Tuesday, September 15, 2020

A FULL-SCALE ATTACK ON MEDICAL DEBT

 

The recent proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders to cancel $81 billion of medical debt is a very good start – but it is only a start.

The RIP Medical Debt group--which buys old medical debts ,and then forgives them-- is absolutely in the right spirit. Its founders Craig Antico and Jerry Ashton deserve great credit for keeping the issue of forgiveness alive.

Unfortunately, over $88 billion in new medical debt is created each year – most of it still held by providers, or sold to collectors, or embedded in credit card balances.

Tragically, none of this has to happen! In France, a visit to the doctor typically costs the equivalent of $1.12 . A night in a German hospital costs a patient roughly $11. German co-pays for the year in-total cannot exceed 2% of income, Even in Switzerland, the average deductible is $300.

U.S. patients face cost-sharing that would never be tolerated in Germany, says Dr. Markus Frick, a senior official . “If any German politician proposed high deductibles, he or she would be run out of town.”


In Australia, a recent proposal to establish the equivalent of a $5 co-pay for primary care visits fueled such an outcry that the federal government was forced to withdraw the idea.

 Americans may be forced to take second jobs just to pay medical debt; meanwhile, the highly-taxed Europeans get free medical care and are counting their weeks of paid vacation. What is wrong with this picture?

These nations have shown that cost sharing is not necessary to keep health care spending at a level well below that of the United States. They rely on higher taxes and price controls…..and yet, are those really worse than widespread patient debt?


U. S. medical debt comes primarily from these sources:


  • the uninsured

  • high deductibles

  • out-of-network bills

  • claim denials

  • specialty drugs

  • emergency room care

  • ‘zombie debts’ purchased by collectors


In this essay, we will show that a substantial number of these debts can be cancelled or greatly reduced.

Today, these groups run up the most medical debts:

Group No. 1. The poor and the uninsured, including those who still do not get Medicaid in red states.

A Tennessee couple earning $13,000 annually gets no help whatsoever on medical bills. They can barely afford food or rent; so of course they incur medical debt every time they are sick.

Over 20% of these families do not have a checking or savings account. Over 30% are not working at all. If they do work, they cannot afford to join the employer’s plan.

Six full years after the ACA, there are still close to 30 million adults in the US who are uninsured. About seven million are undocumented immigrants. Another seven million are actually eligible for Medicaid, if they do get sick.


About four million could benefit from the ACA, but many are unaware of the exchanges. Up to five million very poor, but are kept out of both Medicaid and the ACA in the red states described above. Another two to three million make too much for ACA subsidies.

This is a hard group to help. No states besides California want the undocumented to get insurance. No cities outside liberal enclaves like Seattle and New York cares about health insurance for restaurant and service workers.

The poor rarely vote, so ignoring them does not trouble conservatives. Politics are often dominated by seniors -who will approve a conservative message about ‘getting rid of socialized medicine', while they themselves enjoy the federal socialism of Medicare.

(Not to mention Social Security, electricity, phone infrastructure, and the defense spending that comes to red state residents from the federal government,)


Group No. 2. The under-insured , who have high deductible insurance but no savings;


Why are they walking around with deductibles they cannot afford?

At some employers, this is the only health insurance which is offered.

Even where there is a choice of plans, people with smaller incomes often select the cheaper high-deductible coverage.

If you are healthy, a high deductible plan to save money on insurance premiums may be a decent gamble at first.. But if you have a chronic illness, you will pay the entire deductible each year, and will probably build up debt. Only a minority of employers offer assistance to pay the deductibles.

Sometimes this group pays $500 a month or more for a porous health plan, which still leaves them with thousands in debt if they are hospitalized.

Many families are living right on the edge financially, and they have trouble with all their debts, not just medical. Default rates are growing on their car loans and credit cards as well. They often face utility shutoffs and repossessions.

A recent study of insurance claims showed that 49% of patient out-of-pocket costs per healthcare incident were below $500; 39% were $501-$1,000; and 12% were more than $1,000. That generates an enormous amount of medical debt.


 

Group No. 3. The well-insured, who may still get huge out-of-network bills.


Some of their debts are out-and-out fraud. If a hospital says they are in-network, then all their contractors should be in-network – or else we have an illegal bait-and-switch. These surprise bills should be cancelled (details to follow).


  • In 2011, (9 years ago) New York studied more than 2,000 complaints involving surprise medical bills, and found the average out-of-network emergency bill was $7,006. Insurers paid an average of $3,228 leaving consumers, on average, “to pay $3,778 for an emergency in which they had no choice.”


  •  Out-of-network assistant surgeons, who often were called in without the patient’s knowledge, on average billed $13,914, while insurers paid $1,794 on average.  Surprise bills by out-of-network radiologists averaged $5,406, of which insurers paid $2,497 on average.


Medical debt can be cruel and dispiriting – and It is also incredibly inefficient! The cost of creating a bill, sending a bill, following up, negotiating a settlement, paperwork for charity care, financial counseling, a possible lawsuit, and (rarely) getting repayments over years-- the sheer administrative expense is staggering.

 When you get closer to medical debt, HMO’s start to look a lot more attractive. Prepaid health care seems more efficient and it certainly is less brutal.

The average recovery on hospital bills sent to individuals is 15.3%.   Non-hospital providers recover an average of 21.8% of each bill. No wonder some providers prefer Medicaid – it only pays about 50% or less of their normal charges, but that is far more than they will get in actual collections.

There are two overarching models for financing health care ;

One is the Bernie Sanders model:

  • Paternalistic – you get insurance whether you choose it or not

  • Subsidized coverage for the poor, minorities, and migrants (you never know when you might be among them)

  • Collectively bargained – usually with large payroll taxes

  • No pre-existing conditions clauses

  • Hospitals are financed mainly by taxes, not user fees

  • Patients are not in debt (though governments often are)

  • Cost control through price controls and rationing

The Sanders model accepts the use of coercion to pay for health care. (For that matter, the Singapore health model that is praised by conservatives is filled with coercion, including public hospitals, forced savings for HSA’s and taxes for catastrophic insurance.)

At some point we are all going to get sick, so letting us decide when to buy insurance is somewhat of a fool’s paradise. Millions will always make bad choices and be left to suffer; we need to be protected against our own stupidity. Coercion is needed --the only real issue is when and where. Even wealthy societies can benefit from forced savings.-- for example, a mandatory HSA deposit of 3% of income would eliminate most of the medical debts discussed in this essay.


The other is the Paul Ryan-Newt Gingrich model:

  • Based on Individual choice

  • No mandates on employers to provide quality coverage

  • No mandates on individuals to buy quality coverage; if they want to gamble going uninsured in order to save money, that is their call.

  • Hospitals financed by user fees, insurance premiums and private savings

  • No interference with anyone making money on health care -even those who prey on medical debtors

  • Medical bankruptcy is OK, because the fear of it motivates the purchase of health insurance.

  • Cost control (theoretically) through competition – faith in free markets

  • Taxes on workers are lower – although the savings seem to be siphoned off in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.

