The Sanders Tax Plan...the end of physician life as we know it?

[Kazaki]

The bit that you're missing out on (and this has nothing to do with your IMG status), is that its immoral to legislate the right of someone else to the money that you earned. Want to make more money? Good, work more. Want to make more money and give it away because somebody else said you "had to"? - Doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. I busted my @ss to enjoy the money that I earn and the life that I live. I don't "owe" it to anyone else because they "can't have the same things".

To quote Veers (and I love saying this to people when "politics" breaks out at the pub): "The government is not the fairness nanny."

If I want to give my money away to a charitable organization; I can do that... but I will not be mandated to do that.

I only said that I was an IMG to make it clear that I might not fully understand American politics or your tax system.
So essentially what you're saying is that we should abolish the taxation system. Good lets do that. No more roads, schools, hospitals, oh and certainly no more money to fund the countless wars that have been created to make more money that goes to the 1%. Right?
What Americans have forgotten (or so it seems) is that governments take tax money to provide services to the people that elected them. What do you get from your government as an American? Free housing? You wish. Free eduction? This post wouldn't exist if that were half true. Free healthcare? *insert joke*
You have the opportunity, for the first time in our lifetimes, to elect someone that isn't owned by wall street or big corporations, who wants to level out the playing field in terms of income tax, who wants to provide your people with free education so that your kids don't graduate as doctors with a 300k debt that'll cripple them for 5-10 years after they graduate, who wants to provide people with affordable healthcare so that they wouldn't have to sell a kidney on the black market to pay for the cost of an emergency room visit. Yeah Sanders is one big communist a**hole for wanting to do that. Increasing income tax by 4% isn't really going to make you poor now is it? You're still going to enjoy the money you're going to get, which isn't really going to be affected that much. So you make 190k instead of 200k after tax. Those 800 dollars a month are sure going to cripple your investment opportunities. No. It won't actually make a big difference. Income tax in the US isn't more than 50% of income like in some european countries.
I honestly don't understand why people would rather put their trust in the same c*nts on wall street (hilary) that screwed you, AND THE ENTIRE WORLD, over in 08, over someone who (at least seems to be) is a genuine a politician as I'll ever see.
I dunno to me it seems straight forward. Am I missing something that isn't being said on the news?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RustedFox]

I only said that I was an IMG to make it clear that I might not fully understand American politics or your tax system.
So essentially what you're saying is that we should abolish the taxation system. Good lets do that. No more roads, schools, hospitals, oh and certainly no more money to fund the countless wars that have been created to make more money that goes to the 1%. Right?
What Americans have forgotten (or so it seems) is that governments take tax money to provide services to the people that elected them. What do you get from your government as an American? Free housing? You wish. Free eduction? This post wouldn't exist if that were half true. Free healthcare? *insert joke*
You have the opportunity, for the first time in our lifetimes, to elect someone that isn't owned by wall street or big corporations, who wants to level out the playing field in terms of income tax, who wants to provide your people with free education so that your kids don't graduate as doctors with a 300k debt that'll cripple them for 5-10 years after they graduate, who wants to provide people with affordable healthcare so that they wouldn't have to sell a kidney on the black market to pay for the cost of an emergency room visit. Yeah Sanders is one big communist a**hole for wanting to do that. Increasing income tax by 4% isn't really going to make you poor now is it? You're still going to enjoy the money you're going to get, which isn't really going to be affected that much. So you make 190k instead of 200k after tax. Those 800 dollars a month are sure going to cripple your investment opportunities. No. It won't actually make a big difference. Income tax in the US isn't more than 50% of income like in some european countries.
I honestly don't understand why people would rather put their trust in the same c*nts on wall street (hilary) that screwed you over in 08, over someone who (at least seems to be) is a genuine a politician as I'll ever see.
I dunno to me it seems straight forward. Am I missing something that isn't being said on the news?

I'm out at the pub just now, spending my money in the way I want instead of giving it away at gunpoint.

I will entertain you a touch later, but that 800 a month is actually huge. I could be out of debt a lot faster throwing an extra 800/month at it. I can buy health insurance for my family with it. But if I am forced to give it away... Then I must reconsider my financial allocations.

