In regards to taxing physicians.

[yummytummy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Does anyone have an insight on why physicians will take a strong blow due to Obama's taxes as opposed to individuals who make a lot more such as singers/actors/entertainers/sports players. Since everyone of the entertainers would help pay the national dept much better than doctors and it would not make their living conditions worst if we were to take 1 million dollars from their income if they have around 100 million (or more) dollars. The reason why I state that is because I read in many places that doctors will be taxed more after the healthcare change, but I personally dont think that its fair for individuals who have worked as long and as hard as physicians to get taxed more than entertainers who dont really work as hard for their money and have a lot more to spare.

Any thoughts?

 

[TheMightySmiter]

Absurd statement.
It's not physicians being targeted for an income tax hike, it's higher income brackets, which physicians are a part of.

+1

Also, it would only affect those who make over $250,000 per year. Not inclusive of all physicians.

 

[vin5cent0]

Absurd statement.
It's not physicians being targeted for an income tax hike, it's higher income brackets, which physicians are a part of.

Eh, it's not really that absurd. You really think an entertainer puts in the work to warrant earning 50 million dollars? I sure don't...

 

[Octagonecology]

Does anyone have an insight on why physicians will take a strong blow due to Obama's taxes as opposed to individuals who make a lot more such as singers/actors/entertainers/sports players. Since everyone of the entertainers would help pay the national dept much better than doctors and it would not make their living conditions worst if we were to take 1 million dollars from their income if they have around 100 million (or more) dollars. The reason why I state that is because I read in many places that doctors will be taxed more after the healthcare change, but I personally dont think that its fair for individuals who have worked as long and as hard as physicians to get taxed more than entertainers who dont really work as hard for their money and have a lot more to spare.

Any thoughts?

You are stupid.

 

[Compass]

Is it appropriate to assume that doctors work harder than artists, musicians, and entertainers?

 

[Caesar]

Is it appropriate to assume that doctors work harder than artists, musicians, and entertainers?

no. School is much easier than some of the stuff I put up with on tour. It's one thing to be on call and miss your family, it's another to be hundreds or thousands of miles away from them. It's not comparable really.

 

[Perrotfish]

Does anyone have an insight on why physicians will take a strong blow due to Obama's taxes as opposed to individuals who make a lot more such as singers/actors/entertainers/sports players. Since everyone of the entertainers would help pay the national dept much better than doctors and it would not make their living conditions worst if we were to take 1 million dollars from their income if they have around 100 million (or more) dollars. The reason why I state that is because I read in many places that doctors will be taxed more after the healthcare change, but I personally dont think that its fair for individuals who have worked as long and as hard as physicians to get taxed more than entertainers who dont really work as hard for their money and have a lot more to spare.

Any thoughts?

Thought: My problem with our nation is that we want an ever expanding array of national services, but none of us want to contribute to paying for them. People that make 50K want to tax people that make 100K, people that make 100K want to tax people that make 250K, people that make 250K want to tax people who make millions. No one is willing to be an adult and say either 'We will pay for this' or 'we will do without because we don't want to pay for this'. Instead we have decided that things like education and healthcare should not be paid for collectively, but rather should be 'free'. That's not sustainable.

Don't be part of the problem: stop trying to pass the check off to the next higher income bracket.

 

[yummytummy]

Very few entertainers earn $50M. The ones that do absolutely deserve every penny. They provide a service to millions of people whose lives are happier as a result. Imagine how bleak the world would be without actors, singers, athletes, etc.

How could providing entertainment for people be more important than caring for their health...?

You are stupid.

How so?

Is it appropriate to assume that doctors work harder than artists, musicians, and entertainers?

Well an entertainer could put a song together thats 3 minutes (maximum it could take them lets say is 4 months) and they would bank around 2-5 million depending who they are. That would take a physician a lot longer...even though physicians go for a lot more education than most entertainers. And lets face it some of the songs are really stupid and people still make a lot of money from them. (The salary is ball parked but you guys get the gist hopefully)

no. School is much easier than some of the stuff I put up with on tour. It's one thing to be on call and miss your family, it's another to be hundreds or thousands of miles away from them. It's not comparable really.

How is it harder to be on tour instead of being on-call and working with precise tools where you can kill the patient with a slight mistake during surgery....?

 

[b-real]

Eh, it's not really that absurd. You really think an entertainer puts in the work to warrant earning 50 million dollars? I sure don't...

