If you work in universal health care, this is what you can expect to make

[oldManDO2009]

What no response to my post refarrell - quick to label my a right wing zealot but not ready to respond to my position on salaries?

That is the problem with left wing zealots - quick to dismiss but where is your plan - other than increase taxes?

2 done 7 more to go and hell week is over....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[oldManDO2009]

If you have some useful information about the thread topic, I'm all ears. If it's just the usual right-wing whining about Big Brother, believe me, we've heard it all before.

[mutters] Can't talk about physician salaries without dragging in Pol Pot . . . why do I bother?[/mutters][/QUOTE]

What no response to my post refarrell - quick to label my a right wing zealot but not ready to respond to my position on salaries?

That is the problem with left wing zealots - quick to dismiss but where is your plan - other than increase taxes (I would actually like to here it - other than its cheaper)?

 

[medhacker]

...that is what makes this country great, you can disagree and not end up in a ditch with a bullet in your head (circa pol pot)

Martin L. King
JFK
Malcolm X
Robert Kennedy
Medgar Evers
All the less popular assassinated leaders

I guess you are right, they did not end up in a ditch

 

[oldManDO2009]

it is an important distinction

 

[Indryd]

My 2 cents....to fix this problem I would implement the following reforms:

Tort reform - limit the kinds of suits that can be brought to a court and limit damages for cases that are not directly due to criminal neglect (e.g. operating while intoxicated). The reform would have to include some common sense approach to healthcare in that you are sick and you could die - but we will try the medications and procedures that may or may not cure the disease. It never ceases to amaze me that patients sue because the medication they took caused some negative side effect - it happens and you have to assume the risk. A lifetime of fast food has it consequences and the medication you take could induce diabetes - your lack of concern for your healthcare is no reason for multi-million dollars lawsuits. This step alone would reduce the cost of medicine.

Anytime the federal government is responsible for a large program - budget shortfalls and losses are just charged to the taxpayer in the form of higher taxes. That said, the government should not be in the business of healthcare. The taxes that we pay for Medicare and Medicaid should be combined into a single healthcare benefit payout for all citizens. The government would pay the insurance company of your choice an annual healthcare premium that is risk adjusted. So the 70 year old with end-stage renal disease might receive 70K a year and the healthy 20 year old might receive 3 K a year in the form of premium payment to the insurance company of choice. If you did not like the company because they provided poor customer service and denied healthcare request you could switch to another company. When the government runs the healthcare system you do not have a choice and care can be compromised. Just go visit your local county hospital.

This step alone would make us more competitive in the global market since the average car has about 3000 dollars worth of healthcare expense incorporated into the cost of manufacturing. Business would save billions in healthcare cost and healthcare retirement benefits.

This could be enhanced by making a few minor changes to the current HIPAA laws and create a national clearing house for payments. Currently all insurance companies are required to accept a standardized electronic invoice for services. A few minor changes could create a clearinghouse that accepts all bills and forwards them to an insurance company and payments are sent electronically (which is in place now but not via a single entity - instead invoices are sent to the insurance company). I would also add to this function a requirement to submit patient data in an HL7 format and encrypted so that physician could access (WITH PATIENT PERMISSION) medical data such as recent x-rays, labs, CT scan, etc. This would reduce the cost of repetitive diagnostic imaging and labs. Additionally, physicians would have less overhead since the data is stored in a repository and not in their offices and the reduced paperwork and billing requirements would reduce overhead.

So your average doctor could see a patient, review records, not worry about litigation and avoid practicing defensive medicine, and get paid for their services.

Most of these proposed reforms would almost surely result in insurance companies snatching up the profits by decreasing physician payout.

 

[Indryd]

Good points - I agree with your position.

I also like the idea of a flat tax. Just think; if there was a flat tax then politicians would have to come back to the voters to raise taxes at their own political peril. As it stands now, many taxes are hidden in fees and levies, including sales tax, gasoline surcharges and all those annoying fees on your phone bill. This structure allows the government to raise money without declaring new taxes to fund all that pork.

