Anyone see this?? Thoughts??

[EctopicFetus]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Apparently getting a ton of financial support.

http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/03/20/LA73044



SAN ANTONIO, March 20, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- AmericanDoctors4Truth today launched a television ad showing President Barack Obama, played by an actor, pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff as she begs for mercy . The ad uses Obama's own voice and words from a televised health care forum on how the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) would determine medical care: "Maybe you are better off by not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer" in response to a question about how bureaucrats would determine who qualifies for what medical treatment.

The ad mirrors the ad last May by a left-wing group showing House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) depicted by an actor, pushing "Granny" off the cliff in an attempt to scare seniors into believing false claims that the Ryan Plan would end Medicare. In the new AmericanDoctors4Truth ad, trusted doctors catch "Granny," saving her from ObamaCare and government bureaucrats newly empowered to override doctors' decisions on medical care for their patients.

The ad notes that, "President Obama and those Democrats who supported ObamaCare began throwing seniors off the cliff on March 30th, 2010, when they voted to cut Medicare's budget by $575 billion."

AmericanDoctors4Truth co-founders, Doctors Jane Hughes and Kristin Held of San Antonio, Texas, founded the organization to warn of the dangerous and potentially life-threatening overreach by ObamaCare in establishing the IPAB, described by the Wall Street Journal as a medical services rationing board. Drs. Held and Hughes are practicing ophthalmic surgeons. They both hold appointments as Clinical Professors at the medical school in San Antonio. They have recently formed the Texas Chapter of Docs4PatientCare.

According to Dr. Jane Hughes, the impetus for creating the ad is a sense of duty. "As physicians, we promise to protect the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship by our Hippocratic Oath. This law is a government intrusion that impedes our ability to provide the best care for our patients, violates their confidentiality, and in many cases places physicians in a morally and ethically untenable position. It's a matter of who you trust with your healthcare decisions, your doctor or a politician?"

Dr. Kristin Held, an ophthalmologist and recent breast cancer patient, explains, "Patient-centered health care reform is the only ethical reform any health care provider should support. We are not politicians – we are doctors. We don't treat Republicans or Democrats – we treat patients."

American Doctors for Truth (www.AmericanDoctors4Truth.org) is a 501(c)4 organization.[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AMOgKM6qo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[docB]

I have a long record of being against socialized health care. That said it's obvious to me that we must ration care. Because of the perverse incentives of liability, financial gain, patient and family "satisfaction," etc. we spend too much of our resources on futile, end of life care.

The tactic of scaring people with the prospect of "death panels" has been very effective politically but it is really an inevitability regardless of who is in power. Conversely the "evil Republicans want to take your Medicare" tactic has been very effective as well and it is similarly inevitable no matter who they pick.

Health care is broken. I think the three options are clear. Reform it (i.e. tort reform, Medicare reform, etc.) and deal with the continuing inequities. Socialize it and deal with severe rationing. Let it fester until it implodes and decisions get made in the industry wide anarchy that follows.

 

[umz]

Good response docB.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I agree. While I am vehemently opposed to any socialized or government-funded healthcare (Medicare included), if we are forced to have it, then we have no choice to ration.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I have long maintained and I think most docs agree we need to ration care.. How we do this is going to be challenging with the AARP being a powerful lobbying group given that the old people vote.

Just found the above interesting since it is the first major offensive I have seen by physicians. The AMA rolls over like a wounded puppy which is why I have never supported them. I do give to NEMPAC and encourage every ER doc to do the same.

 

[docB]

I agree. While I am vehemently opposed to any socialized or government-funded healthcare (Medicare included), if we are forced to have it, then we have no choice to ration.

We ration now. We just use money to do it. American society has lost the will to ration this way any longer. We now provide some subsistence of housing, food and medical care for everyone. Oddly we punish the working poor much more than the indigent and have left them with only the shaky safety net of EMTALA which is both inadequate and unsustainably expensive at the same time.

 

[RustedFox]

Good points all. Wow.