Absurd. Your salary has to do with market conditions and how easy you are to replace. That's why a teacher earns less than a doctor and why a doctor makes less than an NBA player. An actor may help bring in a $200 million profit for a studio, thus justifying his $15-20 million price tag. As a physician, you most likely aren't bringing in those kind of numbers to your hospital or practice. And if we're talking about work, an actor works his or her ass off. Yes, a lot of it is cushy, but they still do hard work.

 

[yummytummy]

How could providing entertainment for people be more important than caring for their health...?

Who said it was more important? Also, should the number of dollars earned have a direct correlation with your subjective view of "importance?" Who are you to say that the impact of an entertainer of Elvis or Michael Jackson's caliber is less important to a global society than the impact of a single physician?

Well Michael Jackson and Elvis Prestly are two of the most famous individuals. Even these two players in my opinion did a lot of good for everyone, but not the same degree a surgeon does when he removes a tumor (which has direct influence on someone's health and how long he/she lives)

 

[b-real]

Well Michael Jackson and Elvis Prestly are two of the most famous individuals. Even these two players in my opinion did a lot of good for everyone, but not the same degree a surgeon does when he removes a tumor (which has direct influence on someone's health and how long he/she lives)

Again, importance does not always equal more money. That surgeon isn't bringing in the same amount of revenue for the hospital as the entertainer is for his/her record label or studio. They are paid accordingly.

 

[yummytummy]

Again, importance does not always equal more money. That surgeon isn't bringing in the same amount of revenue for the hospital as the entertainer is for his/her record label or studio. They are paid accordingly.

You are correct. Do entertainers get the extra taxing too, though?

 

[b-real]

You are correct. Do entertainers get the extra taxing too, though?

The superstars are in the same (highest) tax bracket as the wealthiest physicians. What is this "doctors-only" tax you're babbling about?

 

[mathgrl83]

Thought: My problem with our nation is that we want an ever expanding array of national services, but none of us want to contribute to paying for them. People that make 50K want to tax people that make 100K, people that make 100K want to tax people that make 250K, people that make 250K want to tax people who make millions. No one is willing to be an adult and say either 'We will pay for this' or 'we will do without because we don't want to pay for this'. Instead we have decided that things like education and healthcare should not be paid for collectively, but rather should be 'free'. That's not sustainable.

Don't be part of the problem: stop trying to pass the check off to the next higher income bracket.

👍 +1

 

[Compass]

Well an entertainer could put a song together thats 3 minutes (maximum it could take them lets say is 4 months) and they would bank around 2-5 million depending who they are. That would take a physician a lot longer...even though physicians go for a lot more education than most entertainers. And lets face it some of the songs are really stupid and people still make a lot of money from them. (The salary is ball parked but you guys get the gist hopefully)

I think you grossly underestimate the difficulty in making a song. Many songs take a lot more than 3 minutes to be created. Perhaps a few weeks to get the lyrics and musical score. A few weeks of practice with musicians. Multiple takes for a music video. Post-processing in a studio for a few more weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_discography

You can see right away that people like Taylor Swift do not just spam songs out onto the market. It takes months of preparation. Even more than that, many entertainers spend YEARS learning how to play instruments and sing. This isn't Singstar, you can't just spout some on-tune notes and expect to be picked up by American Idol.

They furthermore have to continue to practice the same songs they've done before for future performances at concerts and other public venues.

 

[epinephrinerush]

This thread fails.

 

[icalz]

This is a sore subject for myself because I don't see why anyone should be taxed more because they make more money....that discrimination by defintion. Is it because the fed thinks they can afford it? Why on earth would you want to dis-incentivize working hard to become a doctor.

The flip side of the coin is what burns me: the U.S. is the only nation on earth that actually pays its citizens to not work, i.e., the welfare system. If your income is a below a certain level then here you go...$400 a month in food stamps. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in helping the truly handicapped or disable but come on, telling one guy who works his butt off, endures 12 years of school, and works 80+ hour shifts that we're going to take more money from him while at the same time telling this other guy who won't go to work that here's extra money to support you is indicative of an abjectly broken system and misguided government.

I'll even personalize it...I have a cousin who has 4 kids and she refuses to work, she says it's not her thing. The government gives her like $800 a month in food stamps! Yet once I'm a doctor they want to tax me more?! WTF?!

