PDA

View Full Version : Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax


Fire Haley
06-18-2009, 06:56 AM
Just like I predicted.....



First they came for your cigs...

A push for new taxes on soda, beer and wine to help pay for Americans' health care is stirring up more than just the beverage industry.

The Senate Finance Committee is considering raising taxes on alcohol and imposing a new levy on soda and other naturally sweetened drinks, on which there is no federal tax, to help pay for overhauling health care. The committee calls them "lifestyle tax proposals," saying the levies would slow sales of unhealthy products that contribute to rising medical costs.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jun/17/na-to-your-health/

---------------------------

Next - french fries, pizza and doughnuts.

X-Terminator
06-18-2009, 07:34 AM
Well, taxing beer and soda...hey, if they're going to tax the hell out of cigarettes to "pay for health care," why not beer and wine? After all, a hell of a lot more people who drink get on the road and kill people than people who smoke.

As for soda, I don't drink much of it anyway.

Still though, it was just a matter of time before this was proposed, because all the government knows how to do is TAX, TAX, TAX.

stlrtruck
06-18-2009, 08:12 AM
The committee calls them "lifestyle tax proposals," saying the levies would slow sales of unhealthy products that contribute to rising medical costs.
---------------------------

Next - french fries, pizza and doughnuts.

Yeah because the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol have slowed the consumption rate.

Why is it the people who are suppose to be smart enough to do what's right for the average person in this country can't get their head out of their arse long enough to fix the problems they've created!

Hammer67
06-18-2009, 09:36 AM
These are band aids.

Thanks to everyone who voted for quasi socialists. I knew as soon as Obama was elected that the Dems/Libs would get drunk with spending. Our country is out of control right now....

Can we have fiscal conservatives back, please???? (And I don't mean GWB)

KeiselPower99
06-18-2009, 09:48 AM
This is an exciting time in America aint it?? We are gonna pay taxes on going to the bathroom to drop the Obamas off at the pool before long.

revefsreleets
06-18-2009, 09:49 AM
The worst problem is that these taxes are, by their very nature, regressive. Diet soda drinkers have a better socio-economic standing than sugary soda drinkers, but both are not the upper crust for sure.

So the democrats are doing two things here: They are taxing the lower socio-economic brackets to finance their health care, which is sort of bad until you consider that it IS the lower socio-economic brackets that will reap the benefits of the inevitable free* socialized medicine the government is going to eventually provide. Only problem is these poorer people don't WANT health care, otherwise they'd be drinking water and not smoking and drinking liquor to save for their own healthcare, which is still available to every pretty much American IF THEY WANT IT.


* free to the poor...not to the rest of us taxpayers who will foot the majority of this new expenditure.

MACH1
06-18-2009, 09:50 AM
Just like I predicted.....



First they came for your cigs...

A push for new taxes on soda, beer and wine to help pay for Americans' health care is stirring up more than just the beverage industry.

The Senate Finance Committee is considering raising taxes on alcohol and imposing a new levy on soda and other naturally sweetened drinks, on which there is no federal tax, to help pay for overhauling health care. The committee calls them "lifestyle tax proposals," saying the levies would slow sales of unhealthy products that contribute to rising medical costs.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jun/17/na-to-your-health/

---------------------------

Next - french fries, pizza and doughnuts.

They'll tax basically anything with sugar in it. And now they pretty much control the tobacco industry by regulating it, they can do just about anything with it.

Next up - Equal, NutraSweet when people stop buying sugar.

KeiselPower99
06-18-2009, 10:08 AM
They'll tax basically anything with sugar in it. And now they pretty much control the tobacco industry by regulating it, they can do just about anything with it.

Next up - Equal, NutraSweet when people stop buying sugar.

Dont forget splenda.

Godfather
06-18-2009, 10:59 AM
The worst problem is that these taxes are, by their very nature, regressive. Diet soda drinkers have a better socio-economic standing than sugary soda drinkers, but both are not the upper crust for sure.


That's true, but as you pointed out in your next paragraph the people paying the unhealthy-lifestyle taxes will be the ones benefiting from government healthcare programs.

That definitely beats doing it with redistribution of income. And it's infinitely better than what my numbnuts governor wants to do--tax hospital beds to fund Medicaid. In other words, make health care more expensive for people paying with insurance or out of pocket AND do it when they're already hit with higher expenses and lower income :banging:

revefsreleets
06-18-2009, 11:11 AM
Except that taxing soft drinks will be self-defeating. They either tax it lightly, which won't equal much revenue, or they tax it heavily, which will price it out of the reach of the people who buy it, which will once again mean low revenues.

