all have insurance provided through their employer (the federal government), they would not qualify to participate in the "exchanges," same as anyone else who has insurance provided through her/his employer. this proposal was a meaningless "gotcha" tactic by the gop to attempt to embarass the pro-reform legislators (and meaningless tactic which you fell for). it in no way "exempts" the government officials from the healthcare reform law -- they are currently covered by insurance provided through their employer, and will continue to be covered by insurance provided through their employer, exactly in accord with the provisions of the law. the idea that that the amendment failing somehow equals congress and the president "exempting" themselves from the law is just nonsense (gop propaganda nonsense).
This proposal was a meaningless "gotcha" tactic by the GOP to attempt to embarass the pro-reform legislators (and meaningless tactic which you fell for). It in no way "exempts" the government officials from the healthcare reform law -- they are currently covered by insurance provided through their employer, and will continue to be covered by insurance provided through their employer, exactly in accord with the provisions of the law. The idea that that the amendment failing somehow equals Congress and the President "exempting" themselves from the law is just nonsense (GOP propaganda nonsense).
I started working at the age of 15 in a daycare center everyday after school; nothing substantial there. Then went to work for a family friend at 17; again nothing too substantial. Graduated high school in 99 and started working at a communications powerhouse in 2000. Worked there for 3 years until I was laid off (I'm sorry, entirely different than fired) received a very nice severance package, invested some, saved some. Went straight back to work for a state agency in a job I didnt love but paid the bills...and I dont know where you're from but scrub tech is a 9 month program here. Quit the state job tried the scrub tech thing hoping it would speed my path into nursing...realized very soon after clinicals and quitting my state job that it wasn't for me. Went back to work for a large company, 2 years, again laid off...again, a nice severance (O and PS I've been investing in my 401k and rolling it over since 2000 and every company I worked for matched and vested pretty quickly) again went straight back to work (yes, through my pregnancy with my 3 year old) got another job with another company worked there a year...got laid off, yup you guessed it..another severance....funny thing is this company hired me right back (into another division) and I didn't miss a beat worked through my pregnancy with my 1 year old...closure of another department resulted in yet another lay off (after my maternity leave) and yes, another severance. At which point I decided to go back to school to get the nursing degree that I had wanted since my father was diagnosed with brain cancer when I was 14 and in and out of hospitals all the time until he passed Jan 29th of this year. And another tidbit for you, I don't pay rent, since my father had gone into a nursing home just before my divorce my mother wanted me to stay with her (although I do pay her a little to help offset the loss of my fathers income its nothing compared to what renting a 4 bedroom house would cost) I didn't "lose" my house in my divorce, I didnt fight for it. There was only a mediator no lawyers...the fact was the house was in HIS hometown where HIS family lived and was an hour from where I wanted to be, so I got the savings account, he got the house. Yes, sometimes I miss my house and can't believe he wanted to keep it vs having the kids and I stay there. Especially when that means his kids are now an hour away and out of the only house they had ever known. But there are other houses and I'm not concerned with the fact that he has to drive an hour 1 way to see his children, his choice. I hope this helps to clear up any confusion for you. I haven't been to the doctor once since I haven't had health insurance (I quit paying my COBRA, in September and moved my kids to a private carrier)..did have to go to the dentist though in November and I paid up front. I hope this helps to clear up your "timeline" for you. And I sincerely hope that trying to insinuate that I have anything to lie about makes you feel better about your debating skills. You're quite good at it, no need for personal attacks.
Thank you for responding to my question -- I do appreciate that.
This is a proposed amendment to require members of the federal government to purchase insurance specifically through the health insurance exchanges. The exchanges are going to be established to offer only people who DON'T HAVE INSURANCE THROUGH AN EMPLOYER the opportunity to "shop around" for insurance coverage at, supposedly, closer-to-group rates with some government protections (against being ripped off/abused by the insurance companies). Anyone with insurance provided through an employer will not be eligible to participate in the exchanges. Since the government officials named in the proposed amendment all have insurance provided through their employer (the Federal government), they would not qualify to participate in the "exchanges," same as anyone else who has insurance provided through her/his employer. This proposal was a meaningless "gotcha" tactic by the GOP to attempt to embarass the pro-reform legislators (and meaningless tactic which you fell for). It in no way "exempts" the government officials from the healthcare reform law -- they are currently covered by insurance provided through their employer, and will continue to be covered by insurance provided through their employer, exactly in accord with the provisions of the law. The idea that that the amendment failing somehow equals Congress and the President "exempting" themselves from the law is just nonsense (GOP propaganda nonsense).
I have not heard that any person who gets insurance through their employer is exempt from these laws, that does make me feel better about it. I am attempting to read the dang bill but its long and some of it might as well be in a foreign language. I do hope you are correct, it gives me slightly more confidence in this whole situation. Thanks for the info!
Mommaof3
175 Posts
I am paying for my nursing school with a scholarship from my school??? Dont know what that has to do with anything but there ya have it!