Will physicians be taxed out the a** if Bernie Sanders is president?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't believe taxes are stealing so I don't come to the conclusion that you do, but otherwise what you say is true. I personally don't find it acceptable for society as a whole to allow suffering and death because of individual failings- if the actions of people like you and me aren't enough, I think government has a role. I probably won't ever understand how you reconcile a God who says not to steal with a God who also says to take care of the least of us-- how you decided that not "stealing" is more important than alleviating suffering-- but that's why I'm not you, I guess.
It's because society has sanitized the process to the point that people don't view taxes as literally stealing from people under the threat of death. You propose it's immoral to not take someone's property to feed people. I propose that if you personally had to kill the rich guy to get his stuff, that you would view it differently. And that's what taxes are, theft under threat of death. If you don't pay, guys with guns come to take your stuff and if you resist...they will kill you.

Members don't see this ad.
 
It's because society has sanitized the process to the point that people don't view taxes as literally stealing from people under the threat of death. You propose it's immoral to not take someone's property to feed people. I propose that if you personally had to kill the rich guy to get his stuff, that you would view it differently. And that's what taxes are, theft under threat of death. If you don't pay, guys with guns come to take your stuff and if you resist...they will kill you.

Holy crap where do you live that people who don't pay taxes get raided/killed? I had an uncle who had his wages garnished but he never told me about the guys with guns.

I'm being facetious. Even if I accept this premise of taxes = stealing under threat of death, I'm not sure I would say innocents suffering and dying is more acceptable. For all your talk of absolute morals and right/wrong, I find it really hard to wrap my mind around placing personal property rights on a pedestal above literally everything else, including other people's rights to live, and calling that "moral." I am going to guess we believe in the same Creator, so I'm curious where you got the impression that we're supposed to rank property #1.

I do have to give you kudos for being the only libertarian I've ever spoken with who acknowledges that things like roads and public services (ie fire departments) aren't accessible to everyone in a truly government-free state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It's because society has sanitized the process to the point that people don't view taxes as literally stealing from people under the threat of death. You propose it's immoral to not take someone's property to feed people. I propose that if you personally had to kill the rich guy to get his stuff, that you would view it differently. And that's what taxes are, theft under threat of death. If you don't pay, guys with guns come to take your stuff and if you resist...they will kill you.


I think we need to get away from what is moral or not because that is an incredibly subjective way to think and speak about things. In fact your version (which I do agree with in part as you will see later in my response) fundamentally did not exist before capitalism was literally created several hundred years ago. Property likely didn't even exist for humans more than 8-10 thousand years ago, so it really can't be some fundamental moral ideology for all of humans always.

So, while we can't or should speak on moral grounds in this case because of how subjective they are, I think we CAN speak about these things in terms of what is practical and what is not conducive for our society to grow and prosper. Taking away people's property in terms of stealing land and businesses etc. is wrong because I think it would likely lead to a reduction in our growth as a society. Now, taxes have existed for a long time and despite this our lives today are much better in terms of access to food, money, opportunity etc than it was 200 years ago and 200 years before that. SO if society can grow with taxes, they aren't inherently corrosive to society like you have said or even to growth in income and resource access.

Just something to think about. I do agree just raising taxes will not solve anything in the long run and would likely cause negative consequences. Europe may sound great, but there is a reason the euro is struggling so much. Socialism in many instances can cause pretty terrible economic consequences, but capitalism can also do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I think we need to get away from what is moral or not because that is an incredibly subjective way to think and speak about things. In fact your version (which I do agree with in part as you will see later in my response) fundamentally did not exist before capitalism was literally created several hundred years ago. Property likely didn't even exist for humans more than 8-10 thousand years ago, so it really can't be some fundamental moral ideology for all of humans always.

So, while we can't or should speak on moral grounds in this case because of how subjective they are, I think we CAN speak about these things in terms of what is practical and what is not conducive for our society to grow and prosper. Taking away people's property in terms of stealing land and businesses etc. is wrong because I think it would likely lead to a reduction in our growth as a society. Now, taxes have existed for a long time and despite this our lives today are much better in terms of access to food, money, opportunity etc than it was 200 years ago and 200 years before that. SO if society can grow with taxes, they aren't inherently corrosive to society like you have said or even to growth in income and resource access.