The Ryan model is frankly Darwinian when you get close to it. The uninsured, frankly, are usually people who make mistakes – like poor budgeting, failing in school, losing their jobs, or being born to non-rich parents. Persons with no money get much less care, and will die sooner. Those who do not buy insurance when they are healthy will suffer later on. Eventually it all starts to sounds like “culling the herd.”


The Ryan model therefore expects a lot from private charity. (Begging is preferable to new taxes.) Democratic legislators have also established Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP to smooth out the inevitable rough edges.

Medical debt is an obvious consequence of the libertarian model. It can only be reformed by importing controls and rules from the Sanders model.

The ideal image of high-deductible insurance features a judicious patient with at least $10,000 in HSA savings, getting bids on each procedure and therefore driving down costs. They might even have non-urgent care done abroad, which would force American hospitals to compete on price. They might decline an unnecessary treatment or diagnostic test, to save money.


Even If hospitalized , they can say to the provider, “I am paying cash, what is your best offer?” The Amish – who do not buy insurance, but save prodigiously – actually use this method.


This has some basis in fact. Cash for medical care is more efficient, and will over time lead to lower prices.

However, millions of Americans have no cash, and no bargaining skills. Some diseases may not wait for patient ‘shopping.’ A desperate patient goes to the nearest hospital and then juggles utility bills and high-interest charge cards to pay down medical bills, and then begs for help from relatives or (even sadder) from GoFundMe.


The average holder of an HSA account is under age 45, healthy, and with an average income of $75,000. Whereas In low-wage America, a ‘consumer-driven’ health plan is a ‘consumer-indebted’ reality.

Financial casualties among patients do not seem to lead to lower health care prices. Providers are just as likely to raise their prices, in order to cover the bad debt they are taking on. (Drug companies certainly do not lower their prices when their customers suffer.)

Doctors may want to forgive some patient debts, but there is a limit how often they can do this and still cover the expenses of their practice. In some cases, it is actually (and idiotically) illegal for physicians to waIve the deductibles.


Therefore I advocate the following attacks on medical debt:


Phase One

We must cancel balance bills and surprise bills if there was no prior disclosure.

In most cases, providers will not have the right to collect anything more than what the insurers pay them.


Phase Two

We must cancel the older, inactive “zombie debts “ that are being purchased by collection agencies.


This line of business must terminate. Providers throughout the country are selling uncollected medical debt for pennies on the dollar to collection agencies, who aggressively attempt to force patients to pay the full amount due. These debt collectors harass patients at work and at home, deploying unscrupulous tactics even after the statute of limitations on the debt has expired. 


Debt collection lawyers can file hundreds of suits a day, often with little evidence that the alleged debt is actually owed. Once a lawsuit is filed, the process is stacked against defendants, the overwhelming majority of whom are not represented by an attorney. And collectors have a big advantage in small claims courts, which provide very limited due process protections to debtors. 


The Debt Buyer Industry has a bad reputation and for good reason. They are typically far more aggressive than the original creditors. There is nothing redeemable about the junk debt buying business.

Per Senator Sanders: “Forcing additional stress and hardship on someone for the ‘crime’ of getting sick is immoral, unconscionable, and un-American. We will eliminate past-due medical debt.”

Of course, all cancellations of unconscionable debt must be income-tax free.


Phase Three

Debts can also be reduced, by expanding the Affordable Care Act:

- subsidies should be tied to low-deductible gold plans

- subsidies should be available at all income levels – not just stopping at 400% of poverty

- we can let families join the ACA exchanges if their workplace

plans do not cover spouses and children (i.e. solving the ‘family glitch’)


Phase Four

We must create a subsidized, guarantee-issue “Cost Sharing Reduction insurance” that would be available to any American – not just those who have low incomes and a Silver plan under the ACA.

This policy would cost about $125 a month and it would pay your deductibles – similar to the Medicare Supplement plans that seniors can purchase. Rates can be kept stable by government reinsurance – again, just like Medicare. The cost of reinsurance might be $50 billion a year…..but we spend that much and more to lower the cost of Supplements and Drug Plans for seniors.


The Clinton campaign in 2016 did propose a tax credit of up to $2500 ($5000 for families) that would go to anyone whose out-of-pocket expenses exceeded 5% of household income. This was a good first step, but we never got the details of how it would work, and how it would be funded.

Low-deductible health plans have just become too expensive for many American businesses and consumers. Adding on a separate policy to pay deductibles is not a perfect solution, but it is a workable one.


Here are specific regulations to continue the assault on debt:


RULE #1 No balance bills or out-of-network charges will be valid without arm’s length prior disclosure.


If a procedure can be scheduled, it can be quoted. Every other industry gives price quotes that are the basis of a valid contract – with fees and charges spelled out, and remedies if unavoidable extra costs appear.

A medical provider who does not offer a quote when requested will not be able to enforce payment. No prior disclosure means no patient liability, for scheduled procedures. Of course this solves the surprise bill problem: if extra fees are not disclosed in advance, then the patient may not be billed extra.


Also-- If an insurance claim is denied, the patient is not liable.

The provider and the insurer can fight it out


For emergencies --- when no contract is possible --providers can only charge an average of what they actually collect from all insurers. Networks are completely irrelevant.

I would call this “statutory protection.” You shouldn’t need to buy expensive insurance, just to be protected from price gouging.

These laws must be national and they must be enforced. Some hospitals will continue to send balance bills even if they are illegal. Therefore, we must

have a “Patient Financial Protection Bureau” with the power to nulllfy price-gouging. We need officials who are willing to assess fines, harassment, audits, bad publicity and even federal takeovers if needed.

(Price gouging happens much less to persons over age 65, incidentally. Medicare Advantage (MA) patients are not responsible for out-of-network charges in emergency care settings. Federal law also limits how much providers can bill the patients in traditional Medicare-- although specialty drugs create their own bankruptcy issues. )


RULE #2. Emergency care must not be subject to insurance deductibles.


Co=pays such as $250 for ER care would be acceptable, but nothing more.

In other words, even if you have a plan deductible of $4000 or more, any emergency will be covered at 100%.

Otherwise we get awful scenes such as occurred on the Boston subway. A woman’s leg got stuck in the gap between the train and the platform. It was twisted and bloody. She was in agony and weeping, but she begged that no one call an ambulance. “It’s $3000,” she wailed. “I can’t afford that, I have terrible insurance.”


RULE #3. The uninsured will be charged Medicare rates for hospital care.


. All existing “chargemaster” bills must be cancelled, never to return.

The largest bills are almost never collected anyways. Wage garnishment generally doesn't bring in very much for hospitals either. In a recent study of Virginia hospitals, the average total revenue from garnishment was 0.1% of the hospital’s annual cash flow. The average “award” for hospitals that won lawsuits against patients was just $1,400.

Hospitals who serve the poor and uninsured do have a legitimate problem, however. Hospital bad debts are running over $50 billion per year. Some hospitals do offer 70% discounts to the uninsured, and they still must deal with bad debt.


The solution is not meaner collections–-- it is more help from government. Medicare’s current aid to hospitals for bad debt are stingy and insufficient. (I would favor a small tax on the uninsured . The ACA mandate was not a bad idea, but the money that is raised should go toward hospital care.. A person who has money but stays uninsured will still receive emergency care, and a tax to pay for this is not out of place.)


