That’s a joke, right? I would kill for those numbers.
Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...
- Thread starter drusso
- Start date
We have the card. Softens the blow a bit…. I guess…
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
it is the degree that is the problem, which you apparently refuse to recognize.
those who discuss income inequality such as me have no interest in a marxist society where everyone has the same and equal wealth. absolutely not.
the goal is not just to redistribute wealth.
the goal is to reduce the impact of how inequality is harming those who are in poverty.
follow the teachings of someone who lived 2000 years ago...
um... because it is the truth.
a very simple google search will show that your comment is wrong.
Infographic: How America's Middle Class Is Shrinking
This chart shows the share of people and aggregate income associated with U.S. income classes in 1970/71 and 2021 (in percent).
www.statista.com
The State of the American Middle Class
As the financial divide has grown, a smaller share of Americans now live in middle-class households. Here are key facts about this group.
www.pewresearch.org
and those living below the poverty line and those in the ultrarich class have increased.
the image you posted is highly deceiving, and i can see where you were tricked by it. the image is from the think tank American Enterprise Institute -a conservative right wing group - shows the middle class households as 30k-90k, which are numbers for a single worker.
the appropriate numbers for US Households is 57k-169k.
this graph also doesnt take in to effect the cost of living, which has significantly increased in the years, but that is a different matter. and the issue noted above, that there is greater income inequality between the ultra rich and the poor.
Just did that at $95K over 10 years lol
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,522
- Reaction score
- 3,683
Pewresearch and statista are left leaning. You can’t discredit all facts just bc the source isn’t left. That’s part of your problemit is the degree that is the problem, which you apparently refuse to recognize.
those who discuss income inequality such as me have no interest in a marxist society where everyone has the same and equal wealth. absolutely not.
the goal is not just to redistribute wealth.
the goal is to reduce the impact of how inequality is harming those who are in poverty.
follow the teachings of someone who lived 2000 years ago...
um... because it is the truth.
a very simple google search will show that your comment is wrong.
Infographic: How America's Middle Class Is Shrinking
This chart shows the share of people and aggregate income associated with U.S. income classes in 1970/71 and 2021 (in percent).
The State of the American Middle Class
As the financial divide has grown, a smaller share of Americans now live in middle-class households. Here are key facts about this group.
and those living below the poverty line and those in the ultrarich class have increased.
the image you posted is highly deceiving, and i can see where you were tricked by it. the image is from the think tank American Enterprise Institute -a conservative right wing group - shows the middle class households as 30k-90k, which are numbers for a single worker.
the appropriate numbers for US Households is 57k-169k.
this graph also doesnt take in to effect the cost of living, which has significantly increased in the years, but that is a different matter. and the issue noted above, that there is greater income inequality between the ultra rich and the poor.
jesus christ. just admit that you are wrong. it goes a long way in terms of building trust and legitimacy. otherwise you are just doctodd/joelores
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
nice try.
well, not really.
Pew Research – Bias and Credibility
LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.- Overall, we rate Pew Research as Least Biased and Very High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing.
(mediabiasfactcheck)
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,522
- Reaction score
- 3,683
Oh ok since some no name media bias fact checker said it wasn’t biased but you determined my source was biased, I’ll believe you. 🤦🏻♂️nice try.
well, not really.
Pew Research – Bias and Credibility
LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.
- Overall, we rate Pew Research as Least Biased and Very High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing.
(mediabiasfactcheck)
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
Wrong. The DEGREE of "income inequality" does NOT indicate any kind of sickness of a society.it is the degree that is the problem, which you apparently refuse to recognize.
those who discuss income inequality such as me have no interest in a marxist society where everyone has the same and equal wealth. absolutely not.
the goal is not just to redistribute wealth.
the goal is to reduce the impact of how inequality is harming those who are in poverty.
follow the teachings of someone who lived 2000 years ago...
um... because it is the truth.
a very simple google search will show that your comment is wrong.
Infographic: How America's Middle Class Is Shrinking
This chart shows the share of people and aggregate income associated with U.S. income classes in 1970/71 and 2021 (in percent).