Just something to think about. I do agree just raising taxes will not solve anything in the long run and would likely cause negative consequences. Europe may sound great, but there is a reason the euro is struggling so much. Socialism in many instances can cause pretty terrible economic consequences, but capitalism can also do so.
Get your justified and logical reasoning out of here!
 
Yeah I don't think I'd be OK with taxation if we had to murder people to collect taxes from them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You do know threat of jail and murder are the only reason those taxes get paid right?

Also not really true. Look, not a fan of taxes, especially the current tax system and all its issues. However, I am still happy to pay SOME taxes. I want others to get their schooling paid for, and have paved roads, etc. BECAUSE it is GOOD for me. The more educated and well off everyone else is, the less likely they are to try and rob me and crime goes down as well. So, in short, I agree the threat of jail is for many a pressure to pay taxes, but to say the only reason is ludacris. Just because the law says I could be executed for mass murder, doesn't mean that THAT is why I am NOT going to kill someone. I am not going to do it because I care about those around me and I think it would be a bad decision for myself and not indicative of my values among other obvious reasons. Same thing with drugs, I could do them and almost certainly not get caught. But I choose not too not because of jail, but because I don't want to do them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You do know threat of jail and murder are the only reason those taxes get paid right?

Jail is not murder. Enforcing law does not mean wanton killing.

Look, you have to quit pretending that taxation is immoral theft. Taxation is a legal necessity. No government could function in any way without taxation. Maybe you don't like how much tax they collect, but relentlessly screaming about how tax is stealing under threat of death (come on man) is just ridiculous and makes your entire argument sound pathetically petty and nonsensical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jail is not murder. Enforcing law does not mean wanton killing.

Look, you have to quit pretending that taxation is immoral theft. Taxation is a legal necessity. No government could function in any way without taxation. Maybe you don't like how much tax they collect, but relentlessly screaming about how tax is stealing under threat of death (come on man) is just ridiculous and makes your entire argument sound pathetically petty and nonsensical.

We functioned quite well for years without an income tax.

And try to not go to jail when they tell you to, they are willing to kill you to make it happen. All laws are enforced by threat of death, that's the trump card.
 
No government could function in any way without taxation.

To be fair, sweet naive @sb247 actually believes that there should be minimal government (if any at all), and we as a people would respond by collectively doing right by each other out of the goodness of our hearts. Protecting the weak and innocent and so on. Because human nature has never yet proved that wrong. But if we as a people didn't respond that way, then the weak would (unfortunately but necessarily) end up as collateral losses. Too bad so sad, and somehow perfectly moral because deaths of innocents are lower on the scale than threatening property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
We functioned quite well for years without an income tax.

And try to not go to jail when they tell you to, they are willing to kill you to make it happen. All laws are enforced by threat of death, that's the trump card.

But your point falls apart when I can personally say that SOME people pay taxes because they feel it beneficial to society and their own well being. Again, that threat is for those who DO NOT follow the basic rules of the society we live in. For you, you pay taxes because of the threat of jail and then death I guess. For me, I see SOME value in taxes. I don't want to give up to much, but I personally see the value in SOME taxes, preferably in a different system than we have currently.
 
Also not really true. Look, not a fan of taxes, especially the current tax system and all its issues. However, I am still happy to pay SOME taxes. I want others to get their schooling paid for, and have paved roads, etc. BECAUSE it is GOOD for me. The more educated and well off everyone else is, the less likely they are to try and rob me and crime goes down as well. So, in short, I agree the threat of jail is for many a pressure to pay taxes, but to say the only reason is ludacris. Just because the law says I could be executed for mass murder, doesn't mean that THAT is why I am NOT going to kill someone. I am not going to do it because I care about those around me and I think it would be a bad decision for myself and not indicative of my values among other obvious reasons. Same thing with drugs, I could do them and almost certainly not get caught. But I choose not too not because of jail, but because I don't want to do them.
I call bull---- on the claim that you would voluntarily pay attending level income taxes. The half the country that ends up paying right now would stop, that's why they are mandatory
 
Members don't see this ad :)
We functioned quite well for years without an income tax.

And try to not go to jail when they tell you to, they are willing to kill you to make it happen. All laws are enforced by threat of death, that's the trump card.

Without an income tax. But never without taxes. Always with taxes.

Also, you are not killed for resisting arrest. They don't jsmust shoot you if you put up a fight.