 

[Kazaki]

I could be out of debt a lot faster

Debt that you won't have

I can buy health insurance for my family with it

Insurance that you won't need

instead of giving it away at gunpoint.

You still pay tax don't you?

 

[filhodeinferno]

Debt that you won't have

That ship has sailed. Bernie's not taking that away.

 

[GoldenFish]

The bit that you're missing out on (and this has nothing to do with your IMG status), is that its immoral to legislate the right of someone else to the money that you earned. Want to make more money? Good, work more. Want to make more money and give it away because somebody else said you "had to"? - Doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. I busted my @ss to enjoy the money that I earn and the life that I live. I don't "owe" it to anyone else because they "can't have the same things".

To quote Veers (and I love saying this to people when "politics" breaks out at the pub): "The government is not the fairness nanny."

And you busted your ass and earned what you did in a system with resources that you and others take advantage of regularly. Payment for public services, infrastructure etc. That's not to say there isn't money wasted under the governemnt, but tax money is definitely used to support vital things in society. In no way will slightly higher taxes disincentivize hard work - if you work harder, you'll still make more.

Another viewpoint on the role of goverment is to step in and provide balance when the scales have been tipped. Corporate profits are at record highs, the super rich pay less of their income taxes than in nearly the last century while the poor pay more (in terms of sales tax etc) with shrinking incomes, and our elections are subjugated to massive corporate funding thanks to the disastrous Citizens United. Things are definitely unfair, to the point where if someone born into a bad hand works hard, they absolutely can not have it all. It has little to do with hard work at some levels and much more to do with how the deck is stacked. Due to the way money influences politics, the policies have been rigged so that super-rich can keep getting richer. They're the ones pocketing the money in the country, not the poor, not the middle class, and not even doctors.

 

[airball]

I would be amazingly unhappy making 75k doing the maddening things that I do at work. Matter of fact, I'd quit outright and make more doing less risky things with no nights or weekends. This is old hat, though.

but that 800 a month is actually huge. I could be out of debt a lot faster throwing an extra 800/month at it.

I never said that EM docs only deserve 75k for what they do, simply that according to a study there was no increase in happiness above 75k of income. Who knows what I will feel like is adequate compensation. You can take the medscape physician compensation report for what it's worth but EM was in the top 3 for "feeling fairly compensated" at 60%...this is of course a snapshot of EM docs who responded to the survey (they reported annual income of 322k)

To your second point, how do you think got the education you needed to get to medical school? Who paid for the roads to get you to school? Now that you made it you don't want to invest in the same system that got you to where you are. If that's not privilege then I don't know what is.

Spoken like a true "we make too much money anyway as doctors" medical student. Start wading through the dregs of residency and you'll start to see why you deserve far more than 75K/year.

See above and actually I think we don't make enough especially to cover ourselves with all the various types of insurances and the amount of loans most students have

 

[Birdstrike]

In regards to whoever mention Snopes and factcheck.org, remember, those are run by people. Although we should question information, it's truthfulness and source biases, we must remember that "fact checkers" aren't above being questioned either. If I'm not mistaken, snopes turned out to run by some mom & pop on their couch who had a cat but no investigative background, and had their own political biases and a track record of errors of their own.

http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html?m=1

Although these sites can be fun, and are helpful quickly debunking grandpa's email that says Vladimir Putin carries alien DNA and Kim Jong-un shot a 37, -35 under par on his first ever round of golf, they're still run by humans with no less propensity for error, bias or untruthfulness.

After all, who "fact checks" the fact checkers?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

My problem is the FURTHER tax HIKE on earned income.
Taxes should be on capital gains/profits. Reduce spending.
Instead, this will increase taxes, and increase spending.

I guess college tuition has sky-rocketed since the 9 years I graduated from college. Maybe it has more to do with people wanting to go to big name university/college and major in something that "they love" and end up finding out they can't get a job to cover basic expenses nonetheless their debt. There is nothing wrong going to a state university with tuition being covered or even starting out at a 2 year institution and then going to a 4 year college if you can't afford the 4 year college upfront. I definitely appreciate growing up in the South where public state university was 10k for 4 years. I had the choice to go to schools like Wash U, Illinois institute of Technology, etc and even the bigger universities within my state. Instead, I went to a small public university, majored in something worthwhile and came out with no debt before going to med school.