The State of the American Middle Class
As the financial divide has grown, a smaller share of Americans now live in middle-class households. Here are key facts about this group.
and those living below the poverty line and those in the ultrarich class have increased.
the image you posted is highly deceiving, and i can see where you were tricked by it. the image is from the think tank American Enterprise Institute -a conservative right wing group - shows the middle class households as 30k-90k, which are numbers for a single worker.
the appropriate numbers for US Households is 57k-169k.
this graph also doesnt take in to effect the cost of living, which has significantly increased in the years, but that is a different matter. and the issue noted above, that there is greater income inequality between the ultra rich and the poor.
Poverty is not caused by rich people.
try this:
"i was wrong"
its cathartic and therapeutic.
once you can actually do this, then we will cure you of your bible thumping.....
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
income inequality causes poverty. if you want to say the rich individual doesnt cause poverty, thats kind of a meaningless discussion. the key is that income inequality exists and some degree of wealth redistribution can relieve many of the caustic effects of poverty.
www.psychologytoday.com
Pew least biased:
www.biasly.com
itisreliable.com
and
AEI conservative biased:
mediabiasfactcheck.com
mediabiasfactcheck.com
www.biasly.com
Can Income Inequality Make Us Sick?
Countries with more inequality may have more violence, lower trust, and lower social capital. So what does that mean for the United States?
okay...
Pew least biased:
Pew Research - Bias and Reliability
Use Biasly to learn more about Pew Research Media Bias, their recent news, Bias Score, and political orientation.
www.biasly.com
Is Pew Research Center Reliable? A Detailed Review
Pew Research Center offers unbiased, transparent, and accurate data on social trends, trusted by experts, journalists, and policymakers.
and
AEI conservative biased:
American Enterprise Institute - Bias and Credibility
RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
mediabiasfactcheck.com
American Enterprise Institute - Bias and Credibility
RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
mediabiasfactcheck.com
American Enterprise Institute - Bias and Reliability
Use Biasly to learn more about American Enterprise Institute Media Bias, their recent news, Bias Score, and political orientation.
www.biasly.com
Top Influential Think Tanks Ranked for 2024 | Academic Influence
Which are the most important think tanks in the US and beyond? These influential think tanks influence our lives through policy, media, and even language.
academicinfluence.com
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
Flat out wrong. This is one of your core misunderstandings.
The treatment for "income inequality" is in your therapist's office.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
Income Inequality
Income inequality is the extent to which income is distributed unevenly among a population.
www.census.gov
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
Wow, that is the dumbest article I've seen in a long time.
Income Inequality
Income inequality is the extent to which income is distributed unevenly among a population.
I'm not sure if you read it or just posted it because it regurgitates Paul Krugman. But the argument is that if income were redistributed from high to low, then poverty would be lower. And hence, the argument goes, income inequality "causes" poverty. It's absurd.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,690
- Reaction score
- 2,750
This is something I'm interested in looking into further. By your standards, your article to support your position is poor at best. It's a layman's article from 2018 using fair-at-best research articles from 2006.income inequality causes poverty. if you want to say the rich individual doesnt cause poverty, thats kind of a meaningless discussion. the key is that income inequality exists and some degree of wealth redistribution can relieve many of the caustic effects of poverty.
Can Income Inequality Make Us Sick?
Countries with more inequality may have more violence, lower trust, and lower social capital. So what does that mean for the United States?
Most of what I've seen in this realm demonstrates one's financial momentum to have the greatest impact on well-being. Stagnation is detrimental, hope for gains is beneficial. Long-term, poverty is often a mindset or a side effect of something else (mental or physical health issue, addiction/dependency or combo thereof). I have trouble thinking one could adequately demonstrate causation instead of correlation between income equality and poverty.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
i will agree that causation is more tenuous to prove than correlation but that isnt why i posted it. the purpose of posting the article was to cast doubt in the concept that wealth inequality is not related to poverty.
(and to be honest, income inequality and wealth inequality are not interchangeable)
maybe not, but poverty levels can be reduced and outcomes such as health can be improved with controlling the degree of wealth inequality
(and to be honest, income inequality and wealth inequality are not interchangeable)
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
ill put this out there:
unfortunately i cant read the whole article.
unfortunately i cant read the whole article.
- Joined
- May 30, 2005
- Messages
- 23,122
- Reaction score
- 14,679
I can help you with the big words....
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
oh yes thank you!
what does incorrigible mean?
(i can get the summary not the full article)
what does incorrigible mean?