Just think of all the billions save in IRS enforcement and accounting - the incredibly rich would pay the same 15% as the lowest wage earner and deductions would be a thing of the past. I don't think politicians have the courage to support such a radical agenda. Every accounting and lawyer lobbyist would be out in force to protect their cut of the always frustrating and complex tax season.

Flat tax won't work. 15% of a poor person's income is next to meaningless and leaves them hurting. 30% or more of a rich person's income is substantial revenue and will not harm the rich person.

National sales tax is better. Only tax what is spent, with necessities like food and water and shelter being exempt. Then poor people could save money tax-free while big spending by the rich and middle class produces the revenue, and at any point any person could chose to save their money and not be taxed for it.

This also makes it impossible for people to hide their income behind shell companies/deductions/etc etc because their income would be irrelevant. They pay tax on every dollar they spend.

Spend 1000/year pay taxes on 1000/year. Spen 100,000,000 a year pay taxes on 100,000,000 a year.

This will never happen because it puts the tax burden primarily on those who can afford it but who also happen to have all the power.

Flat tax probably will happen because it very strongly favors the rich who will get a massive tax break dropping from 30-ish% to 15% or whatever it ends up.

 

[oldManDO2009]

The government does the same in the form of not approving increases or holding flat Medicare reimbursement. It may not be "profits" per se but their inefficiency and waste are comparable sequestering of dollars

 

[oldManDO2009]

Which ever tax is fine - the poor are exempted from both (Minimum income requirement). The problem is that the "rich" do not pay taxes - a survey of taxes returns showed that trust funds, investment schemes, and tax loop holes allow some to avoid their responsibility.

A flat tax (15%) makes no exception, so a person making 100,000 pays 15,000 dollars and a person making 30,000 pays 4500 dollars. All the deductions are eliminated....

Problem is, seen your phone bill lately? Half a dozen little taxes, same for home owners, gasoline, and then there is all of those fees. If the government went to a flat tax or value added tax then there would have to be true reform otherwise new taxes would be levied in the form of fees and increased sales and property tax.

I would prefer a single tax (what ever it is) so that the government would have to justify tax increases. I have to decide if I am going into debt for any given month because I have limited resources. The government has the seemingly unlimited resources of the public to balance their spending spree

 

[eshanim]

there's no way the avg. canadian physician made $220,000 in '02. it just can't be true, that would be above avg.

 

[Law2Doc]

The problem is that the "rich" do not pay taxes - a survey of taxes returns showed that trust funds, investment schemes, and tax loop holes allow some to avoid their responsibility.

Can you show a link to such a study? I've worked in the industry, and while this is a popular sentiment among laymen, it has little bearing on reality. The rich pay taxes on their income, often at the highest rates. They do make use of better advisors, and so take advantage of whatever credits and deductions they are expressly entitled to under the tax code - which is passed by Congress. But the net percent the rich pay is frequently still higher than that paid by other classes. In fact, the sector with the largest amount of owed but unpaid income taxes is the middle class. As for "investment schemes" and "loop holes", there have been many attempts at partnership investment vehicles over the years to allocate deductions and losses to those individuals who financially could best use then (aka tax shelters), but there are not many legal ones one can use today - they for the most part dried up a decade or two ago. And FYI, Trust funds constitute money earned by prior generations, for which taxes ALREADY have been paid at the highest rates. Just like if your father gave you $100 of his after tax money.
The rich and poor are equally allowed to take any deduction or credit permissible under the tax code and regs -- that is the law, so you cannot suggest that someone following the law that congress passed is "avoiding responsibility".

 

[chef_NU]

I recently read an article that said over 50% of government revenue comes from the top 5% of taxpayers. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay something that amounts to like 5% of total revenue. I just don't understand when we complain about policies that "give tax breaks to the rich, screw the poor". It just doesn't make sense. Both rich and poor use roads, schools, police, etc. I just don't understand the notion that all people deserve to live a comfortable life, regardless of the choices that they make. In certain situations, you just have to let some people drown.