 

[Birdstrike]

Although I generally think its a bad idea to discuss religion or politics online, and in general, some of the above comments on immigration reminded me of something. I remember being preached to by professors in college about the coming "Global Overpopulation Crisis" which at that time was the Armageddon-scenario flavor of the month.

They were constantly preaching about how anything that would increase US (or world) population would be devastating, cataclysmic, in fact, and eventually contribute to deadly and irreversible mass famines, water shortages and mass epidemics due to overwhelmed health care systems. In this setting, any immigration or population growth was seen as forbidden, voodoo, forbidden and potentially cataclysmic. That all lasted about as long as it became apparent that 2/3 or more of the immigrant population could reliably be counted upon to vote Democrat and for left wing politicians. Then all of a sudden, no one on the political Left gave a s--t about overpopulation or mass immigration's contribution to this particular armageddon scenario and I haven't heard it mentioned in 20 some years. I suspect it'll come back around once it finds a political purpose with some agenda driven group.

Bottom line: everything is political. Coming "crises" and especially "Armageddon-like" scenarios are low hanging fruit for the politicians to manipulate the malleable masses. The Left does it, and the political Right does it, also. I've lived long enough (early 40's) to take these doomsday scenarios with a grain of salt. When I was a little kid, it was the coming Ice Age which I mentioned above. Also, at that time, nuclear holocaust was going to kill us all. Reagan was going to kill us, then the Soviet Union was going to kill, then they both were going to kill each other. Then it was mass species extinction. Then Global warming. Then "Climate change." Then round 1 of Ebola was going to kill us all (remember the book/movie "The Hot Zone"?), then terrorism, then an Asteroid was going to hit Earth and kill us all, but not before 3/4 of the Earth's dormant volcanos would explode and put us right next to Barnie & his dinosaur friends in the fossil record. Then Y2K was going to lead to the crash of all computer systems world wide, lead to mass power outages, shut down water purification plants, deaths in hospitals from destroyed power grid and eventually loss of back up generators. Then biological weapons. Then Ebola 2.0 happened a couple of years ago. Now it's the "Rise of artificial intelligence and death by autopilot robots overtaking the Earth." I could go on.

You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt, have a long view about it, and always look for the ulterior motive in these "movements," because there almost always is one, and it's usually some sort of benefit to the one's spouting off about the issue (usually money, power or both) much more so than about any sort of altruistic benefit to humanity (although, it's always sold that way.)

 

[Angry Birds]

In regards to whoever mention Snopes and factcheck.org, remember, those are run by people. Although we should question information, it's truthfulness and source biases, we must remember that "fact checkers" aren't above being questioned either. If I'm not mistaken, snopes turned out to run by some mom & pop on their couch who had a cat but no investigative background, and had their own political biases and a track record of errors of their own.

http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html?m=1

Although these sites can be fun, and are helpful quickly debunking grandpa's email that says Vladimir Putin carries alien DNA and Kim Jong-un shot a 37, -35 under par on his first ever round of golf, they're still run by humans with no less propensity for error, bias or untruthfulness.

After all, who "fact checks" the fact checkers?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Birdstrike, as a Bird myself, I really do love you, but it's hard not to respond to the bolded part above.

The site you linked to is simply a right-wing, nutty conspiratorial web site. To use that to "refute" Snopes or FactCheck.org... C'mon, bro.

FactCheck.org is not a Mom & Pop shop, and certainly not a BlogSpot site like the link you gave. It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

Yes, humans work there, just like academic medical centers are run by human beings--and just like an anti-vaxxer can "refute" by posting a right wing nutty blogspot website...

As for Snopes, yes it is run by two individuals, but it has long since established its credibility and reliability. FactCheck--which we've agreed above is a substantial organization--weighed in on Snopes, deeming it reliable.

Here is a good assessment of it: Fact-checking the fact-checkers: Snopes.com gets an 'A'

The bolded part in your post is simply false:

FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.​

Snopes is accused of both liberal and conservative bias, but much more of a liberal bias, because conservative people believe a lot of nutty things, i.e. Obama is a Muslim, Obama was not born in the United States, climate change is made-up, etc. ..... This nuttiness is apparent in the website you linked to.