(i can get the summary not the full article)
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
No. You're missing the point.
It's not "tenuous to prove".
The only connection between the prosperity of rich people and the plight of poor people is your primal emotional revulsion to the disparity.
Your insistence in trying to prove some type of causal relationship betrays the extent of your faulty programming.
You have only your instinct to disagree. Ducttape has evidence and citations. Do some homework, then maybe you can join the grown up table
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
Wat. Even he admits he has no evidence. But good luck!
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 61,824
If I may...
I think it would be difficult to prove certainly, but when you have companies where the CEOs (and other upper management people) are making record amounts of money every single year while wages for lower level employees didn't keep up with inflation even when inflation was at normal levels that does seem concerning yes? Also seems unlikely that there is no correlation whatsoever I should think.
I'm not suggesting this mind you, but it is interesting to note that if you took Jeff Bezos' money and gave it as bonuses to every single Amazon employee (full and part time) it would amount to a $137,000 check per person. Similarly, best estimates are that he makes around $8 million per hour. That would be around $5/hr raises for every single Amazon employee. Again, not saying we should, just interesting numbers I think.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,690
- Reaction score
- 2,750
Regardless of where one falls in this current discussion, I'd hope most would agree government should NOT subsidize these corporations by providing health care to their employees. Medicaid for Walmart and Amazon employees fuels this issue. I don't think the government should tax to equalize pay, but certainly don't think they should be covering employees health costs.
I don't think you're arguing for employees to get $137k, as that is absurd, but if they demand better wages, the profit would likewise decline. Labor that is not easily replaceable is expensive. However, if you do a simple task, a robot will likely be taking over your job soon...
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
It's mildly concerning to me that lower income jobs are not keeping up with inflation. There's a lot to consider with that though. People might not be working as much? They have more flexibility? Better benefits? IDK.
But it's not concerning at all that upper management income is soaring. That is actually a bright spot and I wouldn't want to do anything to interfere with that fabulous prosperity.
The fact that these two things are happening simultaneously means that market forces of supply and demand don't agree with our sense of fairness. But at the end of the day, the free market has and will continue to lift people up, albeit to different heights.
how does that "fabulous prosperity" help society? it helps jeff and elon. but does it help joe schmo? by giving him 50k a year and no benefits?
or does it help in paying taxes when most profits are tied up in stock gains that are never realized and thus never taxed?
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
It doesn't necessarily help society at all. It doesn't have to. The point is it doesn't hurt society.
We're not trying to create a perfect society. We're trying to ensure that people are free to pursue their own goals without hurting anyone else
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
um, no.
i posted articles about how wealth inequality and poverty are negative aspects and both are correlated with poorer outcomes in health.
thats not the equivalent of "no evidence".
but i guess if you put your head in the sand, then the problems dont exist, right?
there is a plethora of information out there that shows that countries with smaller wealth inequality have better outcomes (again, not causation, but correlation that less wealth inequality tends to be seen in countries with lower levels of poverty).
i dont know how to improve your reading comprehension. perhaps you should talk to lobelsteve.
i posted articles about how wealth inequality and poverty are negative aspects and both are correlated with poorer outcomes in health.
thats not the equivalent of "no evidence".
but i guess if you put your head in the sand, then the problems dont exist, right?
there is a plethora of information out there that shows that countries with smaller wealth inequality have better outcomes (again, not causation, but correlation that less wealth inequality tends to be seen in countries with lower levels of poverty).
i dont know how to improve your reading comprehension. perhaps you should talk to lobelsteve.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
America Gets Wealthier But The Poor Get Poorer
Dive into American wealth inequality through rich, interactive visualizations. Learn how wealth is distributed across income groups and what the data reveals about economic disparity.
perthirtysix.com
(fyi the background color in the bottom 50% that you can barely see is blue)
posters on this forum are indubitably in the "next 9%" group
For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades
Despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today's real average wage in the U.S. has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And most of what wage gains there have been have flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.
www.pewresearch.org
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
Wealthy people have a larger percentage of wealth because it's THEIR WEALTH. They created the wealth.America Gets Wealthier But The Poor Get Poorer
Dive into American wealth inequality through rich, interactive visualizations. Learn how wealth is distributed across income groups and what the data reveals about economic disparity.perthirtysix.com
View attachment 406376
(fyi the background color in the bottom 50% that you can barely see is blue)
posters on this forum are indubitably in the "next 9%" group
For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades
Despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today's real average wage in the U.S. has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And most of what wage gains there have been have flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.
