Submitted by Anonymous7 (not verified) on October 11, 2008 - 10:14am.
Program performance is better in DL, but one suspects you again are not talking about program performance but rather the marketing of the program to students and schools.
Many of the approaches used for "serving schools" were and are inducements. It is a slippery slope. Until recently some companies actually touted their ability to place additional bodies in the school financial aid office during "the busy season." This was never permitted, but everyone looked the other way.
Housing would be cheaper if the mortgage interest deduction, property tax deduction, and other attempts to "tilt the playing field" did not exist. When tax reform was underway in 1986, it became clear that the beneficiaries of these features are realtors and developers, not homebuyers. The price of homes simply rises to account for these additional "benefits" of buying a home.
Americans who receive home heating assistance do not get a choice of vendor, and those of all political stripes agree that the program functions fine, although they may disagree with the level of the funding.
Section 8 may or may not be a better option than public housing for enabling the poor and disabled to access housing. It depends on the economic situation in the community. If it is a community with high rental prices, then Section 8 may not be a realistic option for most landlords. To say that public housing never works is a slap at the many communities -- both blue and red communities -- across the nation that have made it work and have inspired residents in many cases to go out and buy their own homes after getting on their feet in public housing.
Americans do not get a choice of social security vendor; it is SSA. Whether or not you agree with the current design of the social security program, the program's design is not SSA's responsibility. The system tracks payroll tax "contributions." Retirees and the disabled receive their payments each month.
It would seem impossible for one doctor to serve all Medicare patients, even in a small town, if that is the idea. Most doctors participate in Medicare. Some doctors refuse to serve Medicare patients. Sure, we could probably force them to, as a requirement of keeping their medical licenses, but that is not on the table. Again, Washington tinkers with the structure of the program for political and other reasons, but CMS keeps on administering what ever they throw at it. Each state has non-federal companies that run the medicare program. In many states it is Blue Shield.
The variety of government programs you are talking about terminating is interesting, but it is not clear that any of them are more socialistic than ffel. Colleges and lenders seem to be saying, "just give us your money and leave us alone; we know how best to do things." Would you do take that approach with a nephew who has some of your money? There were years and years of oversight hearings on dl. Yet the idea of having unannounced program reviews at schools and lenders and guarantors is viewed as an intrusive "audit mentality." And why does Sallie have 30 times the staff of dl for a similar-sized volume and holdings? Is that efficient?
Performance
Program performance is better in DL, but one suspects you again are not talking about program performance but rather the marketing of the program to students and schools.
Many of the approaches used for "serving schools" were and are inducements. It is a slippery slope. Until recently some companies actually touted their ability to place additional bodies in the school financial aid office during "the busy season." This was never permitted, but everyone looked the other way.
Housing would be cheaper if the mortgage interest deduction, property tax deduction, and other attempts to "tilt the playing field" did not exist. When tax reform was underway in 1986, it became clear that the beneficiaries of these features are realtors and developers, not homebuyers. The price of homes simply rises to account for these additional "benefits" of buying a home.
Americans who receive home heating assistance do not get a choice of vendor, and those of all political stripes agree that the program functions fine, although they may disagree with the level of the funding.
Section 8 may or may not be a better option than public housing for enabling the poor and disabled to access housing. It depends on the economic situation in the community. If it is a community with high rental prices, then Section 8 may not be a realistic option for most landlords. To say that public housing never works is a slap at the many communities -- both blue and red communities -- across the nation that have made it work and have inspired residents in many cases to go out and buy their own homes after getting on their feet in public housing.
Americans do not get a choice of social security vendor; it is SSA. Whether or not you agree with the current design of the social security program, the program's design is not SSA's responsibility. The system tracks payroll tax "contributions." Retirees and the disabled receive their payments each month.
It would seem impossible for one doctor to serve all Medicare patients, even in a small town, if that is the idea. Most doctors participate in Medicare. Some doctors refuse to serve Medicare patients. Sure, we could probably force them to, as a requirement of keeping their medical licenses, but that is not on the table. Again, Washington tinkers with the structure of the program for political and other reasons, but CMS keeps on administering what ever they throw at it. Each state has non-federal companies that run the medicare program. In many states it is Blue Shield.
The variety of government programs you are talking about terminating is interesting, but it is not clear that any of them are more socialistic than ffel. Colleges and lenders seem to be saying, "just give us your money and leave us alone; we know how best to do things." Would you do take that approach with a nephew who has some of your money? There were years and years of oversight hearings on dl. Yet the idea of having unannounced program reviews at schools and lenders and guarantors is viewed as an intrusive "audit mentality." And why does Sallie have 30 times the staff of dl for a similar-sized volume and holdings? Is that efficient?