RULE #5 Limits must be placed on debt collectors:


Some non-profit and “public" hospitals­ aggressively sue low-income patients for medical bills .(At least until the media catches them doing it.) They sue people who would actually be exempt under their own charitable guidelines. Some have even filed lawsuits against their own employees to collect unpaid medical bills. 

Charity care guidelines should be national, universal, and generous, with harsh punishments given to hospitals that ignore them.

The National Consumer Loan Center has made a good start in their proposed Model Medical Debt Protection Act, which would ban the following:

(1) Any action causing an individual's arrest;


(2) Causing an individual to be subject to a writ of body attachment [or similar term such as “capitas”];

(3) Setting a lien, or ever foreclosing on an individual's real property;


(4) Garnishing the wages or state income tax refund(s) of a patient who is eligible for financial assistance.


Lawsuits for medical debt must disappear. No more attorney fees would be allowed, and no interest charged either.


Under our new laws and regulations, here is a sample of what will happen to individual medical debtors


#1 – The debtor brought their child to the Emergency Room, and was billed $25,000.

Hospitals use a complex, confusing chargemaster-based billing system to get more money from insurers. The list price is set unreasonably high; then the insurers negotiate a discount up tp 80%. (Some insurers even bill for this ‘re-pricing’ - which is pure financial waste.)


In any event, when some hospitals see a chance to collect their invented “rack rates” from the uninsured, they go for it aggressively.

It is true that a stubborn patient can sometimes reduce their debt through negotiation….. but no one has to negotiate with the fire department. Americans are used to posted prices, not haggling, and especially not haggling in medicine.

This bill for $25,000 should be denied at the state health agency. The hospital can collect on the Medicare fee schedule.


#2 – The patient had to use an out-of-network hospital due to complications after surgery, and was billed $50,000 extra.

This event could not have been scheduled in advance. The patient had no choice in the matter.

Therefore no extra fees are due. The out of network provider must accept the standard insurance reimbursement as payment in full.

The out-of-network providers – especially the ones owned by Wall Street - use a predatory price-gouging business model .The medical profession itself should have cracked down on them long ago.


#3 – The debtor is being harassed by debt collectors over a $40,000 hospital bill from six years ago


There will be a firm statute of limitations on medical debt. After a fixed period of perhaps five years the debt must be legally cancelled, so it can never be sold or re-sold to anyone. All interest and legal fees will also be cancelled. Lawyers who enforce medical debts can find honest work instead.


#4 – The debtor put $100,000 on high-interest credit cards to pay for cancer drugs, and now cannot cover the charge card payments.

They will probably have to declare bankruptcy. The pricing practices of Big Pharma unfortunately need a more complex reform –and not a moment too soon. Very high drug costs are a major reason for the rising premiums (and resulting high deductibles ) in comprehensive health insurance.

However, bankruptcy only works well for one-time high medical expenses. If you have a chronic illness that will cost $1,000 a month for the rest of your life, bank 


#5 – The patient received a hospital bill for $50,000 --after their insurance company already paid the hospital $100,000


The hospital cannot bill extra, if they did not allow the insured to approve the extra fee in an arm’s length quote and transaction. No extra payment need be made here.


.#7 – The patient had a battery of tests of investigate his dizziness, and now faces a hospital bill of $15,000.

These tests could have been performed in a much cheaper location. The hospital should only be allowed to recover what an outside clinic would charge. We can go much further toward ‘site-neutral’ reimbursement., which hospitals violently resist.



#8- The patient had a successful surgery, but the insurance claim was denied due to coverage issues. The hospital is now pursuing them for $35,000.


If a claim is denied, and the patient could not have known this was likely, the patient will not be liable. (This has been true in Medicare for decades.)

Right now, patients are often asked to pay disputed medical bills while insurers and providers attempt to resolve the dispute. If an individual does not pay the bill during this time, it can be turned over to collections. Before receiving medical care, most consumers sign consent forms agreeing that they are responsible for any medical bills their insurance company does not cover in full – this must end!


#8 – The patient needed an ambulance after a stroke, and was billed $2800 for a 10 minute ride.

Ambulance service should be a government function, paid for by taxes, no different than fire or police. This applies to air-ambulances also.

The taxes required would be about $15 billion a year, which is a rounding error in federal health spending.

Ambulance fees must be capped at the standard Medicare amount of $450, perhaps with an increase of about 30%, all of which should be paid by government.


#9– The debtor did not pay a $600 medical bill while they were unemployed. They were sued for the debt but did not make a court appearance. Next time they got a traffic ticket, they were put in jail until they paid the medical bill.


No lawsuits should ever occur on small medical debt, and no arrests either.


#10 – The patient owes their dentist $2,500 for past treatments, and needs addition dental care that they cannot pay for at this time (or ever).


This is a major area of medical debt – at least 12% of overdue bills -- but unfortunately we do not have a quick solution. The patient must look to the following safety nets:

Dental schools - Most of these teaching facilities have clinics that allow dental students to gain experience treating patients, while providing care at a reduced cost.

Dental hygiene schools may also offer supervised, low-cost preventive dental care as part of the training experience for dental hygienists.


          1. CONCLUSION

The only way to fully eliminate medical debt would be a comprehensive single payer plan, which allowed no fees at the point of service.


However – such a plan would require setting all prices for all doctors, hospitals, labs, and drug companies. All providers would have to be satisfied – in advance - with what the government is going to pay them on each procedure.

Countries like Germany accomplish this through collective bargaining. Japan, France, Taiwan, Israel and Scandinavia also have national fee schedules. However, I do not think you could get all the providers in Toledo, Ohio to agree on one schedule, much less every provider group in America.

Single payer would also require new income and payroll taxes of at least ten per cent more than we pay now, if we want first-dollar coverage.

Most single payer countries have a 10%-20% sales tax as well. The Europeans are not shy about taxing the middle class for health care.


Based on consumer surveys, there are between seven and ten million households with over $10,000 in medical debt. However, there are about 20 million households who earn over $200,000 a year and would have to pay much higher taxes to solve this problem.

It took a historic financial crisis, plus a fair amount of Democratic self-delusion, just to get Obamacare passed. One Congress after another has refused to impose relatively tiny cuts in Medicare reimbursements.


Therefore ………. the best we can do for now is to


a. cancel the unconscionable debts

b. provide more federal funding for emergency care

c. create supplemental insurance that will pay the deductibles



HERE IS A SUMMARY OF OUR ‘FULL-SCALE ASSAULT’:



Debt Trigger Actions we would take


Emergency Room Visits

 If the patient is insured, claims are paid without deductibles; if uninsured, the Medicare fee schedule applies


Ambulance Rides

 No cost to patient, or a very nominal fee ; federal funding for providers


Surprise Out of Network Bills

These bills will be legally null and void


Balance bills after insurance has paid

 These bills are null and void, unless fully disclosed and approved prior to care


Denial of Insurance claims Patient is not liable (just as in Medicare). 