Your views are so fringe they could be a 70s blazer, and you're just undermining even that with your ridiculous hyperbole about people being murdered for not paying income tax.
 
I call bull---- on the claim that you would voluntarily pay attending level income taxes. The half the country that ends up paying right now would stop, that's why they are mandatory

But here is the thing: others besides me have said the same thing as well. What you are saying is that the notion that others have different values than your own is bull----. And to be frank that is ridiculous and narrow minded. I am not one of these people that thinks a European system would work in America nor do I think greater taxation is the answer for the majority of our issues. I do however see the value in taxes and I take it as a duty as a citizen who receives a TON of benefits because of tax money. Take the police for instance or maybe paving roads so I can go places. I simply don't have the time to pave them myself but I certainly want them paved. Do taxes get wasted I bureaucracy? Totally they do. But the answer to that should be to rid the waste, not taxes all together.
 
But here is the thing: others besides me have said the same thing as well. What you are saying is that the notion that others have different values than your own is bull----. And to be frank that is ridiculous and narrow minded. I am not one of these people that thinks a European system would work in America nor do I think greater taxation is the answer for the majority of our issues. I do however see the value in taxes and I take it as a duty as a citizen who receives a TON of benefits because of tax money. Take the police for instance or maybe paving roads so I can go places. I simply don't have the time to pave them myself but I certainly want them paved. Do taxes get wasted I bureaucracy? Totally they do. But the answer to that should be to rid the waste, not taxes all together.
I'm still calling you a liar if you say you would pay voluntarily. Have you ever voluntarily paid more than required so far?
 
Now, taxes have existed for a long time and despite this our lives today are much better in terms of access to food, money, opportunity etc than it was 200 years ago and 200 years before that. SO if society can grow with taxes, they aren't inherently corrosive to society like you have said or even to growth in income and resource access.

Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto is “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Congress implemented Marx's idea in 1913. America has become a First World power despite Marx's mantra, not because of it. America's success is due to Americans' hard work, inventiveness, raw talent and intelligence as well as the nation's natural resources. And fyi today the top 40% of wage earners pay 106% of taxes ( that includes physicians) whereas the bottom 40% pay a negative 9%. How much longer can this be sustainable?

http://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/11/the-rich-do-not-pay-the-most-taxes-they-pay-all-the-taxes.html

snip

The [CBO] report shows the lowest-paid Americans earned on average $8,100 in 2010 but received nearly $25,000 in government aid. You begin to see how "transfers" create a negative tax burden.

But wait, there more. The CBO says about a quarter of the lowest earning group actually paid negative 15 percent of all individual income taxes. Contrast that with the combined share of the wealthiest two groups, which totals more than 100 percent.

Fair or not, I will let you be the judge.

People who make more should pay more, generally speaking. In America, they are. Yes, the rich (and almost rich) are getting richer. When it comes to individual income taxes, they're also covering the entire bill. And leaving a tip.
 
I'm still calling you a liar if you say you would pay voluntarily. Have you ever voluntarily paid more than required so far?

Yes. But I did so in other ways besides flat taxes. I get more pleasure out of giving my money directly to those who I feel are in need. I never said I decide to give whatever percentage in taxes arbitrarily. I pay the amount that we as a society deems is the amount necessary to have the benefits I want. Sometimes, probably due to waste, that is not enough, so I give EXTRA money to charity which often may be government funded so my tax dollars may already be there anyways.

Regardless though, who are you to call me a liar? Are the other people who say they are ok paying taxes liars? Again, just because you don't share the idea does not mean it cannot be true for someone else. Once you start calling people liars, you essentially are just plugging your ears going "la la la I can't hear you." Which is sad to me because I like many of your points, I just think they are too absolute.
 
Yes. But I did so in other ways besides flat taxes. I get more pleasure out of giving my money directly to those who I feel are in need. I never said I decide to give whatever percentage in taxes arbitrarily. I pay the amount that we as a society deems is the amount necessary to have the benefits I want. Sometimes, probably due to waste, that is not enough, so I give EXTRA money to charity which often may be government funded so my tax dollars may already be there anyways.

