Feds offer lower payments on some existing student loans

Today’s New York Times includes a story detailing a new payment plan available to people with lower incomes who are paying off student loans.

Perhaps it would be a help to you, or to someone you know.  Here are a few excerpts and links:

clipped from www.nytimes.com New Plan Ties Reduced College Loan Payments to Income For the first time in years, there is good news for college students who borrow to pay for their education. Starting Wednesday, the federal Education Department will begin offering a repayment plan that lets graduates reduce their loan payments, based on their income. While the interest rate cut applies to new loans, the new repayment option is available to borrowers who took out federal loans or who used a federal consolidation loan to combine their higher-education debts. The extended payment program, called “income-based repayment,” limits what borrowers have to pay to 15 percent of the difference between their gross income and 150 percent of federal poverty guidelines. After borrowers make payments on loans for 25 years, the balance is forgiven. (The Education Department already offered an “income-contingent” repayment plan, which was similar, but less generous.) the Education Department has set up a Web site with a calculator

Related articles by Zemanta

• New Plan Ties Reduced College Loan Payments to Income (nytimes.com)
• More Tips on Student Loans (abcnews.go.com)
• New law to help in paying back college loans (cnn.com)
• Public Service Announcement for Graduating Students (meganmcardle.theatlantic.com)
• Cut Your Student Loan Payments (abcnews.go.com)
• Form for student loans will become shorter (cnn.com)

Health insurers near monopoly control of most markets

Image by Steve Rhodes via Flickr

I thought I understood why insurance companies were the main threats to a “public option.” It’s easy.  Their overhead—exec salaries, advertising, political lobbying, etc.—averages 31%.  Medicare’s overhead is 1%.  No duh they don’t want to compete.

Today, I found out there’s another reason:  they mostly don’t even compete against each other. Consumers in 94% of America’s insurance markets buy their health insurance from near-monopolies that dominate their region.  The Bigs don’t want to avoid public competition, they want to avoid any competition.

And what happens when profit-makers don’t have to compete? You know what.

Premiums have risen 87% over the last six years, while profits at the ten Bigs rose 428%.  Wait a minute: If your insurer’s profit is up 400%, why are your premiums rising so fast?

So, on with the debate:  Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), speaking on Fox News, defended the insurance company position, saying a public option would “destroy the marketplace for health care.”

But TPM today covered a report by Health Care for America Now, saying:

clipped from tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com [T]he notion that most American consumers enjoy anything like a competitive marketplace for health care is flatly false. [...] The report … uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country’s insurance markets are defined as “highly concentrated,” according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that’s led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. HCAN describes the situation as “a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments…” [O]ne former top Federal Trade Commission official … has sent a letter to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, asking for an investigation into the health insurance marketplace.

And maybe that’s why millions of your excess insurance premium dollars are being spent on defeating a public option, rather than on reducing your premium.

Related articles by Zemanta

• What’s a public health plan anyway? (money.cnn.com)
• NY Times/CBS News Poll: Wide Support For Government-Run Option Competing With Private Insurers (huffingtonpost.com)
• Why the Critics of a Public Option for Health Care Are Wrong (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• No Country for Old Men (thehealthcareblog.com)
• Antitrust Laws a Hurdle to Health Care Overhaul (nytimes.com)
• Study: Americans Struggle To Pay For Health Care, With 40 Percent Delaying Treatments Or Services (huffingtonpost.com)

Myths about Canadian health care

Are taxes high? Is bureaucracy huge? Author has used both US and Canadian systems, and finds the Canadian better.

clipped from www.boingboing.net Image via Wikipedia Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care. In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada’s taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada’s health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy. The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead Debunking Canadian health care myths (via Digg)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Poll Shows Most Americans Want Public Health Care (themoderatevoice.com)
• Voters To Congress: What’s Wrong With Single-Payer Health Care? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Medical Bills Are Found Linked to Most Bankruptcies (blogs.wsj.com)
• Single-Payer and the ‘Democracy Deficit’ (bradblog.com)
• Call a Canadian (scienceblogs.com)

Public Option is bipartisan – everywhere but Congress

Image via Wikipedia

Fivethirtyeight.com observes that over 50% of Republicans and 74% of Americans overall favor a strong public insurance option.  Then, an obvious conclusion: The public option has strong bipartisan support.

1/2 of Republicans and 3/4 of all Americans.  It doesn’t get much better than that.

But in the Congress, dogmatic opinions prevent such unity.

So here’s an irony:  America is in pretty good agreement.  But we can’t get our Congress to go along with us.

Matter of fact, there are threats of removing that which we want in order to gain the approval of Congressional holdouts—most notably, Iowa’s Senator Grassley (who, like most of the holdouts, is among the top recipients of health care industry contributions—Mr. Grassley is fifth among Senators).

Should we allow Congress to deny what the people overwhelmingly desire in order to please industry-funded Senators?

Write ‘em.

clipped from www.fivethirtyeight.com the two most credible surveyors of public opinion on this subject, the Kaiser Family Foundation and CBS/New York Times, have both found that at least half of self-identified Republicans favor a well-described public option. So the question must be asked: if Barack Obama wants to conduct a bipartisan approach to universal health care, what does that mean in terms of the public option? Killing or watering down the public option in order to (maybe) attract the support of Sen. Chuck Grassley, and not much of anybody else in the congressional Republican ranks? Or maintaining it to appeal to rank-and-file Republicans, who favor it despite the views of their “leaders” and the polarized atmosphere in Washington? ultimately, “bipartisanship” on health care may actually mean looking past congressional Republicans and pitting them against their own supporters across the country, particularly on the public option.

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. Dems may go it alone on gov’t insurance plan (ctv.ca)
• Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option (cbsnews.com)
• What is Chuck Grassley talking about? (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Obama may need firmer hand on health care (msnbc.msn.com)
• The only bipartisanship that matters (dailykos.com)
• U.S. Dems may go it alone on gov’t insurance plan (ctv.ca)
• Democrats worry health plan lacks votes (msnbc.msn.com)

The anti-whaling ’spaceship’ ship

Just for fun:  Ever seen anything like it?

clipped from www.smh.com.au JAPAN has asked Australia to prevent the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin leaving port to harass its whalers in the Antarctic next summer, but the plea may have little effect. The anti-whaling activists plan to upgrade their fleet from an ageing, former North Atlantic fisheries patrol boat to include another ship – something out of the future. The global speedboat Earthrace would head south under Sea Shepherd colours next summer, the group’s leader Paul Watson said. “It looks like a spaceship. It can do 40 knots and dive under waves completely. We’ll be using it to intercept and block harpoons.” In 61 days last year Earthrace circled the globe fuelled by biodiesel. Earthrace’s role was unveiled as the International Whaling Commission heard that Sea Shepherd’s protests endangered the lives of whalers in the Southern Ocean last summer when the Steve Irwin was involved in two collisions.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ships Collide In Antarctic Whaling Clash (cbsnews.com)
• Whaling ship collides with activists in Antarctic (americablog.com)
• Protesters’, whalers’ ships collide (msnbc.msn.com)
• Protesters and Whalers Collide at Sea (abcnews.go.com)
• Whale Wars: Q&A with pilot Chris Aultman (network.nationalpost.com)