[hydrogonian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO's_ranki...re_systems

USA

37th in the world

1st in expenditure per patient

=

A deeply flawed medical system with priorities that are in the best interest of no one but a few robber barons. A system that is purposely kept as financially inefficient as possible, to benefit the few while the countless uninsured and under-insured suffer. Even those WITH the best out-of pocket insurance get routinely denied for care for procedures, base on technicalities in the insurance or even the whim of their insurance.

=

A system and average standard of care that is undeniably inferior to most of the developed world. This is embarrassing, especially to the propagandists that continue to claim superiority in spite of the stats.

=

A system who's supporters are either too self interested, too deluded, or too sociopathic to admit that the system and the care is flawed and behind the times.

=

Medical personnel that are too invested in their careers and the system to admit when the care is inferior and the system is wrong on a deep level. Instead, they lobby to keep the system in place.

Italy is #2. Italy!
THAT is damn embarrassing to the USA. No offense to Italians intended. Colombia is way ahead of the USA. Are you freaking kidding me?!!
That is a serious indictment on the US healthcare system. What possible excuse could the USA have for that?

[Jim Kirk]

If you follow the philosophy that the two most important factors in your health are
1. The food you consume;
2. Your mental environment -

On both those categories - the quality in the USA is so low it does not matter how good the health care is. Even a poor person drinking red wine and a lot of fresh fruit is going to be 100 times healthier. I think this explains more of the disparity of health care rankings and explains why per person USA expenditure is so high.

Older people would not need Viagra if they went up and fast walked 3 miles a day and a lot of fresh food. Garbage in - garbage out. When you add the mentally toxic american environment and how regular people treat each other - is it any wonder hald the country has cancer by age 50.

[Roosh]

Quote:

Older people would not need Viagra if they went up and fast walked 3 miles a day and a lot of fresh food

Or was married to a morbidly obese woman.

[DrArete]

(05-27-2010 07:28 PM)Pepini Wrote:  

When I hear people talk about finite resources I always remenber a guy called Malthus. Read him up. Guess what he was WRONG, but the nefast consequences of his idiotic thesis are obvious.

I agree with you, that with technological advancements, it is possible to provide more care to more people, more effectively.

But good luck achieving those advances without the profit motive.

[DrArete]

(05-27-2010 07:28 PM)Pepini Wrote:  

The vast majority of doctors (excluding dentists and plastic) I know do it because of some Ghandi bullshit. Of course most of them are already wealthy so money is not something on their mind.

Ding ding ding!

Sure, I will be more than happy to spend some time with MSF, and taking on Medicare patients, after my med school debt is paid off, residency is long behind me, I have a nice house, a couple cars, and a fat bank account.

[DrArete]

(05-27-2010 08:02 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Medical personnel that are too invested in their careers and the system to admit when the care is inferior and the system is wrong on a deep level. Instead, they lobby to keep the system in place.

Italy is #2. Italy!
THAT is damn embarrassing to the USA. No offense to Italians intended. Colombia is way ahead of the USA. Are you freaking kidding me?!!
That is a serious indictment on the US healthcare system. What possible excuse could the USA have for that?

1. Why shouldn't medical personnel be invested in their careers? Doctors are people, with all their good qualities and flaws. Most doctors in the USA support changes to the system, but not unfunded mandates. The biggest problems we face today are insurance companies, lawyers, and people who leech off the system. You could expand medicare to give the whole population the option to participate in a public program, but you would have to fund it properly. You want good medical care, well tell the US government to stop pissing away 700 billion a year on the military, mkay?

2. The methodology of that survey, from 2000, is HIGHLY flawed, but hey, its wikipedia, and its on the internet, and it fits into Michael Moores worldview, so it must be true, right? I mean, of course Morocco has a better healthcare system than the USA. Ridiculous. They put a huge amount of weight on two categories, fairness of financial contribution, and overall level of health. There are many factors affecting the health of americans that are not preventable by a health care system. People are fat and don't exercise. Also, the USA has to deal with a large immigrant population, which many countries don't.