Snopes is awesome, and uncles & aunts should be commanded to reference it before posting anything on Facebook or sending an email forward. It should be the law.

 

[Birdstrike]

Birdstrike, as a Bird myself, I really do love you, but it's hard not to respond to the bolded part above.

The site you linked to is simply a right-wing, nutty conspiratorial web site. To use that to "refute" Snopes or FactCheck.org... C'mon, bro.

FactCheck.org is not a Mom & Pop shop, and certainly not a BlogSpot site like the link you gave. It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

Yes, humans work there, just like academic medical centers are run by human beings--and just like an anti-vaxxer can "refute" by posting a right wing nutty blogspot website...

As for Snopes, yes it is run by two individuals, but it has long since established its credibility and reliability. FactCheck--which we've agreed above is a substantial organization--weighed in on Snopes, deeming it reliable.

Here is a good assessment of it: Fact-checking the fact-checkers: Snopes.com gets an 'A'

The bolded part in your post is simply false:

FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.​

Snopes is accused of both liberal and conservative bias, but much more of a liberal bias, because conservative people believe a lot of nutty things, i.e. Obama is a Muslim, Obama was not born in the United States, climate change is made-up, etc. ..... This nuttiness is apparent in the website you linked to.

Snopes is awesome, and uncles & aunts should be commanded to reference it before posting anything on Facebook or sending an email forward. It should be the law.

Alright. You win: Internet fact check web sites are the ultimate arbiters of truth.

(/EndSarcFont)




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[RustedFox]

Ohhhhh-kay.

1.) Stop with the "taxes are good because of roads, schools, fire departments, etc" arguments. We all get that. At no point did I, or anyone else on here advocate for the abolition of all taxes. The fact that you point this out as an argument is telling.

2.) My objection to taxation as a mechanism to enable involuntary wealth redistribution is shared (and more eloquently parsed out) by so many other posters on here. I'm not going to re-tread these arguments. Once you actually pay taxes and play civil servant to those who can afford their meth and tattoo habit because you pay for their housing, childcare, healthcare, and (yes, even) cellphone... you'll understand. You'll even probably realize that you're not actually doing them any favors by enabling their poor choices.

3.) I have an inherent objection to government-mandated and structured healthcare plans when I can afford my own. I do not accept the "one size fits all" attitude and collectivism that are championed by so many of the "democratic socialists". If I want two "skin exams" in a year because I am high-risk, or because I feel that its indicated... I want the freedom to go and have that done. I object to "big brother" telling me that I can have one and only one of whatever, because "there's only so many to go around". I am in charge of my care and well-being; not big brother. They do not know me better than I know me.

4.) More arguments to come when appropriate. Goodnight.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Although I generally think its a bad idea to discuss religion or politics online, and in general, some of the above comments on immigration reminded me of something. I remember being preached to by professors in college about the coming "Global Overpopulation Crisis" which at that time was the Armageddon-scenario flavor of the month.

They were constantly preaching about how anything that would increase US (or world) population would be devastating, cataclysmic, in fact, and eventually contribute to deadly and irreversible mass famines, water shortages and mass epidemics due to overwhelmed health care systems. In this setting, any immigration or population growth was seen as forbidden, voodoo, forbidden and potentially cataclysmic. That all lasted about as long as it became apparent that 2/3 or more of the immigrant population could reliably be counted upon to vote Democrat and for left wing politicians. Then all of a sudden, no one on the political Left gave a s--t about overpopulation or mass immigration's contribution to this particular armageddon scenario and I haven't heard it mentioned in 20 some years. I suspect it'll come back around once it finds a political purpose with some agenda driven group.