 

[thesauce]

What is this "doctors-only" tax you're babbling about?

It's currently being proposed in Michigan.

 

[Parts Unknown]

This is a sore subject for myself because I don't see why anyone should be taxed more because they make more money....that discrimination by defintion.

No, it's simply a progressive taxation system. Try not to think of it as screwing people who earn more, think of it as giving a discount to people who earn less. You'll feel better that way.

The flip side of the coin is what burns me: the U.S. is the only nation on earth that actually pays its citizens to not work, i.e., the welfare system.

Are you crazy? There are many examples of social democracies with welfare systems far more expansive and generous than ours. If you are an able-bodied male in this country with no dependents, just try getting on welfare. It hasn't been possible since 1996.

As for your cousin, she can have her 4 kids and food stamps, and I'll keep tax bracket, along with my house, my cars, my vacations, my clothes, my furniture, my hobbies, and my disposable income. Salud.

 

[Jolteon]

It's not so much a fear of taxing only physicians, but a fear that any type of health reform would bring down the salaries of physicians. This, of course, excludes tort reform.
That said, I do believe that the bills floating through Congress right now would do just that; bring down the salaries of all physicians.

 

[Brent8927]

I think you grossly underestimate the difficulty in making a song. Many songs take a lot more than 3 minutes to be created. Perhaps a few weeks to get the lyrics and musical score. A few weeks of practice with musicians. Multiple takes for a music video. Post-processing in a studio for a few more weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_discography

You can see right away that people like Taylor Swift do not just spam songs out onto the market. It takes months of preparation. Even more than that, many entertainers spend YEARS learning how to play instruments and sing. This isn't Singstar, you can't just spout some on-tune notes and expect to be picked up by American Idol.

They furthermore have to continue to practice the same songs they've done before for future performances at concerts and other public venues.

👍 Not to mention that most aspiring actors/musicians will never make it big. I'd be willing to wager the average actor/musician makes less than the average doctor--there's a reason we have the term "starving artist."

I remember reading an article a few years ago about how much harder it is to become a big shot Pop/Rap/R&B artist than a professional athlete. It's easy to understand how hard it is to become an NBA or NFL player, but for some reason we all think it's easy to become a musician/singer.

It's also impossible for someone like Brad Pitt to go out for dinner without being bothered/asked for a signature/photograph. I'd prefer $150,000 a year and my privacy to $4 million, $40 million, or whatever he makes.

OP, I agree it's a little bit upsetting that there are some people who seem to be lucky enough to be born into or fall into good fortune. Personally I feel that way about a lot of people in business leadership. But this is a capitalist society, so people are paid based on how much profit they bring in, not based on their "value" or (non-material) contribution to society. Communism sounds really nice about how everyone is equal, but unfortunately in practice every just gets treated equally miserable.

Reminds me of a joke: "What's the difference between communism and capitalism? In capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. In communism, it's the other way around."

 

[Parts Unknown]

That said, I do believe that the bills floating through Congress right now would do just that; bring down the salaries of all physicians.

How do you figure? The plans in Congress each dump hundreds of billions into the health care system over the next decade while reducing the number of uninsured (i.e. the amount of charity care). Not every physician in every specialty will win out, but I'm guessing the net effect will be either neutral or to our benefit.

 

[Jolteon]

How do you figure? The plans in Congress each dump hundreds of billions into the health care system over the next decade while reducing the number of uninsured (ie the amount of charity care). Not every physician in every specialty will win out, but I'm guessing the net effect will be either neutral or to our benefit.

Just as any plan with a "public option" would. The government takes money from hard-working Americans to pay the health care costs of the public plan, and they can always take more. Meanwhile, private insurance companies require a higher premium because they can't just take money from others. They begin to struggle and many private insurance companies just won't be able to compete, and they go under. So now we have many more people relying on the government for their health coverage, and the government will dictate how much will be paid for a given procedure.

 

[Brent8927]

Are you crazy? There are many examples of social democracies with welfare systems far more expansive and generous than ours. If you are an able-bodied male in this country with no dependents, just try getting on welfare. It hasn't been possible since 1996.

As for your cousin, she can have her 4 kids and food stamps, and I'll keep tax bracket, along with my house, my cars, my vacations, my clothes, my furniture, my hobbies, and my disposable income. Salud.