[Pepini]

(05-28-2010 04:53 AM)DrArete Wrote:  

[quote='hydrogonian' pid='19567' dateline='1275008576']


2. The methodology of that survey, from 2000, is HIGHLY flawed, but hey, its wikipedia

The rankings are not made by wikipedia. It´s the World Health Organization that makes them.

[hydrogonian]

(05-28-2010 04:53 AM)DrArete Wrote:  

1. Why shouldn't medical personnel be invested in their careers? Doctors are people, with all their good qualities and flaws. Most doctors in the USA support changes to the system, but not unfunded mandates. The biggest problems we face today are insurance companies, lawyers, and people who leech off the system. You could expand medicare to give the whole population the option to participate in a public program, but you would have to fund it properly. You want good medical care, well tell the US government to stop pissing away 700 billion a year on the military, mkay?

2. The methodology of that survey, from 2000, is HIGHLY flawed, but hey, its wikipedia, and its on the internet, and it fits into Michael Moores worldview, so it must be true, right? I mean, of course Morocco has a better healthcare system than the USA. Ridiculous. They put a huge amount of weight on two categories, fairness of financial contribution, and overall level of health. There are many factors affecting the health of americans that are not preventable by a health care system. People are fat and don't exercise. Also, the USA has to deal with a large immigrant population, which many countries don't.

1. Those problems are never going away unless the entire system changes. They aren't damaging the system, they are the system. Lawyers, health insurance companies and people who leech of of the system. They are all both a cause and result of one another. Your last sentence is kind of nonsensical.

2. Your first sentence makes a lot of noise disguised as argument, but then only makes one unbacked up claim, that the report was highly flawed.

Okay then. Remove all of the statistics and rhetoric on both sides from the discussion. In my direct experience in being treated, and being with those being treated, in hospitals in the USA, Europe and Asia, is that the USA health care system is so far behind other countries that they should be embarrassed. I mean, its not even close. Not only in the level of care but in the cost of care. How many hospitals have you been to in Europe and Asia? If you haven't been to one, then how can you not only rely on, but propagate, your perspective?

I know I won't convince a USA med student of these perspectives, but the reality remains that you haven't really backed up your claims as to the inferiority of medical training around the world compared to the USA. if you want to believe that your the best, than prove it. If you can't prove it, then be real and a bit more humble as to what you don't know.

Not trying to get antagonistic with you, just having an animated discussion.

[docsedated]

It's time I Jump in too, Here are my 2 Cents.

US Health care has seen it's better days...........

1. Helath care is expensive... Thanks to Insurance companies, Lawyers, Pharmaceuticals etc...

2. Physicians are at the bottom of the healthcare todom pole.

3. There will be a shortage of Physicians in Future. Can you convice a bright young student to go into medicine (spend 12 years of his life casing a dream) and come out of med school with 250,000 dollars in Loan, Increasing Malpractice costs and increasing cost of running practices and going to work every day fearing some loonie will sue you.......

4. I would advise some one to become a physician only if they if are interested in doing charity work ( Labor of Love )

5. We as Physicians have no Unity, our only voice AMA decided to join forces with the Govt .....

6. If physicians lose the Incentive to work which we are already .... then you can Imagine what will happen to healthcare.

GOD I can vent for hours ..... People's misunderstandings that Physicians make a lot of money, Leeching people wanting more from the system.... People do not Value what's given to them for free and biggest evil of all Corporatocracy. I would like for people to read Confessions of an Economic an Economic hit man by John Perkins[/b]


I am going to Quote some thing that might put all this in a Nutshell

" You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” Adrian Pierce Rogers [b](September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005), was an American pastor, conservative, author, and a three-term president of the Southern Baptist Convention (1979-1980 and 1986-1988).

[hydrogonian]

I assume that what you mean by that quote is that "you can't give healthcare away / socialize it and have it work out for society".

I respect the general economic philosophy in a very limited context, but, in my opinion, your quote lacks a lot of context corresponding to the issue at hand. The world is more complicated than that.