Bottom line: everything is political. Coming "crises" and especially "Armageddon-like" scenarios are low hanging fruit for the politicians to manipulate the malleable masses. The Left does it, and the political Right does it, also. I've lived long enough (early 40's) to take these doomsday scenarios with a grain of salt. When I was a little kid, it was the coming Ice Age which I mentioned above. Also, at that time, nuclear holocaust was going to kill us all. Reagan was going to kill us, then the Soviet Union was going to kill, then they both were going to kill each other. Then it was mass species extinction. Then Global warming. Then "Climate change." Then round 1 of Ebola was going to kill us all (remember the book/movie "The Hot Zone"?), then terrorism, then an Asteroid was going to hit Earth and kill us all, but not before 3/4 of the Earth's dormant volcanos would explode and put us right next to Barnie & his dinosaur friends in the fossil record. Then Y2K was going to lead to the crash of all computer systems world wide, lead to mass power outages, shut down water purification plants, deaths in hospitals from destroyed power grid and eventually loss of back up generators. Then biological weapons. Then Ebola 2.0 happened a couple of years ago. Now it's the "Rise of artificial intelligence and death by autopilot robots overtaking the Earth." I could go on.

You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt, have a long view about it, and always look for the ulterior motive in these "movements," because there almost always is one, and it's usually some sort of benefit to the one's spouting off about the issue (usually money, power or both) much more so than about any sort of altruistic benefit to humanity (although, it's always sold that way.)

Your last statement is how I feel about Bernie Sanders and his "Democratic Socialism" stance and policies. Sounds ideal, but this is not an ideal country. Politicians are not ideal. People are not ideal.

A large central government that dictates education for all, healthcare for all, etc. There's lots of room for manipulation there. Monopolies are never good, unless you're in control of the monopoly.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Sanders has no chance of winning mathematically. Even if he won every state coming up, the proportionate delegate allocation means he would need nearly 65% of the vote in every state, which is not possible.

The only way he can win is if Hillary Clinton ends up in handcuffs, or at the very least if the FBI recommends an indictment.

At any rate, I'm completely against income taxes. The government should not take your private property as a consequence of being alive (also for the same reason I'm against the Obamacare mandate). We should have a VAT only of 20% on everything you buy. The exception would be food items, an clothing items of < $20.

 

[engineeredout]

Sanders has no chance of winning mathematically. Even if he won every state coming up, the proportionate delegate allocation means he would need nearly 65% of the vote in every state, which is not possible.

The only way he can win is if Hillary Clinton ends up in handcuffs, or at the very least if the FBI recommends an indictment.

At any rate, I'm completely against income taxes. The government should not take your private property as a consequence of being alive (also for the same reason I'm against the Obamacare mandate). We should have a VAT only of 20% on everything you buy. The exception would be food items, an clothing items of < $20.

Not to mention for any Sanders tax plans to be passed, the two houses of congress (of which all the members are in those high tax brackets) would have to be on board. Not seeing that happening anytime soon...

Larry David as Sanders persona should be president.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Sanders has no chance of winning mathematically. Even if he won every state coming up, the proportionate delegate allocation means he would need nearly 65% of the vote in every state, which is not possible.

The only way he can win is if Hillary Clinton ends up in handcuffs, or at the very least if the FBI recommends an indictment.

At any rate, I'm completely against income taxes. The government should not take your private property as a consequence of being alive (also for the same reason I'm against the Obamacare mandate). We should have a VAT only of 20% on everything you buy. The exception would be food items, an clothing items of < $20.

What's VAT?
I'm interested in the Panama Papers report - there's more names to be mentioned, and undoubtedly some will be American politicians. I wonder if the Clintons could be named.

 

[Angry Birds]

Larry David as Sanders persona should be president.

If you have the time to watch this, it is friggin' hilarious:

 

[GeneralVeers]

What's VAT?
I'm interested in the Panama Papers report - there's more names to be mentioned, and undoubtedly some will be American politicians. I wonder if the Clintons could be named.

Value Added Tax. Essentially a tax on goods/services paid by the consumer at the end. In Europe it typically runs 12-20% ON TOP of exhorbitant income taxes. It's a much "fairer" tax in that everyone pays, and if you buy luxury items or spend a lot you pay more. Politicians don't like it as much though. With the income tax they can pick winners and losers from the tax code in order to reward special interests and certain demographic groups.

If we really want money out of politics, a VAT instead of an income tax would go a long way to getting rid of influence peddling.

 

[Angry Birds]

DELETED

 

[Kazaki]

Ohhhhh-kay.

1.) Stop with the "taxes are good because of roads, schools, fire departments, etc" arguments. We all get that. At no point did I, or anyone else on here advocate for the abolition of all taxes. The fact that you point this out as an argument is telling.