Godfather
06-18-2009, 11:39 AM
Except that taxing soft drinks will be self-defeating. They either tax it lightly, which won't equal much revenue, or they tax it heavily, which will price it out of the reach of the people who buy it, which will once again mean low revenues.

If people consume less you'll have lower Medicaid costs. I don't like the idea but I can see the reasoning.

It would be more applicable to tobacco since that's the most damaging.

steelreserve
06-18-2009, 12:21 PM
If people consume less you'll have lower Medicaid costs. I don't like the idea but I can see the reasoning.

Also, if they stopped letting hospitals charge whatever they wanted, you'd have lower Medicaid costs too. I understand this is a free market, etc., etc., but health care is the one industry in the entire country where you're allowed to do the service without saying anything about the price, then make up whatever price you want later. If you let them use their default billing, the medical profession literally jacks up the price 1,000% over what it costs to provide, for no particular reason.

They want me to pay extra taxes so they can keep doing that shit? The hell with that.

revefsreleets
06-18-2009, 12:22 PM
That's another problem, though. Reducing intake through taxation is okay, i guess, but it's not going to result in any kind of short-term noticeable result. Maybe 20 years from now we'll see the benefits of increased health, but it's not that quick of a cause and effect.

revefsreleets
06-18-2009, 12:23 PM
Also, if they stopped letting hospitals charge whatever they wanted, you'd have lower Medicaid costs too. I understand this is a free market, etc., etc., but health care is the one industry in the entire country where you're allowed to do the service without saying anything about the price, then make up whatever price you want later. If you let them use their default billing, the medical profession literally jacks up the price 1,000% over what it costs to provide, for no particular reason.

They want me to pay extra taxes so they can keep doing that shit? The hell with that.

I saw a chart in the paper awhile back that showed that the average cost of healthcare per employee went from something like $4200 a year to $8500 a year from 2001 to the present.

That's insanity.

MACH1
06-18-2009, 12:44 PM
Except that taxing soft drinks will be self-defeating. They either tax it lightly, which won't equal much revenue, or they tax it heavily, which will price it out of the reach of the people who buy it, which will once again mean low revenues.

If people quit buying, then companies go under and people lose their jobs. Probly not a bad thing for tobacco but it defeats the purpose of the spendulass and creating or saving millions of jobs. What ever that means.

steelreserve
06-18-2009, 01:10 PM
I saw a chart in the paper awhile back that showed that the average cost of healthcare per employee went from something like $4200 a year to $8500 a year from 2001 to the present.

That's insanity.

Yeah, it's straight-up garbage. What'll really piss you off is the difference between what the hospital charges you with insurance versus without insurance. My fiancee had to have her gall bladder removed, and how much did they send us a bill for? $60,000. No, no, I told them, we have insurance; bill them first.

So how much did they bill the insurance company for the same thing? A little under $6,000. Mind you, this was the new TOTAL cost; nobody was on the hook for the other $54,000, which magically disappeared.

What that tells me is, the hospital is still making more than enough money to cover its costs and turn a profit when it charges $6,000 -- otherwise, they wouldn't agree to that rate. But for anyone else, they demand 10 times that. And they don't just let any of it go because it's a bogus number -- they stick to it, send it to collecitons, ruin your credit, everything like that, if you don't pay their artificially inflated price. They're experts at doing that to the government too when it's their turn to pay, I hear -- just back up the cash truck.

So again, if this is what they want to raise my taxes to pay for, they can go straight to hell sucking on a fat dick.

St33lersguy
06-18-2009, 01:17 PM
Still though, it was just a matter of time before this was proposed, because all the government knows how to do is TAX, TAX, TAX.

You forgot to mention destroy America, and look like complete idiots


Can these a**holes just give us Americans a break? The only people this terroristic and evil govt cares about is themselves and the terrorist.

Indo
06-18-2009, 01:45 PM
Yeah, it's straight-up garbage. What'll really piss you off is the difference between what the hospital charges you with insurance versus without insurance. My fiancee had to have her gall bladder removed, and how much did they send us a bill for? $60,000. No, no, I told them, we have insurance; bill them first.

So how much did they bill the insurance company for the same thing? A little under $6,000. Mind you, this was the new TOTAL cost; nobody was on the hook for the other $54,000, which magically disappeared.