The wealth didn't arrive on American shores, where the wealth fairies made a mistake dividing up the wealth.
bubaghanush
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2024
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 61
To summarize your post: free market forces lift the rich much faster than the poor/bottom 50% who may minimally benefit and this is ok. Dems think the tax system is stacked against poor people, and Repubs think poor people need to work harder.
Sounds fine, but health outcomes and happiness metrics show the US lagging way behind many countries even though we are the wealthiest in the world. Strong social safety nets play a big part of this, which rich people tend to pay a higher percentage of taxes to fund. Bumping the highest bracket from 38 to 45% realistically bumps the ultra wealthy from 20 to 24% given loopholes, step-up basis, etc. I doubt Elon pulls out and moves to Finland with a change like that. But moving someone from ultra poor to poor, or poor to lower middle class can potentially provide better future economic mobility.
Also you seem to go ad hominem or sarcastic on a lot of your posts. I'm going to guess you aren't married or don't talk politics with the SO.
bubaghanush
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2024
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 61
But they did use more than their share of government infrastructure, transportation, subsidies, resources, pollution, financing, R&D funding, use of government technology and patients, security (police and military), lobbying, etc.
Many of these societal goods and benefits are not accessible to the bottom 50%.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
You and ducttape are hard wired to look for inequity/unfairness, which is an emotional distraction imo. That's why we will never see eye to eye on this.
When I see poverty or bad healthcare access, I see obesity, poor family structure, no role models, a culture of low ambition, and many other things. I think it's fair to address ALL these core problems.
Last edited:
bubaghanush
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2024
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 61
Your opinion, imo, is quite useless and didn't address anything in the post. More subtle as hominem.
I'm looking at outcomes that are much better in less wealthy countries and why that is the case. How would you address those issues you just described?
Other countries have a stronger social safety net - universal healthcare, better protected PTO and family leave, stronger social services, higher minimum wage, unemployment, basic pension even for the poor, more equitable access to high quality education etc.
Obesity is another issue but these countries regulate advertising to children, tax sugary foods, and subsidize healthy meals. The safety net plays a role.
These things have already been shown to work. If you have better solutions I'm all ears.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,522
- Reaction score
- 3,683
First of all, I think if we were to break down each point you just made, we’d find that you’re maybe 50% correct. Some countries are better than us in some areas and some are better than us in other areas but the sweeping generalization that other countries such as those in Scandinavia are better across the board is just erroneous. Secondly, these countries have significantly higher taxes and they tax the bottom 50% at a higher rate than we do. In fact, we do not tax half of our population. Also the second and third quintile Income earners actually make about the same as the bottom quintile does to all the numerous tax breaks.
How exactly would you prefer the tax system to look to be fair and equitable and to be able to cover all of these entitlement programs you desire? Please be specific.
bubaghanush
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2024
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 61
1- I was referring specifically to health outcomes and happiness/well-being indexes
2- agreed
As far as tax system changes, simplest would be to increase the top bracket and/or let the tax breaks expire. Just putting out numbers something like 1 mil+ at 40% and 3 mil+ at 45%.
I know you're a fan of the flat tax. I'd be ok with 35%, or 40%, or 45% across the board - whatever is needed for a good safety net and to tackle the national debt. Also close step-up basis and whatever other common sense loopholes.
see NOW you are really hitting the heart of the issue.
the uber rich can capitalize on the federal programs in a way the poor cant
lizzie:
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 13,140
- Reaction score
- 7,727
"If you got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." What a terrible message for young people...that was the moment I knew for sure that the national Democratic party had become an astro-turf front for collectivist ideology.
it was WAY before that that you went full-on libertarian.
thats ok. a lot of people also live in a fantasy-land. but they are usually disney characters.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 3,287
- Reaction score
- 3,389
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,522
- Reaction score
- 3,683
🤮
And the government does take a huge chunk of that. That’s the funny little lie that keeps getting told and retold. And what about all the massive risks those business owners had to take that the average Joe didn’t? Does that count for anything? I bet drusso’s total taxes blow us w2 employee’s out of the water
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
the risks that you think billionaires take are very little.
billionaires have multiple tactics to reduce risk.
you think that the average Joe can declare bankruptcy and still be a millionaire/billionaire? (hint, drusso is an average joe)
look at Donald Trump. he declared bankruptcy 6 times. but specifically, it was not him but his companies. he was shielded from losing any real wealth even tho he did so.
but in fact, most billionaires never have to declare bankruptcy because of tax shields and how their money is managed.
and as of this point, there is only a small chunk of business that is going to the government. the top corporate tax rate in the 1980s was 46% and it was in the 50s during the era that trump has stated was great. it is now 21%.