On a quasi-related note; the only thing I can voice opposition to is the mention of the "Hippocratic Oath". Every time I get into this tangle with some rose-glassed idealist idiot, they inevitably mouth out some version of "bu-bu-but- herp...de..derp.. Hippocratic Oath!" Then, I ask them if they've ever read it, know what's in it, or know if anyone still takes it. They shut up rather quickly after they see that its an antiquated piece of religion, rather than an objective piece of science.

 

[tkim]

Held is hotter than Hughes.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Apparently getting a ton of financial support.

http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/03/20/LA73044



SAN ANTONIO, March 20, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- AmericanDoctors4Truth today launched a television ad showing President Barack Obama, played by an actor, pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff as she begs for mercy . The ad uses Obama's own voice and words from a televised health care forum on how the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) would determine medical care: "Maybe you are better off by not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer" in response to a question about how bureaucrats would determine who qualifies for what medical treatment.

The ad mirrors the ad last May by a left-wing group showing House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) depicted by an actor, pushing "Granny" off the cliff in an attempt to scare seniors into believing false claims that the Ryan Plan would end Medicare. In the new AmericanDoctors4Truth ad, trusted doctors catch "Granny," saving her from ObamaCare and government bureaucrats newly empowered to override doctors' decisions on medical care for their patients.

The ad notes that, "President Obama and those Democrats who supported ObamaCare began throwing seniors off the cliff on March 30th, 2010, when they voted to cut Medicare's budget by $575 billion."

AmericanDoctors4Truth co-founders, Doctors Jane Hughes and Kristin Held of San Antonio, Texas, founded the organization to warn of the dangerous and potentially life-threatening overreach by ObamaCare in establishing the IPAB, described by the Wall Street Journal as a medical services rationing board. Drs. Held and Hughes are practicing ophthalmic surgeons. They both hold appointments as Clinical Professors at the medical school in San Antonio. They have recently formed the Texas Chapter of Docs4PatientCare.

According to Dr. Jane Hughes, the impetus for creating the ad is a sense of duty. "As physicians, we promise to protect the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship by our Hippocratic Oath. This law is a government intrusion that impedes our ability to provide the best care for our patients, violates their confidentiality, and in many cases places physicians in a morally and ethically untenable position. It's a matter of who you trust with your healthcare decisions, your doctor or a politician?"

Dr. Kristin Held, an ophthalmologist and recent breast cancer patient, explains, "Patient-centered health care reform is the only ethical reform any health care provider should support. We are not politicians – we are doctors. We don't treat Republicans or Democrats – we treat patients."

American Doctors for Truth (www.AmericanDoctors4Truth.org) is a 501(c)4 organization.[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AMOgKM6qo[/YOUTUBE]

It's really shocking to see how low people will go to achieve their outcomes.

I'm not for Republicans or Democrats, but it's pretty sad to see Americans trash the President of the United States. There's no respect for the office any longer. It's a lose-lose situation. Jane felt she had a "duty" to show the President pushing a lady off a cliff? wow. Honestly, if Obama is re-elected, I wouldn't be surprised if he was assassinated, and with our political climate, some people would be celebrating his death.

The more bipartisan we become, the worse we look. But hey, at least we've lobbied for our all important end results.

 

[TrumpetDoc]

My hotheaded side, likes this,
My realistic side is glad the fight is being fought (as AMA etc, would not), but wishes they would have brainstormed a bit more😉



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GeneralVeers]

It's really shocking to see how low people will go to achieve their outcomes.

I'm not for Republicans or Democrats, but it's pretty sad to see Americans trash the President of the United States. There's no respect for the office any longer. It's a lose-lose situation. Jane felt she had a "duty" to show the President pushing a lady off a cliff? wow. Honestly, if Obama is re-elected, I wouldn't be surprised if he was assassinated, and with our political climate, some people would be celebrating his death.

The more bipartisan we become, the worse we look. But hey, at least we've lobbied for our all important end results.

Actually the President started it. Paul Ryan (not exactly a partisan firebrand) is the chair of the budget committee. He released a sober, and fiscally sane budget. The Democrats and the President responded with a TV ad showing Paul Ryan pushing an old granny over the cliff because he was cutting Medicare.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Actually the President started it. Paul Ryan (not exactly a partisan firebrand) is the chair of the budget committee. He released a sober, and fiscally sane budget. The Democrats and the President responded with a TV ad showing Paul Ryan pushing an old granny over the cliff because he was cutting Medicare.