That philosophy sounds sensible, but there are are a large amount of considerations, additional to that viewpoint, which affect modern healthcare. ie: insurance in general, politics / lobbying, taxes, human rights, honest insurance coverage (meaning not denying on technicalities or selling shitty insurance to people who don't know how to evaluate it), etc...

The fact remains that, on average, healthcare in this country sucks compared to the rest of the 1st world. Whats the excuse? Not enough free market? Thats not the problem in the countries with better healthcare than ours.

Also, the majority of that 'wealth' that is created (which generally means better insurance profit margins in healthcare) generally sticks in the pockets of a few people. Is that the rationale for the noble free market philosophy in healthcare? To make profits for a few?

If your a doctor, you aren't generating wealth any differently from any other worker in the USA. Your trading labor for money.

You should be charging based on real free market rates, which no longer exist. Before insurance, all doctors made a VERY middle class income, as they couldn't make more than people could afford to pay out of pocket.

The current market is based on the market distortion caused by insurance. An insurance based system is not free market, but a type of privatized socialism.

Either make the private socialized medical system (insurance) completely under public administration, to eliminate profit exploitation in the absence of a true free market, or make it truly free market and eliminate health insurance system altogether.

Then we'll see how those six figure hospital bills, and high six figure specialist salaries, evaporate completely. Surprisingly, the only change in the overall quality of the system, from the POV of the average person, will be in the cost of care, which wold go down considerably, and the access to care, which would go up. Tuition for doctors would initially plummet, more doctors would go into medicine (which would stabilize tutiion rates via a true free market mechanism), and the supply issue would be solved.

In short, private insurance benefits the few at the great cost of the many. The system that we have now is the worst of all possibilities.

A real free market in medicine would benefit almost everyone else. The middle option is socialized medicine.

Also, in my opinion, the abuse of Randian philosophy in this country is an epidemic, and its almost becoming a cliche.

[DrArete]

(05-29-2010 10:33 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

I assume that what you mean by that quote is that "you can't give healthcare away / socialize it and have it work out for society".

I respect the general economic philosophy in a very limited context, but, in my opinion, your quote lacks a lot of context corresponding to the issue at hand. The world is more complicated than that.

That philosophy sounds sensible, but there are are a large amount of considerations, additional to that viewpoint, which affect modern healthcare. ie: insurance in general, politics / lobbying, taxes, human rights, honest insurance coverage (meaning not denying on technicalities or selling shitty insurance to people who don't know how to evaluate it), etc...

The fact remains that, on average, healthcare in this country sucks compared to the rest of the 1st world. Whats the excuse? Not enough free market? Thats not the problem in the countries with better healthcare than ours.

Also, the majority of that 'wealth' that is created (which generally means better insurance profit margins in healthcare) generally sticks in the pockets of a few people. Is that the rationale for the noble free market philosophy in healthcare? To make profits for a few?

If your a doctor, you aren't generating wealth any differently from any other worker in the USA. Your trading labor for money.

You should be charging based on real free market rates, which no longer exist. Before insurance, all doctors made a VERY middle class income, as they couldn't make more than people could afford to pay out of pocket.

The current market is based on the market distortion caused by insurance. An insurance based system is not free market, but a type of privatized socialism.

Either make the private socialized medical system (insurance) completely under public administration, to eliminate profit exploitation in the absence of a true free market, or make it truly free market and eliminate health insurance system altogether.

Then we'll see how those six figure hospital bills, and high six figure specialist salaries, evaporate completely. Surprisingly, the only change in the overall quality of the system, from the POV of the average person, will be in the cost of care, which wold go down considerably, and the access to care, which would go up. Tuition for doctors would initially plummet, more doctors would go into medicine (which would stabilize tutiion rates via a true free market mechanism), and the supply issue would be solved.

In short, private insurance benefits the few at the great cost of the many. The system that we have now is the worst of all possibilities.

A real free market in medicine would benefit almost everyone else. The middle option is socialized medicine.