What that tells me is, the hospital is still making more than enough money to cover its costs and turn a profit when it charges $6,000 -- otherwise, they wouldn't agree to that rate. But for anyone else, they demand 10 times that. And they don't just let any of it go because it's a bogus number -- they stick to it, send it to collecitons, ruin your credit, everything like that, if you don't pay their artificially inflated price. They're experts at doing that to the government too when it's their turn to pay, I hear -- just back up the cash truck.

So again, if this is what they want to raise my taxes to pay for, they can go straight to hell sucking on a fat dick.



Wow.
You misguided soul.

I am a Surgeon, so make no mistake, I know what I'm talking about here because I deal with this every day.

The hospital did not bill only $6000 to the insurance company. The hospital billed $60,000 to the insurance company. The insurance company PAID only $6000. The hospital was forced to write-off the remainder of the charges to Bad Debt knowing full well that it was not going to get paid.

This is what happens in my practice (and EVERY doctor's practice)...It DOES NOT MATTER what the doc or the hosp. bills for a service. Medicare basically has set the fee reimbursement structure. They will pay only so much for any given service. Period. I can bill them a Million dollars for, lets say----a gallbladder operation. Guess how much they will pay me-------
Exactly (and not a penny more than) $609.24
The amount reimbursed also varies by State. Why does a doc in Rhode Island get paid a different amount than a doc in Utah?

Here's the REAL kicker-----Once Medicare sets its fee reimbursement structure (how much they will pay for what) ALL OTHER insurance companies----BC/BS, Aetna, Humana, etc. etc. fall in line with the same rules..(Make no mistake, we already have a Socialized Medical System. It's just not out in the open...

As for hospitals---they set their fees on something known as the DRG (Diagnostic Related Group) system. Medicare (and ALL other insurance carriers) will reimburse a hospital on the basis of the DRG. Hospitals bill as much as possible in order to try to offset the losses that they are taking for treating the uninsured. These losses amount to MILLIONS of dollars. If they bill $1000 they will get paid $1000 (even if the DRG allows for $6000. If they bill for everything ALLOWABLE (say, $60,000) they will get the FULL $6000. Make no mistake about it-----hospitals operate at a LOSS financially. This is largely due to the uninsured patients who get EVERY BIT of healthcare that they need.(despite what the media tells you). The hospital and the Docs that take care of these patients get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for this.

My practice involves approximately 25% uninsured patients. Let's assume that of all of the patients that are treated at the hosp. 25% are not insured. They still get the same care as you and me. But we (myself and the hospital don't get paid.

I don't know what you do for a living---but for argument's sake let's assume you work from 9am to 5pm. Would you be willing to go to work and get paid for working from 9 to 3pm and work the last 2 hours for free? Didn't think so. I do this every day.
So does every hospital in the country.



I recently had a patient who was in the hospital for almost 7 months (long story). She had no insurance. Her Medication bill alone (not counting the IVs, ICU, etc.) was over $500,000. The hospital had to eat that. I saw her every day while she was in the hospital. I still see her approx. once a month in the office.I don't get paid ANYTHING.

HOSPITALS OPERATE AT A LOSS

OK.
I'm done

and I meant no offense by the "misguided soul" thing. It's just that most people who are not in the medical field don't understand this. They are misguided by all of the media hype and BS

Under Obama's plan, Medicare is planning on REDUCING its reimbursements to physicians by 22%. That basically means that many physicians, including myself, will have to close shop because I won't even be able to cover my overhead (malpractice insurance, salaries for my office people, etc)

The Bengals suck

xfl2001fan
06-18-2009, 01:56 PM
Let's not forget all the asinine law suits that Doctors/Hospitals have to go through. While some are deserved, there are many that have gotten through "the system" that drive up the rates of malpractice insurance. That annual insurance cost has to be factored into the costs that you and I pay for medical as well. Get rid of many of these frivolous lawsuits...and insurance rates drop...which causes either prices to drop, or profits to pick up...either of which allows for people to spend more money back into our troubled economy.

steelreserve
06-18-2009, 02:25 PM
Funny you should say that, because I worked in the health care field for about 10 years all the way through college and a few years after. Granted, that was in a couple of pharmacies (one of which was part of a hospital), but I know all about how insurance and contract rates work. I was mainly simplifying the $60,000-$6,000 difference for the benefit of others who weren't familiar with it.