(now i am not including billionaires that go bankrupt because of criminal activity)
billionaires have multiple tactics to reduce risk.
you think that the average Joe can declare bankruptcy and still be a millionaire/billionaire? (hint, drusso is an average joe)
look at Donald Trump. he declared bankruptcy 6 times. but specifically, it was not him but his companies. he was shielded from losing any real wealth even tho he did so.
but in fact, most billionaires never have to declare bankruptcy because of tax shields and how their money is managed.
and as of this point, there is only a small chunk of business that is going to the government. the top corporate tax rate in the 1980s was 46% and it was in the 50s during the era that trump has stated was great. it is now 21%.
(now i am not including billionaires that go bankrupt because of criminal activity)
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
We don't have a "not enough taxes on rich people" problem. Bringing taxes back to Obama levels won't help poverty at all.
I think the best solution is to radically change the education system for young people and prioritize nutrition, free market capitalism, the dangers of socialism, etc.
I think the best solution is to radically change the education system for young people and prioritize nutrition, free market capitalism, the dangers of socialism, etc.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,404
- Reaction score
- 7,028
in other words change the education system to tell young people that they are destined for poverty so get used to it.
thats not a solution.
thats just trying to make the 💩 smell better.
thats not a solution.
thats just trying to make the 💩 smell better.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
No, exactly the opposite (again).
Prioritizing nutrition, free market capitalism, and the dangers of socialism, etc will help people navigate life in America so they are NOT destined for obesity and poverty.
It's totally unacceptable that people spend 12 years of their life, full time in school and they think capitalism is more likely to drive them to poverty than socialism and that rich people are the source of their problems. This education is suitable for students in China and North Korea, where the government absolutely requires people are dependent and subservient to the state. Not here.
I really hope that's on Trump's list.
bubaghanush
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2024
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 61
This is beyond clueless. Guessing you don't have kids either.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 3,287
- Reaction score
- 3,389
Will ASCs benefit from site-neutral payments under Trump? - Becker’s ASC
Site neutral payments for hospitals and surgery centers are on the horizon, but they may not have the positive impact ASC owners hoped for. Hospital outpatient departments are paid significantly more than surgery centers for the same services, and lawmakers are seeking to close the gap. Surgery...
www.beckersasc.com
Thoughts? Seems to me this is just another pay cut for physicians. Also it will drive many more hospitals into bankruptcy. Sure, ASCs and private practices may be able to pick up some more volume due to competition but that’s not much gain if the pay rate doesn’t go up, and when you have an MI at 2AM, you’re not getting a stent or CABG at an ASC.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 13,315
- Reaction score
- 7,594
This seems like a great thing for docs who do efficient office procedures.Will ASCs benefit from site-neutral payments under Trump? - Becker’s ASC
Site neutral payments for hospitals and surgery centers are on the horizon, but they may not have the positive impact ASC owners hoped for. Hospital outpatient departments are paid significantly more than surgery centers for the same services, and lawmakers are seeking to close the gap. Surgery...
Thoughts? Seems to me this is just another pay cut for physicians. Also it will drive many more hospitals into bankruptcy. Sure, ASCs and private practices may be able to pick up some more volume due to competition but that’s not much gain if the pay rate doesn’t go up, and when you have an MI at 2AM, you’re not getting a stent or CABG at an ASC.
Hospital based docs could definitely see some pressure and ASC docs might need to trim the fat.
Hospitals themselves definitely need to trim the fat.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 3,287
- Reaction score
- 3,389
if you’re in an area where there’s stiff competition from hospital employed docs, sure, I can see how it would help. But for me, I’m already as busy as I want to be, so more patients won’t help me, just result in lounger wait times.