Yep.. Also jackshepard.. respect for the office of the president was lost long ago.. No one is gonna kill obama if he wins reelection. if he hasnt been assassinated yet it wont happen after reelection either.

whats sad is politics is so partisan and the president just fuels the flames so he can get reelected (typical politician crap).

 

[EctopicFetus]

Jack chose not to read this..

The ad mirrors the ad last May by a left-wing group showing House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) depicted by an actor, pushing "Granny" off the cliff in an attempt to scare seniors into believing false claims that the Ryan Plan would end Medicare. In the new AmericanDoctors4Truth ad, trusted doctors catch "Granny," saving her from ObamaCare and government bureaucrats newly empowered to override doctors' decisions on medical care for their patients.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Actually the President started it. Paul Ryan (not exactly a partisan firebrand) is the chair of the budget committee. He released a sober, and fiscally sane budget. The Democrats and the President responded with a TV ad showing Paul Ryan pushing an old granny over the cliff because he was cutting Medicare.

Jack chose not to read this..

No no. I read it, I didn't like that either. I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. The reason I commented on the Obama video was: #1 he is the President, #2 as physicians we should have higher standards of professionalism than advertisers of political attack campaigns.

Attacking a budget with an ad like that is pathetic. I saw Ryan's pitch and while I don't know the details, it sounds amazing: spend less, lower the debt.

Assuming I'm a liberal who ignores the idiocy of the left but cries foul to the idiocy of the right would be wrong. I'm against idiocy. And I'm especially against it when physicians are doing it out of "duty." I have a lot of respect for our profession and using scare tactics is pathetic and unintelligent.

But it works, so why not lower our standards and participate...

 

[EctopicFetus]

The purpose of my post was more to point out that at least there are some people standing up for physicians and their relationships with patients. The insanity that is out there is mind boggling. One of our insurers said if we had a less than average utilization they would give us more money per patient. If it was higher we would be paid less. Our admission rate is 30% due to the acuity we see. They would own the data and therefore could not be trusted IMO.

In the end they want us to take on more risk. The govt doesnt give us any tort reform to go with this. ACOs have similar stupidity in their setup.

 

[EctopicFetus]

While I dont doubt we should have higher standards.. It would seem you dont realize how the politicians (aka lawyers; another profession) have abused us while the AMA and other physician group have stood idly by. I may not agree with the ad in total but I commend them for standing up for whats right.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[docB]

Everyone is saying how bad partisanship is. Is it really? I don't want comprimise on the issues I feel strongly about. So staunch partisanship by those who support my position is good. Just remember that something like partisanship is bad without really defining the parameters is meaningless.

Another example of this is "tolerance."

Sorry. Just the old political science major in me.

 

[Aesculapius]

docB, I agree, but I think there's a line that needs to be drawn between partisanship because people just don't agree on the issues (good) and partisanship because the other guys say something/like something (bad). One's legitimate; the other is childish.

 

[gutonc]

docB, I agree, but I think there's a line that needs to be drawn between partisanship because people just don't agree on the issues (good) and partisanship because the other guys say something/like something (bad). One's legitimate; the other is childish.

A relevant example of this would be the individual mandate in the ACA. This was initially a conservative idea that folks like the Heritage Foundation and Senate Republicans backed. Then, when the Democrats included it in the ACA, it became the greatest unconstitutional abomination in the history of the US, simply because the "other guys" liked it now.

But docB's general point is well taken. Unfortunately, in a democracy such as ours, this all too often leads to complete legislative gridlock.

 

[GeneralVeers]

A relevant example of this would be the individual mandate in the ACA. This was initially a conservative idea that folks like the Heritage Foundation and Senate Republicans backed. Then, when the Democrats included it in the ACA, it became the greatest unconstitutional abomination in the history of the US, simply because the "other guys" liked it now.

