Won't do any good. Doctors and hospitals charge astronomical fees because in the 1970s Medicare and other insurers

pretty much paid what doctors and hospitals charged.

Docs and hospitals learned to charge more every year because they too are greedy just like insurers. Then, Medicare and insurers went to fee schedules. Docs and Hospitals still charge amounts they know they won't receive.

In fact, on something like this even if you don't have insurance, one would probably negotiate the $20K down to several hundred dollars because that's about the best docs and hospitals are going to get from most insurance plans.

There is no fraud for charging Medicare or insurers a bizzillion dollars, as long as they don't go after the patient for the difference between Medicare's -- or other insurer's -- Allowed Amount and the astronomical/fictitious charge.

What you are missing is that after 20 years or so of paying on time, all the balance is erased.

IDR Repayment Period
Under IDR, any remaining loan balance may be forgiven if your federal student loans aren’t fully repaid at the end of the repayment period (either 20 or 25 years). But the length of your repayment period depends on which plan you’re on.

These other periods of student loan repayment also count toward your IDR plan:

Economic hardship deferment

Repayment under certain other repayment plans

Periods when your required payment is zero

You can now access your count of IDR payments on StudentAid.gov.

https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven

It's a good deal. If you don't have any disposable income -- you didn't benefit from your education -- you owe nothing.

Unfortunately, not every loan is eligible, but a lot are.

I know we are supposed hate Bill Maher, but folks need to watch the VP Gore segment. He was on fire and

looked/sounded 20 years younger than I’ve seen him. I was actually surprised.

Maher even said something like, “I know age is an impediment nowadays but you sound ready to run (and it was somewhat an encouragement to do so).”

Schiff, and usual questionable Stephens, were quite good too. A few cringes, but much less than usual.

Definitely. I know we hate Bill Maher, but Al Gore was on his show tonight. He discussed the difference

in a similar efficiency program during Clinton’s terms vs. the approach trump is taking.

BTW: VP Gore was really good and on fire. He even looked/sounded much younger than I’ve seen him. Maher even said, I know we are looking for younger candidates, but you/Gore sound like you are ready to run.

Months ago I wondered if we would have won had VP Harris dressed in fatigues -- with a pistol strapped to her side and

a knife in her teeth -- as she crawled into a tunnel at the border to check for immigrants.

Colbert just started and it's live after trump BS. Also, there is one guest, Pete Buttigieg.

He's talked BS, but I guarantee he'll report crud like $600 toilet seats, aid to some poor African

country for much needed HIV, Ebola, water, etc. At a minimum, they’ll make it look like it was not used for intended purpose.

They’ll find a few dead people still receiving SS, because their kids hid the body outside. They’ll claim people got disability improperly.

It might be only a few examples, but it will appease trumpsters who voted for this and anyone who might believe government is too inefficient and employees don’t care. Heard it all when I worked for government.

It might all amount to a projection of saving 0.0001% of our budget. Hope we have a damn plan to rebut Musk’s report and the promotional chit show they’ll put on to bash Democrats.

+1. Since Nov, I've been trying to understand why that 5% or so that might vote Democratic switched to trump.

Last night I read a post that nailed it in one sentence--

“A crappy, horrendous, even evil plan beats no plan at all, especially when it is delivered with some gusto.”

DUer: Bluetus

Oh, good. Your post survived jury. Wanted to quote you for best explanation of why trump won.

“ A crappy, horrendous, even evil plan beats no plan at all, especially when it is delivered with some gusto.”

I’ve been trying to describe something like that since November, but you nailed it in one friggin sentence. Sure there are many other causes, racism, misogyny, and worse.

But your description is what caused the 5 or 10% — who might have voted for Democrats— to turn to trump.

Unfortunately, over decades I've not seen much support for administrative costs (think hated "bean counters

“suits,” administrative a-holes that suck research dry, etc. Point is, don’t think we’ll find much sympathy for administrative cuts. When I worked for Sate Government, the Feds were always looking at administrative costs and the indirect cost allocation methodology. My guess is schools and research organizations will have to cope within the 15% cap, or do a better job of pointing out special needs above am arbitrary 15% cap.

Here’s a definition of indirect costs in this matter from Forbes. Forbes is not arguing in favor of cuts, but do a good job of discussing issues.

“Last Friday, NIH announced it would cap reimbursement for indirect costs incurred on university research at 15%. Indirect costs involve several kinds of overhead expenses universities bear when their investigators conduct research.

“ They are divided into two categories — “facilities” and “administration" — and include items like maintenance of equipment, facility upgrades, the operation of labs, depreciation, utility charges, support staff, accounting, research compliance, legal expenses, and the salaries of key administrators who oversee an institution’s research programs.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2025/02/10/what-the-nih-cut-to-indirect-cost-payments-could-cost-red-states/

Even worse, none of the rubes who supported trump will give a chit about these cuts, unless they somehow benefit from them.