Another thing that confuses me (extremely so): all the right-wing traditionalist, Christian Repulicans who claim to follow Jesus and such don't support the progressive economic agenda. If you are truly Christian, why the hell aren't you hardcore economic liberal. Screw that, why aren't you a communist? Jesus is akin to the antiChrist when it comes to Laissez-Faire advocates. And all the liberal athiests out there are the ones who whine the loudest when we trim 0.1% off of Medicaid. WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT ALL THE MISFORUTUNATE STRANGERS OUT THERE IF YOU ARE NOT RELIGOUS!?!?!?! Is it because when you grew up mommy told you to share? Is it your college professors who convinced you that it is cool to support government social programs? Without religion, government policy promoting equality is not just unjust, it is simply stupid because it lacks a foundation.

Anyway, I'll try and find the article.

 

[oldManDO2009]

The rich don’t pay there fair share was in reference to a book (I did not read) but read the reviews - Do As I Say (Not As I Do)
Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy

I realize that any one that makes over 100K a year is going to pay the majority of the taxes. I was not implying that the rich get an undeserved tax break – though I can see where my wording would lead to this ambiguity. I was just trying to advocate a fairer tax system where we would not spend billions in enforcement and taxed by fees, and additional state and property taxes. I would rather pay a single higher tax rate than an artificially low tax rate that is rife with “hidden” taxes. I am all for keeping my money and encouraging those on the dole to go work for their money.

 

[Gut Shot]

I recently read an article that said over 50% of government revenue comes from the top 5% of taxpayers. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay something that amounts to like 5% of total revenue. I just don't understand when we complain about policies that "give tax breaks to the rich, screw the poor". It just doesn't make sense.

Seems pretty screwed up that so few pay so much while so many pay so little, doesn't it? But let's look at the wealth distribution in this country circa 1998:

Makes a little more sense now, I hope.

 

[chef_NU]

Makes a little more sense now, I hope.

Nope, still doesn't make sense. I understand that a small proportion of society holds a largely disproportionate amount of wealth. Thing is, from a "pay for performance" standpoint, wealthy people are paying tons of money and getting next to nothing in return. This is what I don't understand.

 

[Gut Shot]

Nope, still doesn't make sense. I understand that a small proportion of society holds a largely disproportionate amount of wealth. Thing is, from a "pay for performance" standpoint, wealthy people are paying tons of money and getting next to nothing in return. This is what I don't understand.

If you don't think that wealthy people are getting anything in return, then I just can't help you, my boy.

 

[Law2Doc]

If you don't think that wealthy people are getting anything in return, then I just can't help you, my boy.

Well, the rich pay more taxes to eg use the same roads, provide public education for children (which they don't use), provide for public transportation and other infrastructure (also which they largely do not use). So they pay their 40% taxes (or whatever the top rate is now), on a whole lot more income, to get access to the same services, which they, by and large don't even use. The poor pay taxes at a 15% or lower rate on less money and get access to the same public infrastructure. Notwithstanding the wealth distribution, I'm not sure who's getting the short end of the stick here.

 

[Gut Shot]

Well, the rich pay more taxes to eg use the same roads, provide public education for children (which they don't use), provide for public transportation and other infrastructure (also which they largely do not use). So they pay their 40% taxes (or whatever the top rate is now), on a whole lot more income, to get access to the same services, which they, by and large don't even use. The poor pay taxes at a 15% or lower rate on less money and get access to the same public infrastructure. Notwithstanding the wealth distribution, I'm not sure who's getting the short end of the stick here.

Oh spare me. If you're not sure who is getting the short end of the stick then become poor. Enjoy lower taxes and all the public transportation you've been missing out on!

 

[Law2Doc]

Oh spare me. If you're not sure who is getting the short end of the stick then become poor. Enjoy lower taxes and all the public transportation you've been missing out on!

I meant the short end of the stick in terms of taxes, not life. They are distinct and not necessarilly related systems. The point of taxes is not to redistribute the wealth and play Robin Hood. It is to pay for services that everybody needs.