The bottom line of my argument is, what's a fair price for a gall bladder operation? $60,000 or $6,000? Obviously, it's not the first one, but the way hostpitals handle it is unconscionable. It's one thing if you know full well that an insurance company is not going to pay $60,000 but you bill them for it anyway knowing you'll get their contract rate and it makes no difference to them. It's another thing to bill an individual for the same exorbitantly inflated rate and tell them sorry, pay 10 times the price, there's nothing you can do about it. Basically, if you don't have the buying and negotiating power of a large corporation, like a big insurance company, the hospital tells you you're stuck with the unfair price, and good luck fighting it. That's not socialism, that's capitalism favoring the big consolidated enterprise with lots of legal resources (be it the hospital or the insurance company) to about the fullest extent that it gets. It's a shitty way of doing business and I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone involved in its execution.

And having seen this type of shit for 10 years, I have a VERY hard time believing most hospitals operate at a loss. Maybe some of them do, like the ones in poorer areas, or ones that are badly run. But the one I referred to is doing just fine -- so well, in fact, that it just opened an $800 million expansion funded entirely with private money. And if I knew any surgeons who were just barely scraping by because they got cheated out of so much, maybe I'd sympathize with their plight a little more. Did your hospital really "lose" $500,000 on drugs for that one patient? Doubtful. More likely $500,000 was what the hospital WOULD'VE billed for, but the drugs really cost more like a tenth of that. I've seen enough of that type of shit going on

But the point is that there's excess in the system, and the irony of it all is ... who are you asking to foot the bill? The uninsured. They're the only ones who you try stick with the $60,000 bill instead of the fairer contract rate. I'm amazed more hospitals don't get sued over that, because if they ever try that on me, that's what's happening in an instant.

steelreserve
06-18-2009, 02:29 PM
Let's not forget all the asinine law suits that Doctors/Hospitals have to go through. While some are deserved, there are many that have gotten through "the system" that drive up the rates of malpractice insurance. That annual insurance cost has to be factored into the costs that you and I pay for medical as well. Get rid of many of these frivolous lawsuits...and insurance rates drop...which causes either prices to drop, or profits to pick up...either of which allows for people to spend more money back into our troubled economy.

Well, everyone knows the legal system is broken. It's not just with medical malpractice -- people use the courts like playing the lottery all the time nowadays. Any good-sized corporation, city, goverment entity, you name it, is going to have to spend a ridiculous amount of time and money fighting dumbshit lawsuits for no reason.

So .. yeah. They really need to find a way to stop that. That's another place where there are exorbitant excess costs that get passed on to everyone else in one way or another.

Indo
06-18-2009, 03:51 PM
If I was going in to the medical profession, I would be a vet instead of Dr. No malpractice on fluffy the cat, no super high mal practice insurance to worry about, and they make a killing!

Yes----it's one of the big regrets of my life!

A friend of mine (who is a human doc) told me about his best friend who is a vet. He is retiring at the age of 45 because (his words), he "has so much money he doesn't know what to do with it".

I guess it depends on where you practice because he told me that the average general vet doesn't make huge amounts of money, especially in areas where there is more than one vet and they are competing against each other. But the "Specialty" Vets (the 45 year old guy is a Vet Oncologist who treats cats/dogs with cancer) make a killing. He said it's amazing how people won't get insurance for themselves and that they will b*tch and complain about every penny of their medical bills and then turn around and pay him $4000 for chemotherapy for their dog...

MACH1
06-18-2009, 03:59 PM
Yes----it's one of the big regrets of my life!

A friend of mine (who is a human doc) told me about his best friend who is a vet. He is retiring at the age of 45 because (his words), he "has so much money he doesn't know what to do with it".

I guess it depends on where you practice because he told me that the average general vet doesn't make huge amounts of money, especially in areas where there is more than one vet and they are competing against each other. But the "Specialty" Vets (the 45 year old guy is a Vet Oncologist who treats cats/dogs with cancer) make a killing. He said it's amazing how people won't get insurance for themselves and that they will b*tch and complain about every penny of their medical bills and then turn around and pay him $4000 for chemotherapy for their dog...


Screw that....A piece of lead is a lot cheaper.

Indo
06-18-2009, 06:02 PM
Be careful....PETA may hear you say that and send a "You're a Bad Person" letter to you

Godfather
06-18-2009, 06:40 PM
Yes----it's one of the big regrets of my life!

A friend of mine (who is a human doc) told me about his best friend who is a vet. He is retiring at the age of 45 because (his words), he "has so much money he doesn't know what to do with it".

I guess it depends on where you practice because he told me that the average general vet doesn't make huge amounts of money, especially in areas where there is more than one vet and they are competing against each other. But the "Specialty" Vets (the 45 year old guy is a Vet Oncologist who treats cats/dogs with cancer) make a killing. He said it's amazing how people won't get insurance for themselves and that they will b*tch and complain about every penny of their medical bills and then turn around and pay him $4000 for chemotherapy for their dog...