Also, in my opinion, the abuse of Randian philosophy in this country is an epidemic, and its almost becoming a cliche.

You improperly conclude that health insurance is the driving factor behind the rise in the cost of healthcare, and that it has somehow created a "bubble" in physician salaries. This is patently false.
1. Physician salaries are not as large a part of healthcare costs as you might think.
2. Relative to other costs in delivering healthcare, adjusted for inflation, physician salaries have not risen as fast as other costs.
3. Insurance DID NOT cause costs to rise, rising costs caused insurance to become more popular. As the complexity of medical procedures has increased, so has the cost of equipment and the personnel needed. You could try and pay doctors mcdonalds wages, and it still wouldn't be cheap to perform an arthroscopic appendectomy.

Go ahead, push through your plan to socialize medicine and have the government make it all better.

The result will be decreased quality, hoarding, rationing, and shortages, just like every other time this has been tried.

[hydrogonian]

(05-30-2010 05:47 PM)DrArete Wrote:  

You improperly conclude that health insurance is the driving factor behind the rise in the cost of healthcare, and that it has somehow created a "bubble" in physician salaries. This is patently false.
1. Physician salaries are not as large a part of healthcare costs as you might think.
2. Relative to other costs in delivering healthcare, adjusted for inflation, physician salaries have not risen as fast as other costs.
3. Insurance DID NOT cause costs to rise, rising costs caused insurance to become more popular. As the complexity of medical procedures has increased, so has the cost of equipment and the personnel needed. You could try and pay doctors mcdonalds wages, and it still wouldn't be cheap to perform an arthroscopic appendectomy.

Really?? Patently wrong, huh? ok. Lets look at it briefly. You just need to look at how the entire system is funded: ie: private insurance. Almost EVERYTHING in the system is ultimately funded by private insurance. So, your saying that the source of cashflow for the entire system isn't the ultimate diver of the economy within that system? Thats a unique brand of self delusion.

Despite what may or may not be true about the first year in the history of medical insurance, its been the driving force behind the medical economy since. To say any differently is to not understand economics.

The cost of EVERYTHING under the medical system ultimately falls on the public and their private health insurance. How much out-of-pocket revenue do hospitals and doctors see per year?? I wonder if a single credible percentage point could be quoted. Likely not.

Even medical research and manufacturing is ultimately funded through medical insurance, not in the beginning, but in the end with profits.

The historical progression of the rising costs of health care, out of pace with the cost of everything other type of service in the economy, is due to this non-free market privatized SOCIALISM. In other words, every single one of these costs is due to the non-free market private insurance economy. Also, stating that costs are high, without the historical perspective (available profits under insurance reimbursement in most cases) that led to their particular high water mark, and then to state that insurance is necessary to cover the high costs that itself is responsible for, is circular logic.

Unless there is strict and legit government control in a socialist economy (such as that of the medical system), the corruption will get out of control in terms of gouging the public and funneling money where it shouldn't be going. The former USSR is a great example of a corrupt socialist government. The current pharmaceutical and insurance juntas in this country are two more examples, both fueled by socialist money in the way of insurance funds. Examples of the better socialist run government and health systems are select countries of western Europe and select countries in North Asia.

The USA has a choice as to let the public continue to suffer under a private for-profit control of socialist funds (insurance), or to transfer oversight to the government, where at least there can be some modicum of control.

We're already under a socialist medical system, its just for-profit socialism. That creates an insane amount of price inflation and planned inefficiency.

(05-30-2010 05:47 PM)DrArete Wrote:  

Go ahead, push through your plan to socialize medicine and have the government make it all better.

The result will be decreased quality, hoarding, rationing, and shortages, just like every other time this has been tried.

Where? When?

Like in all of the countries that I've received socialized healthcare in (3) that were, without exception, dreams of efficiency and models of modern medical care?

Maybe they can adopt our system so that next time I go back I can spend 5 hours in their emergency room just waiting to be seen, like I did last month here in one of the 'best' hospitals in one of the bigger cities in the USA.