 The patient is held harmless in the event of a billing or coverage dispute


Old debts held by collection agencies

 Fully cancelled after five years



Expensive Drugs Eventually, price controls. 

For now, drug prices will continue as a major cause of medical debt


Cannot afford insurance deductible 

 Create ‘Cost Sharing Reduction plans ‘ available to anyone, not just ACA exchange recipients


Cannot afford health insurance

 Expand Medicaid, increase ACA subsidies


Disabled and unable to work

 Give the disabled quicker access to Medicare or Medicaid


Smaller debts (under $1,000)

 They are often owed to optometrists, podiatrists, family physicians, et.al., who cannot afford to write them off. More doctors will arrange payment plans, and some will demand to be paid upfront.










 

Monday, July 15, 2019

IT IS TIME TO START FORGIVING STUDENT LOANS -- AND HERE IS WHAT IT WILL COST

Student loans do not have a single, magic-bullet solution. Forgiving every single student loan is both politically and fiscally impossible.

But there can be immediate, targeted relief.

It is first worth asking:  What has gone wrong?

The loan regime for financing college works passably well in the following conditions:

1.    You start college before you have children of your own.
2.    You have a generous family.
3.    You finish college with very little interruption.
4.    You get a secure, well-paying job right after college.
5.    You do not have to change careers.

When all these conditions apply, student loans potentially operate like successful ‘leverage.’ The enterprising individual borrows $40,000 for a degree, but over many years they might earn an extra $500,000. Even after paying another $40,000 in interest, they are way ahead. Mitt Romney would be delighted.

However, not all degrees produce high-paying jobs. ‘Leverage’ leaves a lot of borrowers in trouble. Loans are much too precarious and dangerous for millions.

Historically about 40 per cent of college students ultimately drop out without attaining a degree. This has not changed with student loans. As a result, we have gone from having several million dropouts with no debt, to creating millions of dropouts who are buried in debt. Even Milton Friedman saw that debt was inappropriate for funding education, as far back as 1955.

According to the treacherous Betsy DeVos, only 1 in 4 borrowers is making payments on both principle and interest with their loans. Some are still in school, of course, but having your loans in deferment or forbearance does not stop interest from growing inexorably. 49% of borrowers have seen their loan balances increase in the last 5 years. Another 7 .4 million borrowers are using income-based repayment. This does keep them free of harassment by debt collectors, but their monthly payments may be so small that their loans are actually growing. 

The problem is not just that some borrowers are suffering. The real scandal is that NO borrowers should suffer. If higher education is to be a beneficial social program, no one should be worse off. 

Some nations actually achieve this with higher education. Germany, Sweden, and Finland among others charge no tuition. Higher education is not considered a personal ‘investment’ that can fail; it is a responsibility of the state.

Student loans are unheard of; they would be considered a ridiculous social brutality. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because it was felt that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. These nations do not want their own young people deep in debt. They do not eat their young financially.

In America, the concept of ‘land grant universities’ was socialistic. The government had provided huge amounts of land when we were an agrarian nation, and it kept providing income, housing, and educational benefits right through the 1960’s.

However -- as documented brilliantly by Melinda Cooper in her essay ‘All in the Family Debt’:

“The creation of a generous federal grant system under the Higher Education Act of 1965, along with a system of public universities offering tuition-free education, meant that an entire generation of students were able to go to college without relying on family support.
Neoliberal and neoconservative observers of the 1960s were convinced that these unheard-of economic conditions were responsible for the peculiar kinds of radicalism bubbling up on college campuses around the country. 

Observers were in agreement that the student movement could be neutralized only if free tuition was abolished and familial responsibility reinstated. Neoliberals then found a way to soften the blow by simultaneously calling for an expansion of consumer credit markets.”

America does practice solidarity with Social Security and Medicare, despite ongoing Republican opposition.  One can legitimately debate a citizen’s ‘return’ on taxes paid– but no one is impoverished just from being in the program.

When Medicare pays your hospital bill, this is not a ‘federally guaranteed loan’ that you have to repay with interest. Public money is just spent on your behalf, like a scholarship or a grant. (Medicaid does have a grotesque post-death recovery program for nursing home benefits.)

All the student loan sufferers share the same basic dilemma:

“We feel that society should be subsidizing higher education, both because it’s an investment in human capital and because it helps equalize opportunity. But how do you weigh the people who benefit from subsidized loans against the people whose lives are being ruined by them?”  (James Kwak)

“Rising indebtedness does pose a threat to some students and their families.  Debt, especially in combination with adverse life events, can tragically undermine opportunity.” (Jonathan Glater)

“As currently constructed, the student loan system has virtually no margin of error for those who do not succeed the first time around in college, or who encounter problems later”.  (National Consumer Law Center)

The surest sign of suffering under student loans is to be in default, which can be virtual financial suicide. Default can add 15% or more to your loan balance, trash your credit scores, and screw up apartment rentals, auto loans, and even cell phone contracts. It can even scare off potential employers… and yet:

·      34% of people who have started college – but dropped out – have defaulted on their loan payments.
·      13% of people who completed an associate's degree are behind.
·      11% of those who completed a bachelor's degree are behind
·      3% of those with a graduate degree are behind.

In terms of loan amounts, we find that:

·      19% of people with less than $10,000 of outstanding debt are behind on payments.
·      20% of those with between $10,000 and $25,000 are behind.
·      8% of those with $100,000 or more in student loan debt are behind. 

Some conservatives still believe there is no major problem. Says one:  "If you choose a major without researching its employability or if you decide to borrow heavily for college without considering the possibility of repaying your loans, you are the only one who is responsible for the consequences of your decision. No one forced you to take out loans.”  (Yanwen Xia)

Or, in the words of David Salisbury, former director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Education Reform, defending for-profit colleges: “My gut feeling on diploma mills is the whole idea of having to regulate this is the denial of intelligence of consumer and marketplace. If people want to waste their money buying a diploma from a diploma mill, let them do so.”

I hear shades of Andrew Mellon’s praising the Great Depression. This Treasury Secretary told President Hoover to “liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

Well, most drug addicts were never forced to use cocaine or opioids in the first place. But we still consider these drugs worth banning, and we still offer treatment. We let people try and recover from their mistakes. 

Student debt has become a modern version of Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island – unlimited candy today, but eventually a form of lifetime suffering. You can add to your student debt in minutes, often online; but paying it back can be hellish.

A better question might be: “Why do we let young, financially ignorant people borrow so much?”  

In the words of Daniel Austin:

“Student borrowers are the Indentured Generation, starting from a young age, and many will become permanent members of an economic underclass. They are living in American society, but from a financial perspective, always on the outside looking in.”

Of course, this has happened before, and not long ago.

In the 1990’s, America felt that home ownership should be more widely available, and that federally-supported debt was the best way to achieve it.

But we vastly underestimated the potential for fraud and ignored the danger of compound interest.  House prices were supposed to rise forever, which would make expanded loans both helpful and harmless.

When house prices actually fell, we neglected the victims of subprime loans. Obama’s ‘solution’ for predatory mortgages relied on servicers to do the repair -- a ridiculous and venal concept. Loan servicers and banks have no incentive to make things work out. They want to get their bloated collection costs, extra interest, and other fees paid first, and worry about bankrupt borrowers later, if at all.

