4 ms·
My wife is a doctor. She is just over a year out of residency. She makes around $300,000 per year. It's a lot of money. She has to make that much money beca
by yequalsx 9y ago
My wife is a doctor. She is just over a year out of residency. She makes around $300,000 per year. It's a lot of money. She has to make that much money because the U.S. has stupidly decided to burden doctors with massive med school debt. Her debt is $400,000.
When she pays off her debt her salary won't go down. People expect to make more in successive years. Hence large salaries are going to be normative unless there is drastic change in the system. It would be much better for the country, and for my wife, if her debt were wiped out and she made a lot less money. We'd be happy for that.
Whatever system is going to be in place will require some form of rationing. Prior to Obamacare that rationing was done on the basis of money, and whether or not a person was lucky enough to have a job that had health benefits. Obamacare is an attempt at free market forces whilst providing care for most people. It's somewhat better now than in the past but not ideal. I think universal, government funded healthcare is the most moral and economical option.
- vasilipupkin 9y agoIf you make 300k and live frugally so that you can save 50% of your salary, can't you pay it off in 4-5 years ? By 35-40 you can be debt free, no?
- yequalsx 9y agoTaxes and whatnot account for 50% of her salary. She does need to save for retirement and one must include more than just the federal income tax rate to calculate how much is taken out in taxes. There's FICA, state taxes, and state sales taxes and property taxes. There is also rent, food. She can not save put 50% of her salary toward her student loans. That said, she can pay it off relatively quickly. However, after 4 years undergrad, 4 years med school, and 4 years of residency it's time to live, no? What's the point of it all if you don't actually make enough to live a little until you are 40? A way better system would be to just provide for higher education and not burden people with debt. Instead a large salary is needed to pay the large debt but the large salary is permanent and the debt is not. Save a lot more money buy just properly funding higher education.
- vasilipupkin 9y agoWell, debt free at 40 leaves still 25-30 years of a pretty good career, no? The downside of govt just paying for it is you'll get a lot more people who really aren't committed to the profession and it taxes everyone else - it's not free, it's done through higher taxes on everyone else.
- yequalsx 9y agoIt doesn't have to involve higher taxes on everyone else. We spend well over a trillion dollars a year on national defense/spying. Also, we spend way higher per capita on healthcare than any national healthcare system and those systems generally include paying for medical school. Thus the evidence is that it will involve less money spent. Perhaps there would be a tax reduction as a result.
- bob_theslob646 9y agoThis is such a good comment. you have no idea how representative it is in terms of the current student debt crisis. The difference is that most students make nowhere near that much money as doctors do. The comment that they reply with is "when am I going to enjoy my life" This results in large portion of students being highly levered and betting that salaries will steadily increase in the future. This will not end well.