You can stick with your claim that USA health system and healthcare is the best in the world.

Sounds like a good argument and that its likely backed by actual experience instead of just pure unbacked rhetoric.

We'll just agree to disagree.

No hard feelings

Btw, I'm not against doctors making high salaries. They likely would regardless. For any person providing a service for their work (99.999%) of us, the free market pays a person in proportion to their relative expertise. Relative to most other people, doctors have a very high level of expertise. Therefore, their salaries, especially outside of a regulated insurance economy, would be very high. Hell, general practitioner might even be able to make over 120k per year if there wasn't insurance. Maybe its holding them back. Its hard to say, as the healthcare economy has been in a feedback loop of distortion for over half a century now. Its hard to know where cause and effect begins and ends anymore.

[DrArete]

(05-31-2010 09:11 PM)lavinci Wrote:  

I can't believe that despite all the facts and data quoted here someone is still arguing that US has best health care in the world. What kind of health care is that when supposedly 46 mln people are uninsured and those who do have it have to pay incredible top dollar for the most complicated surgeries, whereas in most European countries you have top quality for free. Where is the logic that US have best health care? Just because it's expensive and unattainable for many people? That does not equal to best health care.


Hydrogonian you have made some intelligent points but I am surprised that you still haven't let it go. I mean it's obvious you will not convince a med student who's probably paying 20k a year for his education when people across the other side of the pond people have not only free health care but also free college education, not needing to kill themselves over paying back those loans. I mean I even understand DrArete's thinking. Why would he admit that France and Italy have better health care when he has to pay so much money for his education and they are getting it for free?

You display a number of misconceptions common to European socialists.

1. Healthcare in Europe is NOT free. It is very expensive. People just aren't charged for it, which has been causing huge problems. Also, the best care in Europe isn't the public system. When the King of Spain had a lung growth recently, he was operated on at an exclusive private clinic in Barcelona by the best surgeon in Spain.

2. Med school in the USA costs a lot more than 20K. Maybe in the early 80s it cost 20k.

3. Again, the education in Europe is not cheaper/free, it is just paid for indirectly. It also pales in comparison with the USA. Medical school in the USA has the highest standards in the world.

4. Again, you do not understand what free is.


But hey, you guys have had a great run for a couple decades. But now the consequences of massive public spending are becoming clear. Greece will be booted from the Euro before the end of 2010, and then Spain and Portugal will be soon to follow.

[hydrogonian]

...

[hydrogonian]

[quote] (06-01-2010 07:49 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

[quote='lavinci' pid='19957' dateline='1275358277']
Hydrogonian you have made some intelligent points but I am surprised that you still haven't let it go. I mean it's obvious you will not convince a med student who's probably paying 20k a year for his education when people across the other side of the pond people have not only free health care but also free college education, not needing to kill themselves over paying back those loans. I mean I even understand DrArete's thinking. Why would he admit that France and Italy have better health care when he has to pay so much money for his education and they are getting it for free?[/quote]

Oh, I definitely know this. I just have a bad habit of arguing with people, to no end, if I see fatal flaws in their points of argument. But your right. beliefs are difficult to change. Especially when a personal stake, such as time and tuition, rests on the foundation of those beliefs.

DrArete’s points are still based on what he's read, not what he's experienced. I gather that what he's read likely hasn't been very objective. Probably a lot of AMA influenced material, or material that is otherwise written by people with personal stakes in the USA health care system. Not objective. The chasm between his claims and the reality that most experience with better medical care abroad, compared to care in the USA, contradicts his understanding

[quote] (06-01-2010 05:11 AM)DrArete Wrote:  

Medical school in the USA has the highest standards in the world.[/quote]

I don't have any direct stats to agree or disagree with this. However, my experience says that this is likely not true. I went to a very elite secondary private school in the USA. The school is over 300 years old. It was tough, and there isn't a higher standard of education available in the USA. I have taught in one of the most elite private schools in Asia. There is no comparison. In my experience, Asian, and to my knowledge, select European (in most of the same countries that rank in the top 5 for healthcare) private secondary education is the best, and the toughest, in the world. Her'e the rub. The public secondary education in those countries isnt much, if any easier. The standards are incredibly high. Its like bootcamp, for every student in the country, until they finish. USA secondary education, anywhere, doesn't compare in terms of intensity.
It follows that the product of those more intense systems, the well educated citizen, is much more consistent at all levels than in the USA.