With student debt, we have already let thousands of borrowers “learn their lesson”, in a way that would make Andrew Mellon proud. Without the strong rescue policies outlined in this paper, there will be millions more.

All our reforms will be driven by the Golden Rule:

Namely, what would we want for our own children? I think that a vast majority would say “a fresh start.” As a nation, we should have done a better job protecting our young people – from loan sharks and frankly, themselves.

Therefore, our solutions will be a combination of “Relief and Replace.”

Relief:  Clear, quick, easy-to-access rescues to those who are in deepest financial trouble

Repair: For future students, replacing loans with grants and scholarships.

·      These reforms will cost the taxpayers money.  When a federal student loan is forgiven, the government no longer receives monthly payments. When a private, government-guaranteed loan is forgiven, the feds must cut a check to the lender.   
·      These reforms will cause debt collectors to lose revenue or even go out of business.  Employees at for-profit colleges are already losing their jobs.
·      These reforms may cause lower incomes for college professors and administrators. Some colleges will close (as is already happening), and nearly all colleges will have to cut costs. This is not unjust. According to Arnold Kling:

         “The right way to think about student loans is that they are a gift from taxpayers to the higher education industry, both non-profit and for-profit. Most of the benefit goes to those who work in that industry, not to students. Most of the risk is borne by students and taxpayers, not by those who work in the industry.”

The entire history of debt is that at some point, debtors and creditors are in a state of war. You have to take one side or the other. Either the creditor class prevails at the expense of everyone else, or popular governments find ways to reduce the debt burden.

Tucker Carlson is no one’s idea of a liberal, but even he was moved to say:

“The campuses are filled with people who benefit from student debt. Drive through rural America, and you can see how well they’ve done. In a sea of poverty and despair, you will notice gated islands of affluence. These are colleges… If you haven’t been to an American university lately, see it for yourself. There’s been a building boom and a flood of six figure administrators on campuses, all of it funded by debt that is destroying a generation of American kids.”

Solution #1

Forgive all student debt for borrowers and co-signers over age 65.

There are approximately two million persons over age 65 who still carry student debt.

Either they owe money on their own loans, or they owe money in support of a child’s loans. 

The total amount owed is approximately $90 billion.

Nearly 40 percent of federal student loan borrowers age 65 and older are in default.  

(In comparison, 29 percent of federal student loan borrowers age 50 to 64 are in default, and 17 percent of federal student loan borrowers age 49 and under are in default. These are all horrible statistics, but they are worst for the oldest debtors.)
 
Over 114,000 seniors have had their Social Security benefits offset because of unpaid student loans. Social Security benefits may be their only source of regular retirement income. This means that benefit offsets may impose serious financial hardship.

The principle behind our forgiveness for seniors is simple: “Enough is enough”. 

People deserve a financially untroubled retirement.

(In England, all loans are in fact written off at age 65.)

Most debtors over age 65 have been paying on these loans for a long time. Their incomes are not going up. Often, they cannot even cover the interest on their student loans. They have likely been hit with extra fees, capitalized interest, and unconscionable collection costs.

Many of their debts come from ‘Parent Plus loans’, which are a form of grotesque financial cruelty. These loans have higher interest rates and even a 4% origination fee. 

Since students generally have no financial assets, lenders want access to the parents’ money. This certainly does ‘bring families together,’ but in a destructive cycle of intergenerational debt.  

The Parent Plus loans must end immediately. If the current limit of $57,000 in undergraduate federal loans (over 4 years) is not enough for a student -- then that student is in the wrong college.  

Forgiveness for seniors will not be complicated. The over-65 debtor can request forgiveness with proof of age, and their loan can be cancelled.

For any private loans that are forgiven, the government will have to compensate the lenders.  

Seniors’ loan forgiveness could be spread out over several years. In the first year, loans could be forgiven for borrowers over 75; then in the next year, for those between 70 and 75, and so on. 

Alternatively, we can start forgiving any loan to seniors whose current income is less than $20,000 a year and move up quickly from there. We need to start putting statutes of limitation on student debt. 

The federally-originated loans can just be cancelled, and no more payments would be due. Our government had no difficulty purchasing thousands of mortgage loans in 2008. The Federal Reserve bought up bad loans, and essentially warehoused them until the losses could be recognized.

Skeptics may point out that when loans are written off, the federal government “loses” an asset on its balance sheet.

So what?

Student loans are a precarious asset at best due to the large rate of delinquencies. If 40% of loans will ultimately go bad, this asset has limited value. 

As Kevin Williamson (again, no liberal) notes:

“If we just gave the universities money, that would show up on the books as an expenditure; whereas lending it to students allows us to pretend that we have created an asset, when all we have actually created is a great deal of debt and horses—t.”

In fact, government loans are a toxic asset, to the extent they create impoverishment of our own citizens. 

A bank in Oklahoma in 1932 might have owned a lot of farmland, due to foreclosures… but their community was being ruined. Owning bad loans does not make a nation prosperous.
In the long run, debt forgiveness could make the nation better off. The greater spending of ex-debtors should eventually produce more tax revenue than the loans ever did.   

Compare the handling of German war debts in 1946 vs. 1919.

·      After World War I, America righteously demanded full debt repayments… and what did we get? Not much money, then a Depression and then Hitler.
·      By contrast, we forgave the Nazi war debts after World War II -- (except about $2 billion reserved for Israel and Holocaust survivors) -- and we got an economic boom in America and West Germany.

In America itself, Alexander Hamilton paid off Continental Congress war bonds at one cent on the dollar. Perhaps half of the white people who came to the USA were escaping their debts and indenture in Europe.  

In the words of James Galbraith:

Public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in "net financial wealth." Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks. Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth. When a bank makes a loan, cash balances in private hands also go up. But now the cash is not owned free and clear. There is a contractual obligation to pay interest and to repay principal. If the enterprise defaults, there may be an asset left over–a house or factory or company–that will then become the property of the bank. It’s easy to see why bankers love private credit but hate public deficits.”    

Solution Number Two

Forgive all debts for students who have been defrauded by for-profit colleges

There are approximately 157,000 “Borrower Defense” fraud complaints in process at the Department of Education.

These borrowers have declared -- under penalty of perjury -- that their schools misled them by using false job placement rates, lies about credit transfer, or other unrealized promises that had a financial impact on the student.  However, Under Betty DeVos the Department of Education has been delaying action on these complaints. Even when claims are approved, only a portion of the loans is typically forgiven. 

We should move the other way! It is time to approve the complaints rapidly, in full. 

The average forgiveness on the approved claims has been $14,100.    

Even if this average goes up to $25,000, approving the current claims plus 100,000 more would cost about $6 billion. 

The federal government has been deeply complicit in the misery that for- profit schools have caused. The Department of Education has normally chosen to protect predatory businesses, at extraordinary expense to students. Top officials at the Department have been stockholders in Sallie Mae and other profiteers. As Bob Shireman documents, the government has released one study after another – over decades -- revealing massive wrongdoing in the industry… but Washington is very slow in closing down the worst offenders.