2.) My objection to taxation as a mechanism to enable involuntary wealth redistribution is shared (and more eloquently parsed out) by so many other posters on here. I'm not going to re-tread these arguments. Once you actually pay taxes and play civil servant to those who can afford their meth and tattoo habit because you pay for their housing, childcare, healthcare, and (yes, even) cellphone... you'll understand. You'll even probably realize that you're not actually doing them any favors by enabling their poor choices.

3.) I have an inherent objection to government-mandated and structured healthcare plans when I can afford my own. I do not accept the "one size fits all" attitude and collectivism that are championed by so many of the "democratic socialists". If I want two "skin exams" in a year because I am high-risk, or because I feel that its indicated... I want the freedom to go and have that done. I object to "big brother" telling me that I can have one and only one of whatever, because "there's only so many to go around". I am in charge of my care and well-being; not big brother. They do not know me better than I know me.

4.) More arguments to come when appropriate. Goodnight.

So paying for the future generation's education is wealth redistribution? I think you're just really hooked on the good ol capitalism.
I'm Australian, trust me I know what it means when I see worthless people taking money from the government, spending it all on drugs and alcohol, living on the street begging for more money until they can go take some more of my hard earned money. BUT! I know that university fees are subsidised by my money. I know that healthcare is subsidised by money, and that doesn't stop me from having private health insurance that goes above and beyond what the government provides for us (which I do). So the healthcare argument doesn't really make sense, you'd still have enough money to go buy your own health insurance if that's what you want.

 

[GeneralVeers]

So paying for the future generation's education is wealth redistribution? I think you're just really hooked on the good ol capitalism.
I'm Australian, trust me I know what it means when I see worthless people taking money from the government, spending it all on drugs and alcohol, living on the street begging for more money until they can go take some more of my hard earned money. BUT! I know that university fees are subsidised by my money. I know that healthcare is subsidised by money, and that doesn't stop me from having private health insurance that goes above and beyond what the government provides for us (which I do). So the healthcare argument doesn't really make sense, you'd still have enough money to go buy your own health insurance if that's what you want.

We have wealth distribution in the U.S. but it's not in the way you think. In the U.S. we take from the young and poor, and spend money on the old and wealthy. Within 20 years, the entire GDP of the United States will go towards housing, food, retirement, and healthcare for those over 65. It's frightening to think about, but we could cut all infrastructure, education, and military spending and it STILL won't be enough to pay for all the retirees. Young people indeed should be angry, but not at the lack of free education. They should be angry about their wealth being siphoned off by their grandparents and parents into programs that are unsustainable, and overly generous.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

So paying for the future generation's education is wealth redistribution? I think you're just really hooked on the good ol capitalism.
I'm Australian, trust me I know what it means when I see worthless people taking money from the government, spending it all on drugs and alcohol, living on the street begging for more money until they can go take some more of my hard earned money. BUT! I know that university fees are subsidised by my money. I know that healthcare is subsidised by money, and that doesn't stop me from having private health insurance that goes above and beyond what the government provides for us (which I do). So the healthcare argument doesn't really make sense, you'd still have enough money to go buy your own health insurance if that's what you want.

So, you enjoy giving away your hard earned money just to have to buy your own insurance because what the gov't offers is bare bones and crappy? Gotcha.

The quality of education has dropped considerably ever since the gov't took over education and "standardized it." I just heard yesterday how people in school don't learn CURSIVE and think of it as a foreign language. Sentence diagramming? What's that?! They no longer do that, either. Common Core (I know, state funded, not exactly "federally mandated" - except that it was created due to the heavy monetary incentives that states would receive by adopting a standardized formula for educating youths - this grant money was coming from the federal gov't, I.e. Rise to the Top) is pure stupidity from everything I have seen and heard.

When you have a centralized gov't subsidizing anything, and in control of everything, the idea that it'll be QUALITY is out the window. It's about bare bones necessity to cover the masses, fight it and it will fight you and destroy you. This is how communism is born. Is it any wonder why Socialism never truly succeeds? Don't bring up the Nordic nations, they have a smaller and a less diverse population and they have their financial taps on oil, etc.