So, why would they all of a sudden drop the educational standards in medical school? Its not because the kids cant handle it. If anything, based on their foundational education, the elite Asian and European students are much better able to handle intense medical training than any USA student. Granted, the better USA students can handle USA medical training just fine. But what if the training intensity were to be slowly ratcheted up? I wonder who would better survive the stress test.

Based on the emphasis and effort those societies put into their foundational education, it doesn't follow that they wouldn't strive to have the highest standards of medical training.

. [quote] (06-01-2010 05:11 AM)DrArete Wrote:  

4. Again, you do not understand what free is.[/quote]

It’s true that nothing is ‘free’. But compared to the rest of the developed world, we clearly have the most financially inefficient medical system in existence. This means we pay the most comparative to the level of care that we get. Others pay much less for better care. Remember, price is set by the market, ‘free’ or socialized. To say things are ‘expensive’, and trying to justify the market based on expense, is taking cause and effect out of order. Things are expensive precisely because of our flawed system of funding healthcare. The flawed system doesn’t exist because of expense.

[quote] (06-01-2010 05:11 AM)DrArete Wrote:  

But hey, you guys have had a great run for a couple decades. But now the consequences of massive public spending are becoming clear. Greece will be booted from the Euro before the end of 2010, and then Spain and Portugal will be soon to follow.[/quote]

Personally, i think this would be great for everyone, including the economies of the expelled countries. They are like high school basketball players trying to play in the professional league. However, my prediction is that it will NEVER happen. It’ll be interesting to see what does happen, though. Those countries could once again become cheap destinations once they go off of the Euro.

[JayMillz]

(05-07-2010 11:32 AM)traveling boho Wrote:  

4. Skip the country and find a way to support myself overseas. Maybe take the English teaching route, but I'm open to any possibility. Needs to be somewhere I have a shot with local women.
Pros: Never have to pay off debt. Realize dream of living/working overseas and traveling.
Cons: Can never have a job in the US again without paying off debt.

What do you guys think? Do you have any other ideas?

Well, you could have done this from the start without borrowing all that money from us to begin with? I would do the responsible thing and not burn bridges, but that's my MO. I think you are compounding your problems if you run away from them instead of being a man and just dealing with reality.

[bigbootyluvr]

Try it for a few years, but don't beat it to death. If it ain't workin' out, get outta dodge. Fuck the big banks and uni's who TOLD you you needed a $200k loan to be a quality human being. What a crock of shit that whole racket is.

[Bukowsky]

Those 200K is going to start accumulating interest and compounding it real fast.

Here's your basic 2-step plan to deal with this shit:

1. Get a job. I mean ANY job, and start paying the interest. Spend your free-time looking for a better job or deal or way to increase passive income. Your income after tax will be divided into two general categories: interest payments and living.

2. When you've started paying the interest so the debt doesn't grow, look to create a third income group: interest payments, living and what you get to keep for yourself AFTER you've paid the bills, eaten, done your R&R, etc. What you keep for yourself is your savings and not to spend on crap like parties and that shit. It's yours to keep and grow. Figure out if you'll get a better return by investing it somewhere else, or paying off debt (if you can get a 7 percent return by investing it, that would be a better investment than paying off debt with an interest at 4 percent, not counting the risk you take).

[IshGibbor]

Good article on the state of law school graduates I found sleuthing through the New York Times this morning.

My favorite quote:

"This gets to what might be the ultimate ugly truth about law school: plenty of those who borrow, study and glad-hand their way into the gated community of Big Law are miserable soon after they move in. The billable-hour business model pins them to their desks and devours their free time."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/busine...y2OO4s1osQ

[BostonBMW]

I am going to play devils advocate here, while these views are not my own, my goal is to see the feasibility of the plan.