But docB's general point is well taken. Unfortunately, in a democracy such as ours, this all too often leads to complete legislative gridlock.

A bad idea is a bad idea no matter who proposes it. Sometimes conservatives forget that they need to vet all ideas through the lens of the constitution before proposing something.

BTW the individual mandate is still constitutional at the state level, just not Federally.

 

[EctopicFetus]

complete legislative gridlock is better than passing bad laws.

 

[Bojack Horseman]

a bad idea is a bad idea no matter who proposes it. Sometimes conservatives forget that they need to vet all ideas through the lens of the constitution before proposing something.

Btw the individual mandate is still constitutional at the state level, just not federally.

+1

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I hope for complete gridlock. That way they can't hurt us too much, can they?

Gridlock is only a negative if you look to the government to solve your problems.

I want them to leave us alone. The more they "fix" the more messes we get.

We have a HUGE problem that needs to be solved. That is the deficit. If we have gridlock and do nothing, we will run $1 trillion deficits in perpetuity, or at least until the dollar completely collapses. The problem is that both sides have bought into deficit spending as a government policy. The choices are:

Republican: Spend MORE money
Democrats: Spend A LOT MORE money

Neither one is particularly appealing.

 

[boggvir]

I hope for complete gridlock. That way they can't hurt us too much, can they?

Gridlock is only a negative if you look to the government to solve your problems.

I want them to leave us alone. The more they "fix" the more messes we get.

Gridlock is also negative if said grid lock is perpetually bankrupting the country. Which is what is happening. The bipartisan committees when they agree are just killed by both sides - left because it cuts benefits and the right because it raises taxes.

We sped way too much and that needs to go down: and that means Medicare, SS and defense. The democrats have to get that.

But we can't fund the governmental services people expect without also raising taxes, republicans have to understand that.

Problem is neither side is willing and we have this. Paul Ryan's plan is not sensible - no more so than one that only relies on tax increases.

People are not going to accept huge cuts to Medicare, SS and defense that would be required to balance the budget via spending cuts. It's really that simple. Opposing any tax increases on principle just means youre going to perpetuate the gridlock indefinitely and the debt and deficit will bankrupt us.

The bipartisan committee did come up (not the super committee) with some great reasonable middle of the road recommendations but that's too much compromise on both sides and they were promptly vilified.

California is a perfect example of populism gone wrong:

Ballot 1: do you want this service?
"YES"

Ballot 2: do you want raised taxes to pay for it?
"HELL NO"


"Err stupid politicians bankrupted us!"

No, it was you, the voter.

 

[GeneralVeers]

But we can't fund the governmental services people expect without also raising taxes, republicans have to understand that.
.

The problem is that the sums of money the Left wants for their programs simply don't exist. If we taxed every dollar earned over $70K per year, we still wouldn't pay the deficit for this year alone, much less pay down the debt. This proves that it's primarily a spending problem.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

But we can't fund the governmental services people expect without also raising taxes, republicans have to understand that.

People need to realign their expectations. Cutting programs and services will help with that. Sure they'll bitch and moan but they'll eventually get used to the new level of reduced services and programs.

People are not going to accept huge cuts to Medicare, SS and defense that would be required to balance the budget via spending cuts. It's really that simple. Opposing any tax increases on principle just means youre going to perpetuate the gridlock indefinitely and the debt and deficit will bankrupt us.

They'll have no choice but to eventually accept cuts. The best choice would be to slowly phase SS out to avoid Greece-like riots. That's the thing with government and tax increases, they won't keep their level of spending the same let alone reduce it. They see more revenue coming in and think they can create more new money sucking programs. People every day have to work within their confined budget. If they run out of money, they have to adjust since they just can't create more money automatically. How come our government can't play by those rules?

 

[boggvir]

Our government can't play by the rules because the voting population won't let them. I said cuts are inevitable but I'm saying the level of cuts required to balance the budget in absence of tax increases are not ever going to happen politically. They just won't. Seniors vote. A lot.

 

[boggvir]

The problem is that the sums of money the Left wants for their programs simply don't exist. If we taxed every dollar earned over $70K per year, we still wouldn't pay the deficit for this year alone, much less pay down the debt. This proves that it's primarily a spending problem.