Subsidized healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) sucks. Gov't style healthcare (VA) sucks. Subsidized education (Common Core) sucks, whether it be directly from the state or indirectly from the federal gov't. Because of ACA, my insurance premiums are higher and my deductibles even higher. I pay for stuff I don't even need indirectly. Higher copays, and everything requires a goddamn prior auth.

Learning sentence structure or cursive is not a necessity, but it's something everyone should be exposed to and learn while in school. We shall continue to engage instead on text speak "bc it b ez."

 

[Kazaki]

We have wealth distribution in the U.S. but it's not in the way you think. In the U.S. we take from the young and poor, and spend money on the old and wealthy. Within 20 years, the entire GDP of the United States will go towards housing, food, retirement, and healthcare for those over 65. It's frightening to think about, but we could cut all infrastructure, education, and military spending and it STILL won't be enough to pay for all the retirees. Young people indeed should be angry, but not at the lack of free education. They should be angry about their wealth being siphoned off by their grandparents and parents into programs that are unsustainable, and overly generous.

Well I wasn't aware of that, you make an interesting point but I doubt that it'll play out in the way you mentioned. We'll have to wait and see I guess.

So, you enjoy giving away your hard earned money just to have to buy your own insurance because what the gov't offers is bare bones and crappy? Gotcha.

What my government offers in terms of healthcare and education is 1000000x better than what the US government will ever offers citizens. It's by no means bare minimum. I have private health insurance because I need extra dental coverage because I've got effed up teeth, once I'm done fixing them, I have no need for private health insurance.
Healthcare in the US cannot be compared to that in Australia, New Zealand, England, or Europe. Governments pay for healthcare in those countries, but people have better quality of life, higher life expectancy, and the disease burden is way lower than its is in the US. So the idea that a government subsidised healthcare system will only work to keep people alive regardless of the quality of their lives is bs.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Well I wasn't aware of that, you make an interesting point but I doubt that it'll play out in the way you mentioned. We'll have to wait and see I guess.


What my government offers in terms of healthcare and education is 1000000x better than what the US government will ever offers citizens. It's by no means bare minimum. I have private health insurance because I need extra dental coverage because I've got effed up teeth, once I'm done fixing them, I have no need for private health insurance.
Healthcare in the US cannot be compared to that in Australia, New Zealand, England, or Europe. Governments pay for healthcare in those countries, but people have better quality of life, higher life expectancy, and the disease burden is way lower than its is in the US. So the idea that a government subsidised healthcare system will only work to keep people alive regardless of the quality of their lives is bs.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the lack of a fast food joint at every corner.

 

[Birdstrike]

Of all the pie in the sky nonsense, that the politicians convince people to vote for that will never affect them, tax rates absolutely will affect us directly. And after spending decades to get where I am, working long hours studying for no pay, then working longer hours for minimal pay (as a resident) then a decade later still paying off loans I took out, just so I could not get paid for all those years, voting for any tax increase ever, anywhere, for any reason is an anathema to me.

I've worked so hard, so long to get where I am, it takes on enough importance for me that, I'm almost to the point of being a one-issue voter on it.

Propose to lower my taxes and I'll ignore about 10+ issues you're a total idiot in, and your five heads and that you have DNA from Martians. Propose to raise my taxes at all, for any reason, and you face a battle so uphill with me, you better pull some messiah-level sh¡t out of your bag of tricks, to even get me back on the fence about voting for you.

I've worked too hard, for too long, to just bleed out my income stream on a kiss and a promise that some politician is going to fix anything by stealing an extra $ ---- per year out of my bank account. I'm certain that money will most likely be wasted.

New taxes, changed taxes, added taxes almost ALWAYS come or go up, but seldom go down, and almost never go away.

If you all want to vote to be the sacrificial lamb to give more money to the government go right ahead. I'm happy to vote for lower taxes, every time. I don't care what party. Make that your siren song and I'll drop all loyalties, ignore ten other issues you swing and miss on, give you my vote and likely send you a check. It's the one issue I know will affect my life directly, certainly, tangibly and almost immediately in a real way. Most of these other pie in the sky issues they try to cloud the water with are nothing more than distractions, from my perspective.

