Anyone who still doubts that Obamacare would lead to a government-run health-care system should take a look at Obama’s plans for student loans. Those plans got a big boost this week when Rep. George Miller, the California Democrat who chairs the House Education Committee, introduced legislation to replace federally subsidized private lending with a government-run program, leaving only a sliver of student lending to the private sector and completing a journey to nationalization that began 44 years ago. Compromisers take note: This journey also involves a detour onto the “public option” turnpike.
In 1965, Congress created what became known as the “Stafford loan” as part of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). Almost anyone who has attended college has heard of Stafford loans, and most people know that the federal government insures these loans against default risk — that is, the government reimburses the private lender for 97 to 99 percent of the loan’s value if the student defaults. What most people don’t know is that the government also protects lenders from interest-rate risk. Stafford loans are provided to students at a low fixed rate set by law. Fluctuations in commercial interest rates can expose banks to losses on these loans if their borrowing costs rise too high. So to smooth out their returns, the government pays the banks a subsidy when interest rates rise. Conversely, when rates fall below the Stafford rate, lenders must remit the difference to the government. Lenders are also guaranteed a percentage to cover administrative costs.
Read the rest.......
3 comments:
It is a shame that some Americans are so gullible, to the outlandish propaganda and lies spat in the newspapers, television and radio about Obama’s health care agenda. They have demonized the British, Canadian and other worthy plans. Hidden under a disguise cover, these radical entities are determined to keep the special interest organizations in absolute power. Comprising of the money-draining profitable insurance companies and their rich stockholders. They don't want any changes to the broken system of medical care, because it will hurt the status quo. I was born in England, in the county of Sussex and until the inception of the European Union and the European Parliament dictating to Britain. That they must accept millions of foreign workers, the nations medical system was exemplary. I never had to wonder if I would have to file bankruptcy, to pay my medical bills, or listen to the incessant ring of debt collectors on the phone.
On several occasions I ended up in the cottage hospital and their was never a cost applied to it, never a ream of paperwork. No doctor, no hospital or specialist ask me for my Social Security number, drivers license or if I was covered by a predatory for-profit insurer. Today the British Isles is being submerged under a barrage of legal and illegal immigrants, who have never paid into the system, have caused some rationing. Prior to the importation of foreign labor my trips to doctor, to hospital, the eye or a dentist was paid from my taxation. Unless we pass a national health care agenda, Americans will never know what it's like to breeze through their lives, without worrying about paying for health care? Tell your Senators and Congressman you want an alternative to the--GET RICH-- insurance companies, before a Universal health care is killed. 202-224-312 REMEMBER THE INVESTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS DON'T WANT THEIR PIECE OF THE $$$TRILLION$$$ DOLLAR PIE DISTURBED. EVEN SOME POLITICIANS HAVE THEIR DIRTY FINGERS IN THE PIE?
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE, A GOVERNMENT SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM WILL ASSIST IN REVITALIZING THE WILTING US ECONOMY.
Your comments about insurance companies making trillions off of the system is a crock.
How do I know? because if there so much money to be made, companies would be flocking to the money tree.
Instead, more and more insurance companies are getting out of the business because the money isn't worth the headaches.
Another point to your comments.
Can you name one thing that government has ever done to make a problem better?
Homeless?
Crime?
Poverty?
Drugs?
The government has a 100 percent record of creating problems and making them worse.
Post a Comment