Regardless though, who are you to call me a liar? Are the other people who say they are ok paying taxes liars? Again, just because you don't share the idea does not mean it cannot be true for someone else. Once you start calling people liars, you essentially are just plugging your ears going "la la la I can't hear you." Which is sad to me because I like many of your points, I just think they are too absolute.
So the answer is "no, I have never paid more taxes than required despite my claims that I would pay even if they weren't required
 
Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto is “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Congress implemented Marx's idea in 1913. America has become a First World power despite Marx's mantra, not because of it. America's success is due to Americans' hard work, inventiveness, raw talent and intelligence as well as the nation's natural resources. And fyi today the top 40% of wage earners pay 106% of taxes ( that includes physicians) whereas the bottom 40% pay a negative 9%. How much longer can this be sustainable?

http://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/11/the-rich-do-not-pay-the-most-taxes-they-pay-all-the-taxes.html

snip

The [CBO] report shows the lowest-paid Americans earned on average $8,100 in 2010 but received nearly $25,000 in government aid. You begin to see how "transfers" create a negative tax burden.

But wait, there more. The CBO says about a quarter of the lowest earning group actually paid negative 15 percent of all individual income taxes. Contrast that with the combined share of the wealthiest two groups, which totals more than 100 percent.

Fair or not, I will let you be the judge.

People who make more should pay more, generally speaking. In America, they are. Yes, the rich (and almost rich) are getting richer. When it comes to individual income taxes, they're also covering the entire bill. And leaving a tip.

Most of the super rich, the ones getting richer make the majority of their money through investments which arent taxed under the income tax. In the USA you only pay high taxes if you make a lot of money working for a living. Guys like Mitt Romney pay a much lower rate than the typical physician most years.
 
@sb247 Are you a traditional student? I ask because I used to think exactly like you as a college student but became much less libertarian after experiencing the real working world (not just part time jobs) for a few years after college. I know you'll take that as an insult, but I'm really more curious than anything else.
 
Most of the super rich, the ones getting richer make the majority of their money through investments which arent taxed under the income tax. In the USA you only pay high taxes if you make a lot of money working for a living. Guys like Mitt Romney pay a much lower rate than the typical physician most years.
And he still pays too much
 
@sb247 Are you a traditional student? I ask because I used to think exactly like you as a college student but became much less libertarian after experiencing the real working world (not just part time jobs) for a few years after college. I know you'll take that as an insult, but I'm really more curious than anything else.
I am one of the older students in my class. I have done manual labor jobs as an adult, I get the concept of being broke
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So the answer is "no, I have never paid more taxes than required despite my claims that I would pay even if they weren't required

The answer is that it is irrelevant. Your point is that no one would pay taxes without the threat of jail and I am saying that I do and have. I do not feel the need to pay more taxes because by paying the percent of taxes I do, I have fulfilled my part of my duty as a citizen of the society I live in. Your point is moot. I do not not need to pay more for me to not need the threat of jail to pay what I do. These things are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, I have still told the truth when I say I pay taxes for reasons other than jail time, just for the same reasons I do not murder people. Even though I could be executed for doing so, I don't murder people because that goes against my own personal ethics among other things just like not paying taxes would in a different way. Your way of viewing the world is not the only one and I am so sorry you have trouble understanding how others can operate with a less selfish world view. Yes- I said it, selfish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Most of the super rich, the ones getting richer make the majority of their money through investments which arent taxed under the income tax. In the USA you only pay high taxes if you make a lot of money working for a living. Guys like Mitt Romney pay a much lower rate than the typical physician most years.
But that doesn't answer the question about sustainability - as the bottom 40% grows due to birth rates and immigration and higher unemployment because of limited job skills, that will put a greater burden on middle and upper income groups like physicians. I don't see a happy ending to this story for the professional class.
 
But I have had enough of this. Anyone who responds to a point I make by saying "you are a liar" is not someone who is able to rationally discuss issues of importance - at least not at this current moment. I wish you all the best but do try and accept that other people do intact share different values and beliefs than your own.
 