Hey, good thing I found a surgeon. How much would you bill for knee surgery for a patient with torn ACLs and double bucket handle meniscus tears in both knees? This ties in to the vet thing because I spent a total of about $2000 for one of my dogs for the same thing.

revefsreleets
06-19-2009, 09:53 AM
Speaking of, when Obama spoke to the Dr's of AMA last week, they booed him when he said he would not put a cap on malpractice suits.

Why?

Trial lawyers. They, along with a few other super powerful lobbies (like the teachers) control the Democratic party. Here in Ohio, the insurance doctors have to pay (and I'm sure it' the same in other states) is prohibitive, meaning it's just cheaper to pack up, get licensed in another state and practice there.

If they DO pay the premiums, they have to pass the costs along any way they can.

It's easy to call the doctors gredy or whatever, just because they have a high profile profession, but the truth is, they pay their dues, and deserve to paid a premium. It's not fair when insurance companies and trial lawyers leach off them and eat into their ability to make money.

revefsreleets
06-19-2009, 09:56 AM
Speaking of regressive taxes, George Will is right there again.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/48584457.html

An unlovely tobacco policy

By George F. Will
Washington Post

Published on Friday, Jun 19, 2009

WASHINGTON: Politicians have extraordinary shoulder joints that enable them to pat themselves on the back, and last week the president, a master of that calisthenic, performed it in the Rose Garden. His subject aside from himself, as usual was the bill by which Congress authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. The president called this ''a bill that truly defines change in Washington'' and ''changes the way Washington works and who Washington works for.''

Our leaders are often wrong but rarely so precisely wrong. In two important particulars the bill is a crystalline example of Washington business as usual the protection of the strong. The bill was supported by America's biggest tobacco company and by the Democratic Party's fountain of funds, the trial bar.

Congress could ban cigarettes, therefore it could ban tobacco advertising. Instead, tobacco advertising and promotions will be even more severely curtailed. These restrictions merit a constitutional challenge.

Although commercial speech does not receive full First Amendment protection, Congress should not be allowed to effectively prohibit truthful communication about a legal product. Philip Morris, however, can live indeed, can flourish with the new restrictions on the marketing measures by which less powerful companies might threaten its dominance. And lest courts conclude that companies cannot be sued for behavior (selling cigarettes) governed, hence authorized, by a regulatory body, the bill stipulates that it shall not be construed to limit ''the liability of any person under the product liability law of any state.''

Government policy regarding tobacco, as regarding so much else, is contradictory and unlovely. Nevertheless, it has been, on balance, a success: Americans are behaving much more sensibly.

Before the surgeon general declared tobacco addictive (1988) and carcinogenic (1964), before a character in a 1906 O. Henry story asked, ''Say, sport, have you got a coffin nail on you?'' people intuitively understood that inhaling smoke is unhealthy. Smoking is addictive (although there are about as many ex-smokers as smokers), sickening, often fatal and usually childish: Ninety percent of all smokers start by age 18; few start after 21. But death and intelligence cost the companies 6,000 customers a day, so that many new smokers must be made daily just to keep up.

Ironies abound. The February expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program is supposed to be financed by increased tobacco taxes, so this health care depends on an ample and renewable supply of smokers. State governments, increasingly addicted to tobacco tax revenues, face delicate price calculations: They want to raise their regressive tobacco taxes (smokers are disproportionately low income and poorly educated) to just below where smokers are driven to quit.
Governments cannot loot tobacco companies that do not flourish. In a 1998 settlement, 46 states conspired to seize $206 billion from companies selling legal tobacco products made from a commodity subsidized by the governments that subsidize treatment of tobacco-related illnesses.

The dubious premise of the settlement was that smoking costs governments substantial sums. Actually, tobacco is the most heavily taxed consumer good (Rhode Island's is $3.46 per pack) and the accurate actuarial assumptions of public and private pension plans are that premature deaths of smokers will save billions in payments.

In the early 1950s, the sponsor of anchorman John Cameron Swayze's Camel News Caravan on NBC television required him to have a lit cigarette constantly visible. Today smokers are pariahs in a country the Father of which was a tobacco farmer. Someday the ashtray may be as anachronistic as the spittoon, but fear of death may be a milder deterrent to smoking than is the fact that smoking is dumb and declasse.

