SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
College Financial-Aid Loophole: Wealthy Parents Transfer Guardianship of Their Teens to Get Aid
Amid an intense national furor over the fairness of college admissions, the Education Department is looking into a tactic that has been used in some suburbs here, in which wealthy parents transfer legal guardianship of their college-bound children to relatives or friends so the teens can claim financial aid, say people familiar with the matter.
The strategy caught the department's attention amid a spate of guardianship transfers here. It means that only the children's earnings were considered in their financial-aid applications, not the family income or savings. That has led to awards of scholarships and access to federal financial aid designed for the poor, these people said.
Several universities in Illinois say they are looking into the practice, which is legal. "Our financial-aid resources are limited and the practice of wealthy parents transferring the guardianship of their children to qualify for need-based financial aid—or so-called opportunity hoarding—takes away resources from middle- and low-income students," said Andrew Borst, director of undergraduate enrollment at the University of Illinois. "This is legal, but we question the ethics."
Also At:
https://www.propublica.org/article/university-of-illinois-financial-aid-fafsa-parents-guardianship-children-students
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/7/29/20746376/u-of-i-parents-giving-up-custody-kids-get-need-based-college-financial-aid-university-illinois
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday July 30 2019, @09:55PM (5 children)
Enter the death panels. If surgery has a credible chance of extending your life a few months, it jumps the fence from unnecessary to necessary, particularly for the person receiving the surgery. And such things are notorious for being decided on dubious grounds, like who votes more often or who pays the bigger bribe. At least with insurance companies, you have someone you can sue.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30 2019, @11:21PM (1 child)
Who voted this up?
There are no Canadian Death Panels. The physician will estimate whether or not the procedure is likely to improve the patient's condition. If they're 90, they may well have a worse post-surgery prognosis than if they are untreated. Do you know what post-general anaesthetic haze can be like for a 90 year old? Sometimes they never come out, and trading a cyst removal for permanent zombie fugue is a bad trade.
Source: live with a doctor, and I work for a provider.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 01 2019, @12:27PM
How do you know that? You're assuming things. The physician doesn't get to decide this all on their own with no repercussions. Else self-interest would take over and, for example, bribery would be widespread.
I loosely follow Machiavelli on this matter. There's only one party in this whole mess guaranteed to have the interests of the patient at stake. That's the patient. Everyone else has an angle. That includes the above physician and the death panels that would be set up to attempt to insure the physician makes the decision above as you say.
Not what we were speaking of earlier. If they're 30, they may well have a worst post-surgery prognosis as well. In the real world, we can't remove ethical dilemmas by only considering cases where the dilemma doesn't exist. In the original post, there was a better post-surgery prognosis, it just was considerably less upside than the prognosis for the 30 year old. Then the poster bragged that their health care system would make the right choice and go for the 30 year old.
Do you know what a red herring is? I doubt anyone here thinks that medical procedures are without risk or that even if we consider equivalent medical risk, the 90 year old statistically will live as long afterward as the 30 year old.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31 2019, @01:00AM (2 children)
What would be an example?
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Wednesday July 31 2019, @01:59AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31 2019, @10:00PM
People could still pay for the operation themselves, and even discounting your bullshit uninformed ranting the US health insurance industry already does this. Except the for-profit insurance is even WORSE than the judgment from a panel of doctors.
You're wrong on every level.