Just one example, from Toby Merrill: “The Department of Education litigated for two years to avoid suspending collections and notifying former students of Wilfred Academy that they were eligible for debt relief despite the agency’s findings that, as a result of pervasive fraud throughout the company, all applications for discharge it received should be granted.”

David Halperin’s account in Republic Report should be read in full detail…

“Trump Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos owns the ongoing, awful meltdown of the chains of career colleges — the Art Institutes, Argosy University, and South University — formerly operated by for-profit Education Management Corporation. Yet now, as campuses across the country have devolved into chaos, faculty and staff have lost their jobs, and students are left, short-term, lacking money for necessities like rent, and long-term with their futures in doubt, the DeVos Department is doing little to assist students. The Department isn’t even providing students with basic information.

DeVos’s conduct, and that of her subordinates, notably Acting Under Secretary Diane Auer Jones, a former for-profit college lobbyist, constitute dereliction of duty and malfeasance, and a complete disgrace.

Prior to Trump and DeVos coming to power, EDMC, many of whose programs offered quality instruction, devolved through a series of greedy and unethical owners and CEOs — including Goldman Sachs, Jeffrey Leeds, and Todd Nelson — into a predatory operation that deceived, coerced, overcharged, and under-educated students, while taking billions in taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, federal and state law enforcement went after EDMC, resulting in a settlement that did not come close to making students whole or adequately penalizing the company and its executives, but at least created concrete accountability mechanisms.
Everything DeVos, Jones, and their team have done have made the situation worse. They have worked to dump the various Obama-era regulations aimed at curbing predatory college operations and protecting students. They re-instated ACICS, the country’s worst college accreditor, which had turned a blind eye to bad behavior at for-profit schools, including some EDMC schools. They approved a wave of bogus conversions of for-profit colleges to non-profit status, and tentatively approved the conversion to non-profit of the EDMC schools after they were acquired by a new non-profit group, Dream Center Education Holdings (DCEH).”

The number of Borrower Defense claims will grow rapidly, and it should. Richard Fossey notes that “Such claims are nothing compared to the fraud committed by the for-profit college sector, the exploitation by student loan debt collectors and the venality of college presidents making million-dollar salaries while students are forced to borrow more and more money.”

The Obama administration did a decent job in closing down some of the worst for-profit schools… but that is not enough.

Extra effort must be made to guarantee affected students that at least some of their credits will be accepted, and that students will not be charged additional tuition and fees to start over again. There must be a federal agreement on better transfer opportunities.  

Unwinding the venal for-profit industry will not be done overnight and it will not be cheap. By the time these schools get into financial trouble, there is usually no money left for students or taxpayers. The crooks at Argosy University had actually seized federal aid money that was intended for students.  It has been a huge legal struggle just to cancel the high-interest loans made to desperate students by the colleges themselves. All taxpayers truly owe a form of reparations here.

Solution #3

All debt forgiveness must be income-tax free.

When loans to seniors are forgiven, and when predatory loans from non-profits are forgiven, there should be no income taxes due. Also, anyone who completes income-based repayment in the future should not be taxed. 

James Brooks proposes that loan forgiveness could be classified as scholarships, which are excluded under the tax code. The purpose of loan forgiveness is similar to the purpose of a need-based scholarship.

Picture a graduate student with a loan balance today of $100,000. If they go on income-based repayment, their loan may still grow because their payments may not even cover the interest. Compound interest is lethal!

Twenty years from now, their loan balance might be $200,000. Can the government really collect $60,000 or more in income taxes when the loan is forgiven? The issues of affordability, bankruptcy and forgiveness will return all over again. 

Long-term, this tax forgiveness could reach $200 billion, but that would be over a multi-year period. The cost in any one year’s federal budget should be manageable.  

Whatever action we take, it must be universal for all debtors. The ‘Public Service Loan Forgiveness Act’ should never have been limited to just public employees! (Especially when government employees already have more job security, health benefits, and pensions than most private sector workers.)

For now, all existing applications for the Public Service Forgiveness program must be approved immediately. Debtors of all kinds would not need to navigate all the current barriers -- regarding the right kind of loan, the right forms filed with the right servicer, and the shifting rules of the Department of Education for approved forgiveness.

The borrower would just submit 120 cancelled checks -- made to any payment plan – and proof of covered employment. The arcane rules about direct loans vs. FFEL loans, covered repayment plans, et al. would disappear. Servicers would be deservedly left out of the picture.

Solution Four

No student loan payments will be due -- and no interest will accrue -- until the borrower’s income exceeds $40,000.

This is not a deferred payment; the payment amount is $0.

Loan balances would not increase while a person was in school.  

If a lower-income student drops out and never earns $40,000 a year, they owe nothing. Such loans are just mistakes.

(This has been done successfully in Australia. Julian Castro has proposed a similar reform for the USA.)

The borrower will have to take the initiative here. They can submit their prior year’s tax return, and that could give them a grace period from payments or interest accruals.

(This need not be done on a real-time, income adjusted basis, which has been a dubious feature of the Affordable Care Act. If your income goes up or down during the current year, you are still stuck with last year’s assessment status. We can live with a certain imprecision.)

The government will have to give up its loan interest during these deferrals -- about $18 billion in interest would not accrue each year.

(Note: Private lenders cannot be forced to go along with this deferral… which is just one more reason to avoid private loans.)

We must shed the goal of the government “breaking even” or even making money on student loans. This has constantly led to higher interest rates, aggressive collections, and debtors’ misery all around.   

It is not wrong if student loans have a ‘net cost’ to taxpayers. In fact, we should assume that much of the loaned money is just “gone”.    

When it comes to student loans, the Department of Education still acts like a private sector lender: its officials worry about preserving their ‘bottom line.’ They think they are performing a valuable service when they crush forgiveness plans and fight every bankruptcy filing. Sadly, this stinginess has had the endorsement of Congress, which wants student loans to stay ‘budget-neutral’ whenever possible. No one seems to notice that borrowers are taxpayers too.

This is wrong and must change!  Student loans should not be counted on as a significant source of revenue for the government.  Today the federal government collects over $3.5 trillion a year in all taxes. If the Department of Education shows a large deficit, we can raise taxes on wealthy persons. The goal of reducing the federal debt is not a bad thing in itself – but for heaven’s sakes, let’s not meet this goal by beating up on bankrupt ex-students. Right now there is an actual debate on whether loans can be forgiven to disabled veterans… how pathetic and stingy can we get?

When the Corinthian schools went under, a large percentage of their students had household incomes under $10,000. These students should not have been getting any loans of any kind in the first place. The way to help them is not loans, and never has been. The key is to expand Pell Grants, as discussed below.

Solution Number Five 

Allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy.

We all know that bars. restaurants, and casinos can declare bankruptcy. Huge airlines can declare bankruptcy (often to destroy their unions and shed their pension plans) ;  Donald Trump has declared several times. 