Dumb? Would you hire a smoker, who must be either weak-willed or impervious to evidence? Declasse? Twenty years ago, California cut smoking 17 percent with commercials such as: ''I tried it twice and I, ah, got all red in the face and I couldn't inhale and I felt like a jerk and, ah, never tried it again, which is the same as what happened to me with sex.''

Three decades ago, public outrage killed an automobile model (Ford's Pinto) whose design defects allegedly caused 59 deaths. Yet every year tobacco kills more Americans than did World War II more than AIDS, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, vehicular accidents, homicide and suicide combined.

In the time it takes to read this column, three Americans will die of smoking-related illnesses. If you tarry to savor the column's lovely prose, four will die, so read fast.
Will is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at georgewill@washpost.com.

Godfather
06-19-2009, 11:49 AM
It's not fair when insurance companies and trial lawyers leach off them and eat into their ability to make money.

Yep. The lawyers and insurance companies are leeches who contribute nothing to the system. It's not just the HMOs thinking doctors should have to work for free. It's the med mal insurance too. I know a doctor who retired from Louisiana, which has strict limits on malpractice awards. In spite of those limits his premium was still $110K a year.

revefsreleets
06-19-2009, 11:55 AM
I wouldn't say "nothing". Obviously insurance companies have a role, they've just abused their position over the years.

I'm not so forgiving of trial lawyers. It's actually hard to gauge just how much damage they've done weighed against the legitimate cases. fact is, we have WAY too many lawyers, and not all of them can finish in the top 10%. That bottom half all need to find some way to make money, hence they "manufacture" lawsuits.

SteelersinCA
06-19-2009, 12:12 PM
I wouldn't say "nothing". Obviously insurance companies have a role, they've just abused their position over the years.

I'm not so forgiving of trial lawyers. It's actually hard to gauge just how much damage they've done weighed against the legitimate cases. fact is, we have WAY too many lawyers, and not all of them can finish in the top 10%. That bottom half all need to find some way to make money, hence they "manufacture" lawsuits.

Which leads to huge legal departments in corporations which means when you have a legitimate claim against a company and little money they can just outspend you until you give up.

revefsreleets
06-19-2009, 12:19 PM
Supply and demand. Huge supply of lawyers and, well, they need something to do...

There's certainly two sides to this coin, but that's bottom line type-stuff...

steelreserve
06-19-2009, 12:41 PM
Which leads to huge legal departments in corporations which means when you have a legitimate claim against a company and little money they can just outspend you until you give up.

That was exactly my point about hospitals and insurance companies. That whole system is geared toward the big entity telling individuals "Here, these are our terms, and you're stuck with them because there's nothing you can do about it."

Same goes for the legal system, unless you want to dedicate your whole life to changing one specific law.

Dino 6 Rings
06-19-2009, 12:50 PM
If we killed all the lawyers would medicine and medical care still cost as much?

drewcary
06-20-2009, 06:04 AM
Once they get a marxist healthcare system in place they will have pretext to tax anything that THEY deem to be bad for us.

silver & black
06-20-2009, 08:52 AM
I don't know what you do for a living---but for argument's sake let's assume you work from 9am to 5pm. Would you be willing to go to work and get paid for working from 9 to 3pm and work the last 2 hours for free? Didn't think so. I do this every day.

If I made well into the six figures like you and most docs do... yes, I would.

silver & black
06-20-2009, 09:04 AM
Yes----it's one of the big regrets of my life!

A friend of mine (who is a human doc) told me about his best friend who is a vet. He is retiring at the age of 45 because (his words), he "has so much money he doesn't know what to do with it".

I guess it depends on where you practice because he told me that the average general vet doesn't make huge amounts of money, especially in areas where there is more than one vet and they are competing against each other. But the "Specialty" Vets (the 45 year old guy is a Vet Oncologist who treats cats/dogs with cancer) make a killing. He said it's amazing how people won't get insurance for themselves and that they will b*tch and complain about every penny of their medical bills and then turn around and pay him $4000 for chemotherapy for their dog...


This is NOT directed at you: If money is why a person becomes a doctor, they should not have chosen that profession. I would think (hope) that the desire to help people would be the motivating factor in choosing that profession... just as helping animals would be the motivating factor in choosing to be a vet.

SteelersinCA
06-20-2009, 12:18 PM
If we killed all the lawyers would medicine and medical care still cost as much?

Someone else would find a way to screw you too!!

xfl2001fan
06-20-2009, 01:30 PM
Someone else would find a way to screw you too!!

They're called "Insurers".