The answer is that it is irrelevant. Your point is that no one would pay taxes without the threat of jail and I am saying that I do and have. I do not feel the need to pay more taxes because by paying the percent of taxes I do, I have fulfilled my part of my duty as a citizen of the society I live in. Your point is moot. I do not not need to pay more for me to not need the threat of jail to pay what I do. These things are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, I have still told the truth when I say I pay taxes for reasons other than jail time, just for the same reasons I do not murder people. Even though I could be executed for doing so, I don't murder people because that goes against my own personal ethics among other things just like not paying taxes would in a different way. Your way of viewing the world is not the only one and I am so sorry you have trouble understanding how others can operate with a less selfish world view. Yes- I said it, selfish.
If it was made volutary this year, you wouldn't write the same check and you know it. You don't see something in the amount you volunteer to pay being magically the same number they'll arrest you for not paying? Be more honest with yourself
 
Your way of viewing the world is not the only one and I am so sorry you have trouble understanding how others can operate with a less selfish world view. Yes- I said it, selfish.
People who are truly "less selfish" in action can choose not to take advantage of available deductions so they pay a higher rate of income taxes for the "greater good."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Voluntarily paying more tax doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't change government policies, it just affects the deficit an insignificant amount.

Advocating and voting for higher tax rates does change policies. You can't call someone hypocritical for advocating higher taxes but not paying more than necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Voluntarily paying more tax doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't change government policies, it just affects the deficit an insignificant amount.

Advocating and voting for higher tax rates does change policies. You can't call someone hypocritical for advocating higher taxes but not paying more than necessary.
I'm not saying they are hypocritical for advocating higher taxes and paying the minimum. You could absolutely think taxes should be 50% but not want to pay that until everyone else had to do so. I'm saying they are lying that they would pay voluntarily...
 
@sb247 I'm confused. You say that people paying the majority of aid taxes would stop the moment it was no longer mandatory. Yet you expect people would freely give equivalent amounts in charity to prevent the children-starving-in-the-streets scenario. This seems incompatible.

Or perhaps you recognize that people tend to be pretty terrific dinguses to one another, that there would be nowhere near enough charity to protect the innocents suffering if society did not demand it in taxes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So the answer is "no, I have never paid more taxes than required despite my claims that I would pay even if they weren't required

So then what makes you think people will voluntarily pay for any of society's needs (charity, infrastructure, poverty) if there were no taxes?
 
He doesn't care if those people are dying in the street. I suppose he'd be in favor of police keeping them out of sight, though. If he weren't rich enough to live in a gated private community and didn't have to see them ;)
 
@sb247 I'm confused. You say that people paying the majority of aid taxes would stop the moment it was no longer mandatory. Yet you expect people would freely give equivalent amounts in charity to prevent the children-starving-in-the-streets scenario. This seems incompatible.

Or perhaps you recognize that people tend to be pretty terrific dinguses to one another, that there would be nowhere near enough charity to protect the innocents suffering if society did not demand it in taxes?
First there is an efficiency aspect in that private charity can do far more with less money than government can do. Secondly (and I think this has been part of the disconnect in communication) I'm not claiming/guaranteeing that all needs would met. I am saying that amount of my need is irrelevant to my taking my neighbors property...I simply don't have the right.
 
Yes so increasing the salaries of primary care...That'd be about what specialists make. Is that such a terrible apocalpytic socialist thing to do?
Yeah, increasing primary care reimbursement at the expense of specialist reimbursement, because Bernie Sanders thinks specialists are paid too much.
 
He doesn't care if those people are dying in the street. I suppose he'd be in favor of police keeping them out of sight, though. If he weren't rich enough to live in a gated private community and didn't have to see them ;)
I've actually taken part in protests in Orlando when they tried to ban feeding the homeless at the park. Charity shouldn't be squashed because business is trying to use the government like an HOA.
 
[God] mandated that his followers choose to be charitable
You do know threat of jail and murder are the only reason those taxes get paid right?

You cannot be mandated to "choose" to be charitable. Together with your second statement, the logic here suggests the only reason one would be charitable is the threat of something worse than death.
 
But sb believes charity would arise for these kids...which seems pretty naive if he knows anything of human history

To be fair he seems to be arguing from a moral standpoint not a practical one. However I still feel like he is ignoring all the moral consequences of his stance. But that is a product of him deriving morality from his creator. He doesnt have to worry about the consequences because he puts his faith in the creator to know what is right and wrong. The consequences are the creator's problem, all he has to worry about is obeying. Its pretty interesting and a unique standpoint imo. I dont see a lot of libertarians argue from a theistic moral code like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes- I said it, selfish.