Gamblers can declare bankruptcy; credit card abusers can declare bankruptcy; VA mortgage holders can declare bankruptcy; virtually all small businesses can declare bankruptcy. The worst non-profit colleges (c.f. Corinthian) can declare bankruptcy, though only after the owners have cashed out massively. American businesses value the bankruptcy laws for their own purposes. They understand that debt forgiveness does not mean the collapse of economic civilization.

We would not be “coddling” ex-students, if we give them the same bankruptcy standards as all other borrowers.

This is not to deny that some borrowers have made huge mistakes. They did not keep track of all their loans; often they kept taking loans to get an advanced degree in a dormant field… which (they prayed) would lead to higher incomes. 

The question is, how long are we going to make them (and their parents) suffer for bad bets? The rest of their lives?  Lenders don’t care; they never have. But public policy should care.

Bankruptcy is a recognition that both borrowers and lenders have made a mistake.   

Bankruptcy gives some satisfaction to both “sides’ in the student loan crisis. Desperate borrowers get relief, but they also may lose assets, and undergo some degree of humiliation. This should keep the general public from feeling dangerously resentful.

The following steps are the beginning of bankruptcy reform:

1.    Loan holders will not fight a borrower’s requests for discharge, any more than Visa or Master Card sends out an attorney to every single bankruptcy hearing today. In other words, the Department of Education stays out of this. The government should not be squeezing every last dollar out of student borrowers, and certainly not taking bankruptcy cases to appellate courts.
2.    The court should just accept simple documented proof from borrowers that they cannot repay their loans on a reasonable ten-year schedule, and still maintain a basic standard of living. In fact, if the borrower earns less than 200% of the poverty line, bankruptcy would be granted without challenge.
3.    The court need no longer require a ‘certainty of hopelessness’ from the borrower.  This would no longer be an adversary proceeding. The borrower need not prove permanent illness or disability.
4.    Student loan bankruptcy would not be permitted for five to ten years after graduation.
5.    An attorney would only be needed for counseling, and also to file the correct bankruptcy forms. The cost should be no more than $1500-$2000. There would be no lengthy, adversarial hearings.

Here is a how a sample calculation will work in court: 

1.    Assume The debtor has income of $40,000 and two children. (Each state has income limits governing who can file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.)
2.    The standard formula might state that this person can devote no more than $300 a month to debt service.
3.    If $300 a month is not enough to make minimum payments on credit cards and student loans, then bankruptcy is permitted, and the student loans can be cancelled.
Note: The bankruptcy judge can alternatively “cram down” the student loans – i.e. by demanding that smaller loans be repaid if the income is there, but still cancelling the unpayable debts.
4.    Again, this will not be a lengthy inquisition. The debtor need not prove that their situation will never improve.

It is hard to predict how many student loans can be discharged in this manner. Dr. Robert Lawless estimated that $2.8 billion in loans would be cancelled, but that was using 2012 numbers. For now, if 200,000 debtors went this route in a year, and the average cancelled debt was $50,000, the nominal cost to lenders in that year would be $10 billion. Private lenders will complain, even if the federal government gives them some compensation. (Bankers really want that future flow of interest.)

Of course, this will make future loans harder to get – which is on balance a good thing.

Repair No. 1

Increase Pell Grants to $10,000 and make them available to any family whose household income is under $80,000.

This will benefit at least 9 million students. The federal expense would be $90 billion in total, less the $35 billion we pay out in Pell Grants today… in other words, $55 billion more spending each year.

However –

As Pell Grant spending goes up, new federal loans must simultaneously go down.

The government has been spending well over $100 billion a year on new federal loans and loan guarantees.

New loans must be vastly reduced. Loan limits will be lower --(see Repair No. 3, below) -- and loans will virtually disappear in for-profit colleges.

The Pell Grant is a voucher, as was the GI Bill in the 1940’s and 1950’s. When we give vouchers to parents for elementary education, even right-wingers applaud. 

The Pell Grants must be available to any student --even those who are in default -- plus any students whose earlier loans have been forgiven.

(Note: Some Pell Grants can include child care benefits and housing credits for adult students. This is what the GI bill covered for millions of veterans with new families.)

This is a large change in policy, but one that is overdue. Congress has been shifting public funding away from grants for thirty years, in order to increase student loans and loan industry subsidies. Even the Democrats proposed cutting Pell Grants in 2014. We have even allowed a small grants program called TEACH to collapse, when many awards were converted to loans beciuse the correct paperwork was not submitted each year.

Like so many Republican schemes, this is partly from libertarian ideology, but also a desire to reward  cronies in the lending and debt-collecting businesses. (No one ever got rich servicing Pell Grants.)  Taxes were reduced on well-off Americans, but debts were increased on the non-wealthy young to make up the difference. A public responsibility (i.e. higher education) was converted into private burdens.  

Fortunately, we already have a means for financing future Pell Grants. It is called the progressive income tax. Students’ tuitions should be funded with grants. No grants would ever be repaid. People would simply pay their taxes.

We should pay for college education by taxing individuals and corporations now --- rather than have students pay all the costs out of future wages. This will be unpopular among anti-tax conservatives, but again it is overdue.

Repair No. 2

Provide more federal funds to community colleges and vocational schools.

One example would be full funding for the America's College Promise (ACP) Act:

This law would provide $61 billion over the next decade to make two years of community college free, so students   can earn the first half of a bachelor's degree or an associate degree at no cost.  

Giving more money to community colleges will help replace the for-profit colleges.

As for vocational schools – their current federal funding for vocational schools is well-intended, but pathetically small at present. Here is a recent legislative proposal:

·      ESSA Title IV-A Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants – Increase of $70 million, to $1.17 billion. This program can provide funding to CTE programs, particularly in the areas of college and career guidance services, education technology and STEM education.
·      Apprenticeship Opportunities – $160 million, an increase of $15 million.
·      Adult Education – State grant program increase of $25 million.

Support for vocational schools should be ten or twenty times this amount. These schools have no dormitories, no sports teams, no meal plans, and no professors earning $150,000 to teach one class and do research.

Meanwhile: The graduates of vocational schools reliably find jobs in machining, auto repair, heating ventilation, computer repair and electrical installation.  In fact, due to partnerships between corporations and schools. there are over 500,000 apprentices who have decent jobs while still in school.

Vocational schools have no dormitories, no sports teams, no professors on paid sabbaticals, etc. The message to conventional colleges might be “If it costs you more than $10,000 per year to educate a student, your costs are bloated.”

For the past twenty years, the loan monies which have gone to dishonest for-profit colleges could have funded every vocational school and community college at 100%, with ease.

Repair Number Three

Establish Loan Limits      
                                     
In 2009, the U.S. graduated 38,000 students with bachelor’s degrees in computer and information science, and 2,500 with bachelor’s degrees in microbiology.

However, we also graduated 89,000 students in the visual and performing arts, psychology, and journalism.  

Many of the saddest student loan stories involve degrees in counseling or liberal arts. Time after time, one reads of students who borrowed over $100,000, in order to get a social worker job or an art therapy job that pays $28,000 a year.

The workers who clean hotel rooms in Las Vegas make more than $28,000 a year, thanks to a strong union. The workers at McDonald’s in Germany make $36,000 a year, again due to unions.