Agreed. I worked as a case manager for a while, and it's an incredibly difficult life to be on welfare. Being on welfare generally means you're dirt poor (even with all the aid you're given), and almost always, a single mother. There aren't too many things more difficult than being a single mother, especially a poor one.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Just as any plan with a "public option" would. The government takes money from hard-working Americans to pay the health care costs of the public plan, and they can always take more. Meanwhile, private insurance companies require a higher premium because they can't just take money from others. They begin to struggle and many private insurance companies just won't be able to compete, and they go under. So now we have many more people relying on the government for their health coverage, and the government will dictate how much will be paid for a given procedure.

Actually the CBO estimates for total public plan enrollment range from only 3-6 million, or 1-2% of the total population. They are also predicted to have higher premiums than their private counterparts, due to the presumed poorer health of its enrollees. This is expected to shunt more people into cheaper private plans.

A public option will be subject to the same dynamic that any other plan is: worse reimbursement means fewer providers, which leads to fewer enrollees. Better reimbursement means more providers, which leads to more enrollees... but this eventually eclipses the competitive benefit.

Bottom line: if a private insurer is running a tight ship and operating fairly, a public option is little threat. If a private insurer is wasting money and screwing the customers (both providers and enrollees), why stick up for it?

 

[strummin]

Why on earth would you want to dis-incentivize working hard...

Yes, now that they're taxing rich people a bit more, I no longer want to become rich. Lol.

 

[strummin]

Eh, it's not really that absurd. You really think an entertainer puts in the work to warrant earning 50 million dollars? I sure don't...

Do you know how many entertainers DON'T earn 50 million dollars? Lol, almost all of them.

Even though becoming a doctor is hard, it's much much easier than becoming the next Michael Jackson. You need talent + a LOT of luck + many other factors. I'm sure there's many people in Hollywood today who wanted to become the next Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise and are instead acting in cheap porn movies.

 

[Jolteon]

Actually the CBO estimates for total public plan enrollment range from only 3-6 million, or 1-2% of the total population. They are also predicted to have higher premiums than their private counterparts, due to the presumed poorer health of its enrollees. This is expected to shunt more people into cheaper private plans.

A public option will be subject to the same dynamic that any other plan is: worse reimbursement means fewer providers, which leads to fewer enrollees. Better reimbursement means more providers, which leads to more enrollees... but this eventually eclipses the competitive benefit.

Bottom line: if a private insurer is running a tight ship and operating fairly, a public option is little threat. If a private insurer is wasting money and screwing the customers (both providers and enrollees), why stick up for it?

I think you're looking into it the wrong way. The public option is designed to be a cheap alternative to a private insurer, and you cannot be denied for "pre-existing conditions". My emphasis is on the cheap part. To make it affordable to so many citizens, the government picks into its deep wallet called the top income tax bracket.

As for the 3-6 million enrolled, either that is a false number or Obama is giving us false numbers on how many would be actually covered. He says 30 million, and that number does include illegal immigrants. As it is right now, are doctors allowed to question citizenship status? The answer is no, so these people will have access to our health care system. Granted, that is better than having them close down a hospital by flooding the ER for whatever they happen to need, but we don't need half of the tax dollars paying for the system going to to illegal immigrants.

The remainder of those on the system would be a mixture of those that want and need it (Your 3-6 million), and the rest are those that are between jobs and will have their insurance back when they get it under their new employer, or are 18-25, healthy, and just don't want insurance. Maybe you don't know this, but you will be required to have some kind of health insurance if this passes.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I think you're looking into it the wrong way. The public option is designed to be a cheap alternative to a private insurer, and you cannot be denied for "pre-existing conditions". My emphasis is on the cheap part. To make it affordable to so many citizens, the government picks into its deep wallet called the top income tax bracket.

Your criticisms remind me somewhat of Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Believes Constitution To Be.

House bill H.R. 3962, text here, pages 214-216, under "Premiums and Financing" of the Public Health Insurance Option:

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option—
(A) in a manner that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 213 for Exchange-participating health benefits plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of—
(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

(3) NO BAILOUTS.— In no case shall the public health insurance option receive any Federal funds for purposes of insolvency in any manner similar to the manner in which entities receive Federal funding under the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury.

As for the 3-6 million enrolled, either that is a false number or Obama is giving us false numbers on how many would be actually covered. He says 30 million,

You are confused. 30 million may be the total number who gain coverage through reform, but most of them will do so by subsidized insurance mandate (which will actually shovel more money to private insurers) and Medicaid expansion. Only a fraction will end up with public option coverage.