 

[oldManDO2009]

I meant the short end of the stick in terms of taxes, not life. They are distinct and not necessarilly related systems. The point of taxes is not to redistribute the wealth and play Robin Hood. It is to pay for services that everybody needs.

Excellent point Law2Doc.

I have a great idea - if you hate being poor then get a job and a better education. I started out with no advantages and worked full time through undergraduate & graduate school - I worked and paid of my loans. I still work while in medical school (not as much) because I have OBLIGATIONS that are not excused because of (pick a problem).

I started out cleaning carpets many years ago and knew that it was not something I could do my entire life. I applied for loans and went to school. Who in this country cannot apply for federal student loans and grants (excluding felons and drug convictions) and get an education? I gave up a lot of free time and deferred way too much of my life but no one said you can't do it - I would be the only one who would be responsible for my failure.

But social liberals feel it is okay to perpetuate economic dependence with welfare and a bazillion other social programs with no expectation of job training or education. It is no wonder so many people can not lift themselves from poverty - they don't have to. I made a decision to seek and education and so could the "poor"....

 

[QuikClot]

What no response to my post refarrell - quick to label my a right wing zealot but not ready to respond to my position on salaries?

I can enjoy talking to right-wing zealots. You are not worth my time because you have consistly ignored facts and statistics which challenge your fantasy life; you produced nothing while I was following the thread but ad hominium, unsupported assertions, and straw man distortions of other's arguments. You say you produced some data on salaries -- I didn't see it, because when someone repeatly wastes my time with arrogance and whining, I go elsewhere.

So I'm done with your "Pol Pot is coming" nonsense. You're an ignorant and irresponsible fool, and I hope when you get out into the real world you'll learn better.

PS: I checked the post, and your "position" was more of the same. No research, not a single source, just the usual paranoia. Maybe someday you will learn that a list of talking points lifted wholesale from Fox News is not a "position" let alone an argument.

 

[Gut Shot]

I meant the short end of the stick in terms of taxes, not life. They are distinct and not necessarilly related systems.

Yes, and the wealthy take more than their fair share of benefit from taxes, so forgive me if I don't see their plight.

Bill Gates, for instance, pays more in taxes than you an I will make in a thousand years. Is he getting the shaft if he sends his kids to private school, doesn't ride the bus and doesn't drive every highway in the nation? Hell no, and here is an example to illustrate my reasoning:

1. Where would Bill Gates be without Microsoft?

2. Where would Microsoft be without the public infrastructure that our taxes pay for?

While Mr. Gates does not directly use billions of dollars in public services funded with his tax money, he wouldn't have those billions in the first place if the nation had dirt roads, an uneducated workforce and no public utilities. Given his poor eyesight and slight physical attributes, he might instead be peddling Sperm whale oil from the back of a horse-drawn carriage.

So yes, Billy shells out a much higher proportion of his income to taxes than one of his entry-level programmers. Is this unfair? I think not. After all, if the police force disbands due to lack of funds, who has more **** to steal?

 

[Gut Shot]

But social liberals feel it is okay to perpetuate economic dependence with welfare and a bazillion other social programs with no expectation of job training or education.

Could you name some of these bazillion social programs that have no expectation of job training or education? Oh, and this might come as a shock, but the welfare program was gutted about a decade ago. There are no more imaginary welfare queens, so you can rest easy.

 

[oldManDO2009]

you are entitled to your opinion but social entitlement programs are a huge portion of the GDP - so who is getting all this money?

 

[oldManDO2009]

I can enjoy talking to right-wing zealots. You are not worth my time because you have consistly ignored facts and statistics which challenge your fantasy life; you produced nothing while I was following the thread but ad hominium, unsupported assertions, and straw man distortions of other's arguments. You say you produced some data on salaries -- I didn't see it, because when someone repeatly wastes my time with arrogance and whining, I go elsewhere.

So I'm done with your "Pol Pot is coming" nonsense. You're an ignorant and irresponsible fool, and I hope when you get out into the real world you'll learn better.

PS: I checked the post, and your "position" was more of the same. No research, not a single source, just the usual paranoia. Maybe someday you will learn that a list of talking points lifted wholesale from Fox News is not a "position" let alone an argument.