It's funny because it sounds like @sb247 commits himself to far more selfless acts than most people in this thread can probably claim (supporting orphanages, working with the homeless). There is more than one way to solve problems in this world, and he's not selfish because he believes the government should play a more limited role in our lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You cannot be mandated to "choose" to be charitable. Together with your second statement, the logic here suggests the only reason one would be charitable is the threat of something worse than death.
Part of following God is obedience...he tells me to be charitable so I am.

Taxes are not charity, I pay those because people with guns will take it anyway if I don't pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yeah, increasing primary care reimbursement at the expense of specialist reimbursement, because Bernie Sanders thinks specialists are paid too much.

That or reducing specialist pay and holding primary care pay steady. We all know what wouldn't happen: PCP pay going up and specialist pay held steady.

The question would be if it would pass. Doesn't seem Congress is about to swing drastically Democrat, so given the OP's scenario, I'm not sure much of anything would happen.
 
@sb247 Are you a traditional student? I ask because I used to think exactly like you as a college student but became much less libertarian after experiencing the real working world (not just part time jobs) for a few years after college. I know you'll take that as an insult, but I'm really more curious than anything else.
Interesting. I went kind of the opposite direction after seeing quite clearly just how much money the government took from me even though I wasn't even that wealthy. Not to mention the deduction for SS, a program which on its current trajectory will not even have enough money to pay me back the amount that I paid into it, let alone any interest, entirely due to government mismanagement.

Plus a mandatory "fair share" deduction for paying a union which did absolutely nothing for me at all.
 
Part of following God is obedience...he tells me to be charitable so I am.

Taxes are not charity, I pay those because people with guns will take it anyway if I don't pay.

Why does that apply to charity but not taxes? You are told to be charitable, and for that reason alone you do it. But if told to pay taxes, only under threat of death will you do that. It doesn't make sense to me. You could consider the taxes charity if you wish.
 
That or reducing specialist pay and holding primary care pay steady. We all know what wouldn't happen: PCP pay going up and specialist pay held steady.

The question would be if it would pass. Doesn't seem Congress is about to swing drastically Democrat, so given the OP's scenario, I'm not sure much of anything would happen.
If I understand it properly the board of physicians(forget the exact name) basically sets the rvu values and that board is heavily seated with surgeons. I don't know off the top of my head if congress votes on individual rvu valuations or if they are more of an internal matter with that federal dept.
 
Voluntarily paying more tax doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't change government policies, it just affects the deficit an insignificant amount...You can't call someone hypocritical for advocating higher taxes but not paying more than necessary.

Hey there were lotsa bleeding hearts in the middle and upper income groups, who voted for President Obama not just the first time but a second time. If those same voters would be willing to forgo available tax deductions thereby paying higher income tax rates, that extra $ would help lotsa under trodden.

People who proudly call others selfish with no compunction, while casting themselves as being "less selfish" ask to be called out if their words do not reflect personal sacrifice or action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
That or reducing specialist pay and holding primary care pay steady. We all know what wouldn't happen: PCP pay going up and specialist pay held steady.

The question would be if it would pass. Doesn't seem Congress is about to swing drastically Democrat, so given the OP's scenario, I'm not sure much of anything would happen.
All it will take would be expanding scope of practice for midlevels to include all of primary care and then mandating that all physicians accept Medicare and/or Medicaid as a condition of licensure/board certification/private insurance payments.

No need to increase income for anyone.
 
First there is an efficiency aspect in that private charity can do far more with less money than government can do. Secondly (and I think this has been part of the disconnect in communication) I'm not claiming/guaranteeing that all needs would met. I am saying that amount of my need is irrelevant to my taking my neighbors property...I simply don't have the right.

I continue to be fascinated that you are absolutely unwilling to put in writing the logical consequences of your beliefs. Is it that unpalatable to just outright say that you don't believe that an innocent child's needs trump your neighbor's right to property? Because that's what you've been saying all along, just repetitively couching it in terms of what YOUR needs do and don't confer, or that stealing in general is right or wrong.
 
If I understand it properly the board of physicians(forget the exact name) basically sets the rvu values and that board is heavily seated with surgeons. I don't know off the top of my head if congress votes on individual rvu valuations or if they are more of an internal matter with that federal dept.

Interesting — wasn't aware of the surgeon over-representation. If it is internal, then the executive branch/administration decides this? If so, I'm surprised more changes haven't been made already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top