Not even the most liberal democrat had a proposal for a 100% tax increase solution. It was merely disagreeing on the ratio of cuts to taxes. Everyone knows spending has to go down.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Not even the most liberal democrat had a proposal for a 100% tax increase solution. It was merely disagreeing on the ratio of cuts to taxes. Everyone knows spending has to go down.

Correct, but we need spending cuts on the order of 50%. We also need to raise taxes on the "poor" since the bottom 50% pay nothing already in Federal income taxes. The Libs are going to have to make some tough choices if they are serious about fiscal sanity.

I'd get rid of the following departments: HHS, HUD, Energy, Education, Labor, and Agriculture as they have nothing to do with powers granted in the Constitution. One could make an argument for State, Commerce, Transportation, and Defense as proper roles of government.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Our government can't play by the rules because the voting population won't let them. I said cuts are inevitable but I'm saying the level of cuts required to balance the budget in absence of tax increases are not ever going to happen politically. They just won't. Seniors vote. A lot.

Really? This is insanity.. The powers that be are screwing us. We have some politicians who stand by their beliefs though the problem is they are few and far between.

Follow the debt commision.. for every $1 in tax increases $3 in REAL spending cuts.. If they do this.. They can raise my taxes.... Whats sad is that Obama didnt get the info he hoped for from HIS debt commision.. Since he didnt like they outcome he didnt try to put through ANY of their recommendations.

Broadening the tax base? Nope..

Keep in mind 47% of the population paid ZERO in federal taxes.. Thats a huge problem.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Really? This is insanity.. The powers that be are screwing us. We have some politicians who stand by their beliefs though the problem is they are few and far between.

Follow the debt commision.. for every $1 in tax increases $3 in REAL spending cuts.. If they do this.. They can raise my taxes.... Whats sad is that Obama didnt get the info he hoped for from HIS debt commision.. Since he didnt like they outcome he didnt try to put through ANY of their recommendations.

Broadening the tax base? Nope..

Keep in mind 47% of the population paid ZERO in federal taxes.. Thats a huge problem.

If the government agreed to do 50% cuts to spending I'd gladly pay more in taxes. Guess I'll never be gladly paying more in taxes.

 

[boggvir]

Really? This is insanity.. The powers that be are screwing us. We have some politicians who stand by their beliefs though the problem is they are few and far between.

Follow the debt commision.. for every $1 in tax increases $3 in REAL spending cuts.. If they do this.. They can raise my taxes.... Whats sad is that Obama didnt get the info he hoped for from HIS debt commision.. Since he didnt like they outcome he didnt try to put through ANY of their recommendations.

Broadening the tax base? Nope..

Keep in mind 47% of the population paid ZERO in federal taxes.. Thats a huge problem.

Well even if that 47% did, considering their incomes, I highly doubt it'd be a huge revenue booster. If you're saying everyone should have some skin in the game, I agree theoretically but if you're lower income you'll get more out than you put in regardless (eg a cashier at a deli will be a net beneficiery of any service while bill gates will be a net contributor whether their tax rates are 1% or 75%) so I'm not sure it would have an impact.

 

[boggvir]

I'm not disagreeing with you guys in the sense that I think we need big reductions in spending. I'm just saying that dems aren't compromising seriously on cuts and repubs aren't compromising on tax increases.

People may vote for Ryan's budget now but I bet you that if repubs had congress, senate and the presidency that his budget wouldn't pass. One thing politicians care about are their jobs. Rhetoric is fine and no one likes congress but a lot of people like their local congressman/woman because they bring home the bacon. Good luck significantly cutting Medicare or SS and keeping your job. You can cut it but not to the extreme that a Ryan budget requires.

It is simply not politically possible. But hey, maybe I'll be proven wrong and people will realize that services that they use cost money.

Going by California propositions, I wouldn't bet on it though.

 

[docB]

People need to realign their expectations. Cutting programs and services will help with that. Sure they'll bitch and moan but they'll eventually get used to the new level of reduced services and programs.