Americans would not be so desperate for college credits, if they could earn a living wage in all occupations. Instead, Americans look to college as an insurance policy against low wages, unemployment, and downward mobility.

Unfortunately, we have to start denying federal loans for careers that do not reliably produce high earnings. No one would be barred from studying social work – and they could take out non-guaranteed private loans, if a lender is foolish enough to offer one ---but they could not borrow federal money to do so.

If an industry actually needs new employees – whether it is plumbing, welding, or computer science – let the industry provide money for grants and apprenticeships. For example, Audi is paying tuition for young mechanics, in order to create a steady pipeline for their workforce. IBM is going directly to high schools in Louisiana to train programmers.

This is in stark contrast to fields that have a tremendous oversupply of candidates already. For-profit colleges are not the only exploiters……what about PhD programs that recruit and retain graduate students, use them as teaching assistants, but leave them virtually unemployable? This is the opposite of a public good.

Bottom of FormIf an industry has no real demand for new workers, then without loans there will be very few new students, other than wealthy kids who can study anything they want. How bad is that? 

(Actually, we need more schools like the new Lambda programming colleges; Instead of tuition, students can pay for their education once they receive a job with a $50,000 annual salary. Once students snag a job that meets the salary minimum, graduates pay back 17 percent of their salary over a period of two years (with the maximum payment capped at $30,000). If you don't find a job, or meet this income level, you don't have to pay a cent. And if you lose your job, or your monthly pay dips below $4,166.66, you can pause the repayment for that month.)

We must shed the notion that every student should get huge loans to ‘follow their dreams’ in an over-crowded field, or to attend the over-priced ‘college of their dreams’ on borrowed money.  

Is this paternalism? Of course, and not a moment too soon. Letting millions of debtors learn harsh lessons is extremely wasteful. Anyone who can read history knows that debt is dangerous. Look at the wreckage that has been wrought by guaranteed loans for any course of study, and at any age. People in their 50’s should not be getting student loans at all.

(Note: Loans do have to be phased out over a few years. Abruptly ending all federal loans would leave millions of students scrambling for funds and could quickly ruin too many schools. Anyone in their third or fourth year of study in any field would still be able to get loans – but after that, the spigot stops, especially in liberal arts.)

It is true that the richest colleges already offer enough aid so that loans are unnecessary. Over twenty-five major schools do not let their students use loans at all.

Of course, not all students can get into Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, Northwestern, or MIT. In our future, those who still want college and cannot get loans can receive a Pell Grant and go to vocational schools – where they will often get better jobs anyways, and they should have no debt if they live at home.

If workers do need further education, grants are a far better way to help them.  When a German or a Danish worker is laid off due to “globalization,’ first of all their union negotiates a respectable severance package. Their health insurance is uninterrupted. They may receive a family allowance, a housing allowance, even a utilities allowance plus free vocational-school tuition as needed. Government aid does not just go to the poor, or to college students. Working people are never left out.

This is far, far superior to student loans. Tressie McMillan Cottom describes loans as “a negative social insurance program. Unlike actual social insurance programs, negative social insurance doesn’t actually make us more secure. It only makes our collective insecurity profitable.”

Cottom condemns the reliance on market-based solutions to fix systemic social problems    Student loans are a terrible system for attaining a credential, just so one can find a living wage job. 

To the Social Darwinist Republicans, it is a weakness that social insurance does not assess ‘fault.’  Social Security and Medicare, for example, are frankly quite forgiving to those who do not plan well.

Darwinists would say that social insurance actually makes us lazier and more careless… that we need Andrew Mellon’s massive suffering to ‘teach us a lesson’ about being responsible and self-sufficient. After all, the Chinese ‘tiger moms’ did not arise from a nation with social insurance.

However -- would it be better if college was denied to those whose parents did not save for it? 

Would it be better to have millions of poor-planning elderly in dire poverty and ill health, because they did not save enough?

I very much doubt it, and do not want to test the theory.

Even with fewer loans, remember, public support for education is not going away. Government already spend over $100 billion a year on merit scholarships, financial aid, community colleges and public universities. No one is proposing that this aid should be reduced.

Let’s add to those numbers through more grants, without the disaster of more student loans.

Five years from now, the government should be making no student loans at all. Students who only go to college for vocational training can take their $10,000 annual Pell Grant anywhere. Medical schools should be funded directly by the taxpayers as a vital industry. Scientific and engineering schools can be funded in large part by their industries. Fields that need new workers will subsidize new students.

For-profit schools will largely disappear. Four-year liberal arts schools without endowments may have to shrink and serve only wealthy students. Some schools will adopt video streaming, free textbooks, and online platforms to lower their tuition to the $10,000 range for Pell Grant recipients.

Meanwhile. the next page contains estimates of what loan forgiveness will cost to the taxpayers.

PART ONE: Reduced Federal revenue

1.    Forgiving all loans over age 65………………………………………..$5 billion per year, ongoing
(This reduction occurs because interest and principal payments will cease on these loans.)
2.    Forgiving student loans from fraudulent for-profit colleges………….$3 billion per year, ongoing
3.    Forgiving any income taxes due on cancelled debts………….……...$10 billion a year, ongoing
4.    No payments due when borrowers earn less than $40,000 a year…………….$18 billion a year, ongoing

Note: all the above are ‘static costs’ --they do not reflect the new tax revenue that will come in when debtors can now buy houses, etc. after loan forgiveness. I do not have the skill to make this estimate.)

PART TWO: New Federal Spending

1.    Pay off private lenders who have made Parent Plus Loans………………………………………$10 billion, one time
2.    Pay off fraud claims against for-profit colleges………………………………………………………..$6 billion, one time
3.    Pay off private lenders after bankruptcy discharges…………………$5 billion a year, ongoing
4.    Expand Pell Grants……………………………………………………..$55 billion a year, ongoing
5.    Expand support for Vocational School and Community Colleges………...$12 billion a year, ongoing

We do not want this spending just added to the deficit. One new source of revenue would be lifting the cap on Social Security contributions (currently there is no tax on any income over $$132,900.  Taxing all income at 12.45% would produce approximately $200 billion a year.
Here is a schedule -- subject of course to political reality -- of what we can do legislatively to get off the student loan treadmill.

Year One: 
  • Pass the ‘Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019’
  • Pass the ‘Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act of 2017’
  • Pass ‘America’s College Promise Act’ and Title IV acts for enhanced Community College and Vocational School funding      
                  
Year Two:   
  • Restart the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, by passing the ‘What Can You Do for Your Country Act of 2019’
  • Pass the ‘Protection of Social Security Benefit Restoration Act’ to start helping borrowers over age 65
  • Pass a national version of New York’s For-Profit College Accountability Act 
 (This would ensure that for-profit colleges spend at least half of tuition revenue on student instruction and receive no more than 80 percent of their funding from government sources. The proposed legislation also would prohibit for-profit colleges from taking away students’ legal rights by sneaking forced arbitration into enrollment contracts.)


Year Three:   
  • Start to limit the income taxation of forgiven student debt by passing the ‘Relief for Underwater Student Borrowers Act of 2014’
 
Year Four: 
  • Start forgiving interest and principal to those who make less than $40,000