French tax rate

http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-legal/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=711

I was responding to YOUR post on the French healthcare system - it was an OPINION! I do not feel compelled to validate each breath with a stack of useless statistics. I do not believe in socialized medicine therefore I have an opinion as to why not. Talk about waste of time.

My position on reform (risk adjusted payments) was from a fortune magazine editorial - look it up.

I have these beliefs because I have worked in the "real world" the last 20 years - where do you think my position came from? Social medicine and socialism have no place in a capitalistic society - I am tired of paying taxes so someone can avoid responsibility.

I am sure after you become a physician and 50% of your salary is consumed by taxes you will be glad to give up the rest to fund your socialistic utopia....

 

[medhacker]

Oh spare me. If you're not sure who is getting the short end of the stick then become poor. Enjoy lower taxes and all the public transportation you've been missing out on!

LOL

 

[Gut Shot]

you are entitled to your opinion but social entitlement programs are a huge portion of the GDP - so who is getting all this money?

Who said anything about entitlement programs? Earlier you were talking about a bazillion social programs "with no expectation of job training or education." Sure doesn't sound like Social Security or Medicare, which are by far the two biggest entitlement programs (and are both funded by regressive payroll taxes).

Here are my numbers for the federal budget outlays of 2003:

Social security - 22%
Non-defense discretionary - 20%
National defense - 17%
Medicare - 11%
Debt service - 9%
Other mandatory - 8%
Medicaid - 7%
Other income-tested entitlements - 6%

Total = 100%

So if you're not referring to SS or Medicare, where are these bazillion social programs hidden?

 

[chef_NU]

So if you're not referring to SS or Medicare, where are these bazillion social programs hidden?

This is what I am referring to. I don't know about oldman.

 

[oldManDO2009]

46% for entitlement spending in a trillion dollar budget equates to bazillion...with no end in sight.

Social security reform blocked...
Healthcare reform deadlocked in partisan politics
State spending on healthcare related spending trending upwards - I would think California would be a good example of a Medicaid system with financial problems.

So if there is no reforms slated for entitlement programs then were will these spending increases stop?

My point is that a single payer system is viable and I think important to the future of healthcare and our ability to maintain our incomes.

I am more fiscally oriented and find the current spending spree in Washington a serious lapse in judgment - this money can only come from one place increased taxes or cuts in programs.

The government just approved to not reduce or hold steady physician payments under Medicare - that is what we have to look forward to as physicians. Medicare is the largest payer of healthcare for the elderly and we will have a constant battle to maintain reasonable reimbursement. There is no other choice for healthcare reimbursement so we will be forced to accept what ever the government decides is reasonable. When Medicare leads other insurances companies follow and we will end up with reduced reimbursement for service rendered...

A long answer to a simple post but I wanted to clarify my opinion on one facet of socialized medicine and the difficulties we might face. There are many other points and my previous post may provide some details.

 

[chef_NU]

I wouldn't be too terribly worried about the whole Medicare thing as a physician. In the long term, if government limits physician reimbursement too drastically, the majority of doctors will simply stop accepting Medicare and move away from geriatric care in general. People who can afford to pay out of pocket will receive the best care from private providers. People who must rely on Medicare will get substandard care from docs who can't compete in the private market, or they will be unable to find a provider that accepts Medicare (and thus go without treatment). Both are good things. The more government restricts physician reimbursement due to budget crises, the more the public will realize what a sh*tty system we have. Fortunately for many US docs, the collapse of the Medicare system is ultimately a good thing.

 

[chef_NU]

Yes, and the wealthy take more than their fair share of benefit from taxes, so forgive me if I don't see their plight.