You are correct however the instances where governments have tried reducing entitlements without dramatic pressure to do so (e.g. regime change, wars, famines, etc.) are few. Look at Greece. The people are rioting to demand they be given resources they can't possibly afford.

Alarmingly the same argument goes the other way too. The Dems would say "Sure they'll bitch and moan but they'll eventually get used to higher taxes."

As others have said the fact that 47% pay no taxes is frightening. We are approaching a tipping point. Once a majority of voters take more than they give, and have big incentives to vote themselves even more, we are done. This is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of the country since WW2. It greatly overshadows terrorism.

 

[Lokhtar]

You are correct however the instances where governments have tried reducing entitlements without dramatic pressure to do so (e.g. regime change, wars, famines, etc.) are few. Look at Greece. The people are rioting to demand they be given resources they can't possibly afford.

Alarmingly the same argument goes the other way too. The Dems would say "Sure they'll bitch and moan but they'll eventually get used to higher taxes."

As others have said the fact that 47% pay no taxes is frightening. We are approaching a tipping point. Once a majority of voters take more than they give, and have big incentives to vote themselves even more, we are done. This is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of the country since WW2. It greatly overshadows terrorism.

As has been mentioned, no matter WHAT the tax rate is, the bottom 50% will always be net beneficiaries. That's the point of any form of a tax (whether its flat tax or a progressive tax system). 100% of people could pay taxes and the bottom 50% would get a lot more out of them than the top 1% or top 50%. That's got very little to do with 'voting yourself' more benefits. Because if people in the bottom 50% wanted to simply vote themselves more benefits, they would do that despite if it meant them having to pay a higher tax for it, knowing they are still voting themselves more benefits than the increase in taxes, proportionally speaking.

That's going to be true in ANY society with ANY type of tax system.

 

[docB]

As has been mentioned, no matter WHAT the tax rate is, the bottom 50% will always be net beneficiaries. That's the point of any form of a tax (whether its flat tax or a progressive tax system). 100% of people could pay taxes and the bottom 50% would get a lot more out of them than the top 1% or top 50%. That's got very little to do with 'voting yourself' more benefits. Because if people in the bottom 50% wanted to simply vote themselves more benefits, they would do that despite if it meant them having to pay a higher tax for it, knowing they are still voting themselves more benefits than the increase in taxes, proportionally speaking.

That's going to be true in ANY society with ANY type of tax system.

You are correct and I should have said "When the majority of voters pay nothing..." rather than "When the majority of voters take more than they give..."

There is value in having people pay, i.e. have skin in the game, even if they get more back in services and even if it introduces some inefficiency.

Since we already have a "progressive" tax system (where the productive pay more by percentage) there is no reason that everyone shouldn't have to pay something. That gives the poor more reason to consider carefully before they vote for higher taxes.

 

[alreadylernd]

Keep in mind 47% of the population paid ZERO in federal taxes.. Thats a huge problem.

I agree with a lot of what ectopic and veers have to say (and who said this forum has gotten boring anyway?) but I just had to correct the above statement. The above statement is true...sort of.

the 47% paid zero federal taxes is true, for single filers with regards to federal income tax. (I remember all those summer jobs earning a few thousand bucks, and I loved getting every penny back come tax time). Everyone who works pays a payroll tax (split 50-50 with employer I believe) and therefore pays some kind of federal tax. It is estimated that the number of people who pay no federal tax of any kind is more like 10% (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html)

I believe the problem with our tax system, much like the problem with our health care system is that not everyone has "skin in the game."

 

[GeneralVeers]

I agree with a lot of what ectopic and veers have to say (and who said this forum has gotten boring anyway?) but I just had to correct the above statement. The above statement is true...sort of.

the 47% paid zero federal taxes is true, for single filers with regards to federal income tax. (I remember all those summer jobs earning a few thousand bucks, and I loved getting every penny back come tax time). Everyone who works pays a payroll tax (split 50-50 with employer I believe) and therefore pays some kind of federal tax. It is estimated that the number of people who pay no federal tax of any kind is more like 10% (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html)

I believe the problem with our tax system, much like the problem with our health care system is that not everyone has "skin in the game."