- Say you skip out on the loans, leave the country. Live as an expat, take jobs elsewhere, I doubt that you will be arrested on arrival, should you come back to visit family or to travel back to the States. Sure you lose access to credit facilities and face wage garnishment if you ever get a job in the U.S. But if you're source of income is abroad or location independent, does that really matter?

- Real story, I knew one sly fella who went to med school, had $150K plus in student loans. He and his girlfriend had brought a house that had 'appreciated' in value and were eligible for a $100K equity cashout (these were the go go days of 2006), so they grabbed it and paid off the bulk of the student loans, then they voluntarily defaulted on the mortgage. This was well before the crisis of 2008. They both declare bankruptcy and signs up with some type of a community health care government sponsored initiative where his loans are forgiven for working for 5 years. They rent and save, use cash for everything. 7 years later he will be ready to buy the house he wants, finance the car he desires. Med school loans equal 0, so debt service burden, strong cash position and soon to have a new credit file at the peak of his earning power. Brilliant!

Of course I am against both plans because they penalize those of us doing the right thing but I wanted to make sure that people knew that alternatives exist.

[kimleebj]

(01-17-2011 02:38 AM)BostonBMW Wrote:  

- Say you skip out on the loans, leave the country.
- one sly fella who went to med school, ... and paid off the bulk of the student loans, then ... declare bankruptcy.

You don't need to leave the country. Just move to Florida or Texas where your "homestead" (house) and retirement annuities cannot be seized in bankruptcy. Then threaten to declare bankruptcy and your creditors will voluntarily settle for a smaller amount.

I just met a Mexican guy who said long ago he racked up $11K in credit card debt. Then he called the company and claimed he was moving back to Mexico, and they settled for $7K!

Your doctor friend was smart because student loans do not get extinguished in bankruptcy.

[BostonBMW]

(01-17-2011 12:11 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  

(01-17-2011 02:38 AM)BostonBMW Wrote:  

- Say you skip out on the loans, leave the country.
- one sly fella who went to med school, ... and paid off the bulk of the student loans, then ... declare bankruptcy.

You don't need to leave the country. Just move to Florida or Texas where your "homestead" (house) and retirement annuities cannot be seized in bankruptcy. Then threaten to declare bankruptcy and your creditors will voluntarily settle for a smaller amount.

I just met a Mexican guy who said long ago he racked up $11K in credit card debt. Then he called the company and claimed he was moving back to Mexico, and they settled for $7K!

Your doctor friend was smart because student loans do not get extinguished in bankruptcy.

I think the problem with Fl or Tx would still mean harassing phone calls, letters from creditors. Also the student loans would not be discharged in said bankruptcy barring a few and extreme circumstances. The overseas option still remains optimal. Use geography to relieve the debt service obligation. In fact, I wonder how many American students are walking away from their educational debt just like those who walk away from houses?

Yes, well, he also has to live with the gnawing truth that he screwed the system and added costs to the student loan industry, house mortgage products in his plan to not be bogged down with the debt. I don't think he did the right thing but he has made some good arguments to the contrary.

[oldnemesis]

(01-17-2011 12:11 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  

You don't need to leave the country. Just move to Florida or Texas where your "homestead" (house) and retirement annuities cannot be seized in bankruptcy.

The obvious problem is that you cannot just move your house to FL or TX, unless it is already there.

[thegmanifesto]

Boston,

"I wonder how many American students are walking away from their educational debt just like those who walk away from houses?"

I think its tons. Hell, if I was $200k in debt, you can guarantee I would be ghost, never to return.

"Yes, well, he also has to live with the gnawing truth that he screwed the system"

Ha. What is it with kids these days? When I was coming up, the whole purpose was to get over on the system.

We need an update from the original poster. I guess he skipped town?

[Samseau]

You can work the system without becoming a fugitive.

http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/s...BRPlan.jsp