Bill Gates, for instance, pays more in taxes than you an I will make in a thousand years. Is he getting the shaft if he sends his kids to private school, doesn't ride the bus and doesn't drive every highway in the nation? Hell no, and here is an example to illustrate my reasoning:

1. Where would Bill Gates be without Microsoft?

2. Where would Microsoft be without the public infrastructure that our taxes pay for?

Havarti you seem to be arguing that wealth can't exist (or can't exist nearly to the amount that it does in our society) in a system without social welfare. Is this your argument? If it is, please say so. Let me also make clear that by no means are any of us here arguing for anarchy. We aren't trying to eliminate taxes used to fund basic government infrastructure such as roads and highways. We aren't trying to eliminate national defense. Hell, we aren't even trying to eliminate a public education budget (although it sure as hell should be changed: privative all schools and give everyone a voucher reflecting the federal education budget). Infrastructure is a good thing. Defense is a good thing. Equality of opportunity is a good thing. Chronic wealth redistribution and social safety nets are not. Removing responsibility from individual citizens is not. Yes, Bill Gates would still have made his millions without Social Security, without Medicare, and without agricultural subsidies. These are the things that anger me (and many other limited-government proponents). With all the talk of turning viewpoints into straw-man arguments, I find this one particularly egregious.

 

[oldManDO2009]

I wouldn't be too terribly worried about the whole Medicare thing as a physician. In the long term, if government limits physician reimbursement too drastically, the majority of doctors will simply stop accepting Medicare and move away from geriatric care in general. People who can afford to pay out of pocket will receive the best care from private providers. People who must rely on Medicare will get substandard care from docs who can't compete in the private market, or they will be unable to find a provider that accepts Medicare (and thus go without treatment). Both are good things. The more government restricts physician reimbursement due to budget crises, the more the public will realize what a sh*tty system we have. Fortunately for many US docs, the collapse of the Medicare system is ultimately a good thing.

I agree with you and it is a good point. My contention would be that it (Medicare) has been in financial trouble for years with little political interest. The system is in need of an overhaul and there seems to be to much partisan ranker to fix the problem.

I still strongly advocate for a single payer choose your insurance company system with risk adjusted payments. The government in my opinion is a poor provider of healthcare.

 

[chef_NU]

I agree with you and it is a good point. My contention would be that it (Medicare) has been in financial trouble for years with little political interest. The system is in need of an overhaul and there seems to be to much partisan ranker to fix the problem.

I still strongly advocate for a single payer choose your insurance company system with risk adjusted payments. The government in my opinion is a poor provider of healthcare.

I'm still somewhat unconvinced that a single payer system will truly limit costs. Seniors will continue to lobby Congress to increase federal outlays to cover increasingly inclusive and extravagant insurance premiums. We also maintain two middlemen between care providers and patients: the government (whos interests do not reflect that of consumers as a whole), and insurance companies (whos interests do not reflect that of consumers as a whole). Most people are unable to stomach the concept of returning to a system where consumers simply make a choice between fee for service and private insurance (which I believe caters to consumer demand to the point, as well as maximizing cost-effective treatment). In addition, as long as the government, and not consumers, are dictating the magnitude of health care expenditures, physicians will not be compensated for the market value of their services (be it above or below true value).

Another idea that has been advanced (which I believe has significant merit) is to have federal coverage for catastrophic health insurance. This means significant deductibles to deter overuse of government funds for non-catastrophic treatment. While this idea sounds good in theory, I think that it would deteriorate quickly in practice. This is because Congress will always have impetus to perpetually reduce deductibles until we return to the system we have today (or end up with a completely socialized healthcare system). Again, we end up with the same old problem: consumers completely shielded from the direct cost of their care and an unsustainable budget conundrum.

 

[Lindyhopper]

The idea of a single payer system is to have a single payer &, therefore, cut out the multiple insurers (aka middle men). Our confused American hybrid cost 16% of GDP while delivering worse care by any societal measure than Western Europe. These countries spend on average 8% of GDP.
The VA is an excellent model of an efficient single payer.

 

[deleted87716]

The VA is an excellent model of an efficient single payer.

It's also an excellent example of the pitfalls of single-payer.

Most veterans choose to receive their care outside the VA system, which in and of itself speaks volumes. It's not that the VA provides poor care, but it provides rationed care. As a result, many patients prefer to receive their care in the private sector. Fortunately, they have that option.