You forget though that Medicare and SS were sold to seniors as a "savings plan" for their retirement. A lot of seniors to this day think the government keeps an account somewhere with their name on it that contains all of their payroll tax contributions. They believe it's "theirs". Also it should be noted that the SS trust fund was entirely self-sufficient and separate from the general fund (which income tax pays int). As it runs out of money, the SS trust fund will increasingly have to draw from the general reserves.

We are headed to Greece. If something doesn't change, expect riots in the streets, massive layoffs, and worse economic times than the great depression. My guess is that the Fed will resolve this issue with massive inflation or "quantitative easing" in order to reduce the value of the debt. 20% inflation for 5 years would go a long way to wiping out most of the $15 trillion in debt that we owe. The downside is that any savings or investments in cash that we hold will become effectively worthless. As ER physicians reliant on Medicare payments, do any of us really believe that payments to us will increase at the rate of inflation?

 

[Lokhtar]

You are correct and I should have said "When the majority of voters pay nothing..." rather than "When the majority of voters take more than they give..."

There is value in having people pay, i.e. have skin in the game, even if they get more back in services and even if it introduces some inefficiency.

Since we already have a "progressive" tax system (where the productive pay more by percentage) there is no reason that everyone shouldn't have to pay something. That gives the poor more reason to consider carefully before they vote for higher taxes.

How much could you really tax someone making $8/hour? The amount you could reasonably tax that person is not going to likely have any affect on his voting patterns. Meaning if a 1% tax increase were proposed if one did not buy health insurance - that's an 8 cent increase in that person's taxes - say, $25 increase per month in return for a service that actually may cost $500. I know theoretically what you're saying but the benefit to cost is so very skewed for those in the bottom 50% that I really don't think it has any consequence as a practical matter. It's certainly wouldn't have the dire changes in consequence that are predicted in the thread - either it will happen regardless of everyone's skin in the game, or it won't happen even if the majority pay nothing or almost nothing.

And as a second practical matter, a higher taxes on such a person would undoubtedly result in more benefits to that person because now he has a lower take home pay and might need greater assistance from society, so again, you're not really taking any additional revenue.

 

[docB]

How much could you really tax someone making $8/hour? The amount you could reasonably tax that person is not going to likely have any affect on his voting patterns. Meaning if a 1% tax increase were proposed if one did not buy health insurance - that's an 8 cent increase in that person's taxes - say, $25 increase per month in return for a service that actually may cost $500. I know theoretically what you're saying but the benefit to cost is so very skewed for those in the bottom 50% that I really don't think it has any consequence as a practical matter. It's certainly wouldn't have the dire changes in consequence that are predicted in the thread - either it will happen regardless of everyone's skin in the game, or it won't happen even if the majority pay nothing or almost nothing.

I don't know. The argument from the left against taxing these people is that even a small percentage would hurt so much that it should even be considered. If you taxed dollar for dollar it would not be feasible, i.e. a poor person pays $5 and a rich person pays $5. But if you tax by percentage (the so called "progressive" tax) then the pain is shared. If people can vote to raise taxes without any personal pain why wouldn't they?

 

[Lokhtar]

I don't know. The argument from the left against taxing these people is that even a small percentage would hurt so much that it should even be considered. If you taxed dollar for dollar it would not be feasible, i.e. a poor person pays $5 and a rich person pays $5. But if you tax by percentage (the so called "progressive" tax) then the pain is shared. If people can vote to raise taxes without any personal pain why wouldn't they?

But if people wanted to do that, they would do that even if they had to pay taxes, as I explained, because no matter how you slice it, if you're poor, a 1% tax penalty for health insurance for example is still them getting a $500 good for $25. Now you may say they think about it more than if they got the $500 good for $0. Which may be true but I don't think the difference between the two would have any practical consequence in terms of voting patterns.

 

[GeneralVeers]

But if people wanted to do that, they would do that even if they had to pay taxes, as I explained, because no matter how you slice it, if you're poor, a 1% tax penalty for health insurance for example is still them getting a $500 good for $25. Now you may say they think about it more than if they got the $500 good for $0. Which may be true but I don't think the difference between the two would have any practical consequence in terms of voting patterns.