Maybe you don't know this,

As a physician and avid consumer of all things health policy related, I think I'm up to speed on most issues. Thanks.

 

[Jolteon]

TARP is not funding from income taxes. It would be one thing if there was a privately run public option that the government could bail out, but the government cannot just bailout itself, lest it print more and more money; though I think that is what that part of the bill is protecting against.

The geographically adjusted premium rates have no relevance if they are still being funded through income taxes.

Also, I know I'm a supporter of low taxes and limited spending, but come on. The Onion?

 

[Simplify]

No, it's simply a progressive taxation system. Try not to think of it as screwing people who earn more, think of it as giving a discount to people who earn less. You'll feel better that way.

There are two ways to look at a glass half empty.

It isn't just a discount to people who earn less.

 

[redsquareblack]

no. School is much easier than some of the stuff I put up with on tour. It's one thing to be on call and miss your family, it's another to be hundreds or thousands of miles away from them. It's not comparable really.

Agreed 100%. When **** goes down at home in New York and you're in L.A. and there's nothing you can do about it, that's really hard.

 

[Global Warming]

Eh, it's not really that absurd. You really think an entertainer puts in the work to warrant earning 50 million dollars? I sure don't...

Naive kid.

Do you have any idea what Beyonce's typical day is like? Do you realize how hard most celebrities had to work to become who they are?

Your childish mind fails.

 

[Parts Unknown]

The geographically adjusted premium rates have no relevance if they are still being funded through income taxes.

Do you even know what a premium is?

 

[Jolteon]

Do you even know what a premium is?

Why, yes I do. If you expect that anyone on the government plan will pay the entire costs of their own health care you are wrong, that's the point and cause of needing a public option. The plan is to give "affordable" health care, whether that means that the people on the plan pay some or none of the cost. The remainder of the premium will be paid for, through higher income taxes, or the cost will be lowered by lowering physician wages. It's a lose-lose.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Why, yes I do. If you expect that anyone on the government plan will pay the entire costs of their own health care you are wrong, that's the point and cause of needing a public option. The plan is to give "affordable" health care, whether that means that the people on the plan pay some or none of the cost. The remainder of the premium will be paid for, through higher income taxes, or the cost will be lowered by lowering physician wages. It's a lose-lose.

So are you saying that a subsidy put towards the purchase of public option insurance is tantamount to funding of the public option through taxes?

 

[Jolteon]

So are you saying that a subsidy put towards the purchase of public option insurance is tantamount to funding of the public option through taxes?

Essentially, yes.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Essentially, yes.

Nah, that's just silly. By the time you have extracted subsidy money from the government, handed it to one of the rather small number of eligible consumers, and then allowed that consumer to choose a private or public plan (which, don't forget, is projected to be more expensive), we are not talking about a free flow of tax money to prop up said public plan against prevailing market conditions. Which is what it sounded like you were talking about.

As written, the public option will most likely be a niche insurance provider that will sop up a rather small segment of society: uninsured people with some means but worse than average health.


As an aside, and as a future provider, would you support a tax on the wealthy in order to end the billions of dollars in unreimbursed care that is given out by providers each year?

 

[randombetch]

Nah, that's just silly. By the time you have extracted subsidy money from the government, handed it to one of the rather small number of eligible consumers, and then allowed that consumer to choose a private or public plan (which, don't forget, is projected to be more expensive), we are not talking about a free flow of tax money to prop up said public plan against prevailing market conditions. Which is what it sounded like you were talking about.

As written, the public option will most likely be a niche insurance provider that will sop up a rather small segment of society: uninsured people with some means but worse than average health.


As an aside, and as a future provider, would you support a tax on the wealthy in order to end the billions of dollars in unreimbursed care that is given out by providers each year?

F*** no, I'd support finding a way to make care get reimbursed more efficiently.

 

[Parts Unknown]

F*** no, I'd support finding a way to make care get reimbursed more efficiently.

So you think the problem in unreimbursed care is payment efficiency. Interesting.

 

[Global Warming]

So you think the problem in unreimbursed care is payment efficiency. Interesting.

Honestly...I think PU has much more knowledge on this situation than us pre-meds.

 

[goldandapager]

Being thick-headed is contagious on SDN. OP is a troll.