Those who remain within the VA system typically wait much longer for specialist appointments and diagnostic studies compared to patients in the private sector.

The private sector provides a "safety net" for VA patients, in much the same way that the U.S. provides a safety net for Canada. If either system were the sole option for its beneficiaries, costs would skyrocket, and the systems would likely implode.

 

[Gut Shot]

46% for entitlement spending in a trillion dollar budget equates to bazillion...with no end in sight.

I hate to nitpick here, but earlier you said a bazillion programs. Now you're saying two programs (Medicare and SS) that consume 42% of the budget equates to a bazillion. Which is it?

Social security reform blocked...

For the best. It would have cost over a trillion to shift over to even a partly privatized SS system. Most of the projected problems with SS would vanish if they would lift the income cap on the SS payroll tax.

So if there is no reforms slated for entitlement programs then were will these spending increases stop?

When the last boomer dies.

 

[chef_NU]

For the best. It would have cost over a trillion to shift over to even a partly privatized SS system. Most of the projected problems with SS would vanish if they would lift the income cap on the SS payroll tax.

Hrm. Your solution is to tax the wealthy more for something they don't benefit from. Over a trillion to shift to partly privatized SS system? If we cancel the payroll tax, disallow any new entrants into the system, raise income taxes enough to fund current benefits, and guarantee benefits to retirees who have already payed into the system, how can we not be saving money? We certainly have a brighter future. And we don't have the government playing nanny.

 

[gert123456]

According to www.TheApprenticeDoctor.com, a medical professional can make up to $300 000 in the USA?

 

[kimmcauliffe]

wow..mcguyver..your the one that started the post..so why dont you show us REAL INCOME NUMBERS...ass.

hahaha

 

[Gut Shot]

Hrm. Your solution is to tax the wealthy more for something they don't benefit from.

Yep. The percentage of elderly living below the poverty line has fallen from 35% in 1960 to 10% today. Given that the average income of the top 5% has increased 80% since 1979 (correcting for inflation), I don't have a single problem with making payroll taxes less regressive.

raise income taxes enough to fund current benefits,

Looks like both our solutions involve taxes. The difference is that mine could actually come to pass (someday), while you're position (essentially phasing out SS) has virtually no popular or political backing whatsoever.

But hey, if you want to eliminate SS and Medicare then you should take the lead. When your folks get old and infirm, have them move in with you and then pay for their medical care. The government nanny might not be looking so bad.

 

[trustwomen]

some points worth mentioning...

doctors make to much, hummm? After 11+ years of school with zero savings towards retirement, nauseating debt and a reduce work window - the comments are meritless.

Ah, there's the rub. Canadian medical schools cost much less than American ones. I believe the same is true for Europe. Also, the cost of living (housing, especially) in large American cities is beyond ridiculous when compared to here. I expect to graduate med school (assuming I am accepted) with about 30-60k of debt, total. I've been working and supporting myself through my undergrad and so have only a 4k loan so far, taken this last year (mainly from paranoia) because I reduced my work hours. I am taking 5 upper-level science classes now, along with my job, getting good grades, and figure I can try to keep working through the first two years of med school. (If that doesn't work, I'll wind up closer to the 60K debt mentioned above.) As a resident you are paid, and here it is slightly more than the average salary (40K or so) and since I am used to living on 15-20, I expect to start reimbursing easily. The trick is - don't be greedy! Don't expect to have the same lifestyle your parents had; the economy is different now, esp. the massive yet long-lasting housing bubble and skyrocketing consumer debt (good ol' "relative deprivation" at work). Don't become a doctor in order to get rich. I expect to work until I am at least 70, not because I'll need to but because this is my passion and I can't imagine giving it up easily as long as I have my health. And any system which screws a huge segment of the population (i.e. U.S. health care) is one I wouldn't feel comfortable being a part of. (I worked down there for 4 years in the health care field, so before you start calling me uninformed, think twice). I will make half as much here, maybe, but I will sleep twice as soundly. (And the same applies to taking big pharma's bribes, by the way).

-Cat