I disagree. If you threatened to raise taxes for some people by even $1 they are going to vote against it.

We can see the result of these failed tax policies in California, where the unions, leftist groups, and poor get to vote themselves more goodies with no cost or obligation to them. Kind of like those free power chairs on cable TV.

 

[EctopicFetus]

47% of tax filers pay NO federal income tax. Thats a more accurate statement. The payroll tax aka social security is in theory not a tax but rather a forced pension as currently constructed. 47% of people make no contribution toward defense, the EPA, dept of education etc. Does that seem insane. Whats sad is if you see the breakdown it isnt the just the poor who pay nothing.

Also, for those saying these are just summer jobs etc.. 47% of people who file taxes.. not those who work under the table etc. Thats a monstrous number and IMO proof that a flat tax plus a consumption tax is the way to go. For example (we can work on actual numbers) say outside of your mortgage as the ONLY write off you pay 15% of your income over 150k, jumps to 20% above 500k and then we throw on another 7% consumption tax for everyone who buys anything.

Right now the govt collects about 12% of income (that they know of).. this would likely be a lot more money.

 

[Lokhtar]

Would certain "necessary" goods like food be exempted from a consumption tax?

I am not against flat tax in theory if you would remove all exemptions. And also the number absolutely has to be lower for low income. I think it's not reasonable to expect someone on a $20,000 income to pay 20% federal tax, plus a consumption tax. And also weird rules like if you make a $1,000,000 salary, you pay 33% but if the same amount is made by pushing money around in the stock market, you pay 15%. Pick a number and make it consistent.

 

[EM2BE]

I'm fairly certain even if people were taxed a small percentage of their small income, they would think twice. I consider this similar to having to pay for parking for an ED visit or having to pay a copay prior to being seen. When people know money is expected, they tend to think through things better.

Example: Tonight I saw a pt who came in with 4 years of intermittent symptoms, none of which changed over the past 4 years. The pt is already seeing physicians at the clinic (either reduced or free). The pt came in the ED for further evaluation (even though the pt was seen around 2 years ago and nothing was found). If the pt was expected to pay even a percentage, would they have come in? Probably not.

This discussion is on a much larger topic, but I always try to think on a smaller scale for things to make better sense.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I'm fairly certain even if people were taxed a small percentage of their small income, they would think twice. I consider this similar to having to pay for parking for an ED visit or having to pay a copay prior to being seen. When people know money is expected, they tend to think through things better.

Example: Tonight I saw a pt who came in with 4 years of intermittent symptoms, none of which changed over the past 4 years. The pt is already seeing physicians at the clinic (either reduced or free). The pt came in the ED for further evaluation (even though the pt was seen around 2 years ago and nothing was found). If the pt was expected to pay even a percentage, would they have come in? Probably not.

This discussion is on a much larger topic, but I always try to think on a smaller scale for things to make better sense.

Correct. Human behavior is essentially animalistic. Reward a behavior and you get more of it. Punish a behavior and you get less. Currently we've decided to reward a whole host of "bad" behaviors through the tax system, like teen pregnancy, drug/alcohol abuse, and obesity.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Would certain "necessary" goods like food be exempted from a consumption tax?

I am not against flat tax in theory if you would remove all exemptions. And also the number absolutely has to be lower for low income. I think it's not reasonable to expect someone on a $20,000 income to pay 20% federal tax, plus a consumption tax. And also weird rules like if you make a $1,000,000 salary, you pay 33% but if the same amount is made by pushing money around in the stock market, you pay 15%. Pick a number and make it consistent.

1) All goods would be taxed.. Period the end. The goal is to make it simple.

2) as I said no one under 150k pays ANY federal income tax.. just their consumption tax. every dollar over 150K is at 10% (I think thats what I put before) and anything over another high number (500K?) is at 20%. Then when you buy your gucci loafers for $300 everyone pays the same exact consumption tax.

The beauty of this is when the uninsured welfare chiselers come to the ED with their Prada purse, iPhone, iPad etc. I at least know they contributed to the fed.

 

[Birdstrike]

.