Bottom line: Government will try to sell you on the social and "principles" stuff, but ultimately they want money from you to feed their system (both parties fill different troughs for feeding) to empower and enrich themselves and their cronies. They don't give away free stuff, not to doctors anyways, but only to their special interests (and it's not "free," we pay for it.) There's ALWAYS a price. And anything they "give," trust me, they already taken from you (in tax dollars) and "give back" after having taken a massive cut for themselves and their financiers and constituents. Having just prepared my 2015 tax bill, I've never been more convinced that taxes are numbers 1-100 on my list of issues of importance to me, and everything else starts at 101. Vote for your social stuff (that I probably agree with you on) but for me, when I go into that voting boot, I see my tax bill. I see what comes out of my monthly paycheck and there's no theory or "principle" no matter how idealistic sounding, that will take away from that the fact that I'm not voting to increase that amount. No way, no how, thanks for trying, but.....no.

 

[Kazaki]

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the lack of a fast food joint at every corner.

Throw away years of planning and public health initiatives taken by these countries. It's all gotta do with the fast food chains that force feed you guys crap yeah? No. It's because your government doesn't give a rat's arse about public health. Simple.
Thank you for your opinion, granted that most of the things you said make no sense. But please, no offence, either try to come up with a decent argument or allow someone more knowledgable and more articulate to try to do so because I'm honestly trying to understand the reason behind doctors opposing someone who wants to invest in healthcare.

 

[gro2001]

Value Added Tax. Essentially a tax on goods/services paid by the consumer at the end. In Europe it typically runs 12-20% ON TOP of exhorbitant income taxes. It's a much "fairer" tax in that everyone pays, and if you buy luxury items or spend a lot you pay more. Politicians don't like it as much though. With the income tax they can pick winners and losers from the tax code in order to reward special interests and certain demographic groups.

If we really want money out of politics, a VAT instead of an income tax would go a long way to getting rid of influence peddling.

I completely disagree that VAT can be honestly classified as more fair given that it is so regressive. It is only fair if you think regressive taxation is fair. I hope you don't.

Maybe (probably) you know this already, but just for the sake of clarity: taxes can be placed somewhere on the spectrum from regressive to progressive. Regressive taxes tend to affect the poor disproportionately and progressive taxes are ones which affect everyone proportionally. That is not the same thing as everyone paying the same tax rate. In fact, a 'flat tax' of everyone paying the same rate on their income is the most regressive form of taxation that is seriously discussed on a regular basis.

Why is everyone paying the same rate affecting the poor disproportionately? After all, doesn't it sound inherently fair if everyone pays the same rate? To demonstrate, consider this somewhat extreme and simplified example. Imagine we have a 30% flat tax rate on everyone. And consider 2 people in that economy:

1) Blue collar dude making 30k/year. Paying 10k in taxes leaving him 20k is HARD.
2) White collar dude making 300k/year. Even though he is paying 100k in taxes, he has 200k of post tax income left, which is much LESS HARD.

Progressive taxation argues that these two people should be in different tax brackets. It would go something like:

1) Blue collar dude making 30k/year, pays 15% tax leaving him 25k, better off than he was before.
2) White collar dude making 300k/yea pays 40% leaving him 180k, slightly worse off.

The ethical argument of progressive taxation asserts that the white collar dude is only slightly worse off than he was before (even though he lost more money than the poor dude gained) because an extra 20k loss doesn't hurt nearly as much at that income as 5k at the low income. This may be difficult to intuitively understand for anyone who has not been both poor and well off in their lifetimes

Now the most progressive form of taxation imaginable, would be to tax them to the point that they are both taking home equal pay, but no serious/credible economists are advocating that.

Hopefully that shows why most people who understand the issue think that progressive is the more ethical approach to taxation. If you agree with that statement, then you just have to consider marginal spending rates for poor and rich people. When you are poor, you are spending 100% of any income (or more, if you are going into debt), therefore 100% of your income is tax liable. If you are better off, you have the option of not spending your entire income, so only a smaller portion of your income is tax liable under a pure VAT system. If you say that 'everyone has the option of not spending 100% of their income' then you have not been poor I guess, because otherwise that would be self evident.

 

[bravotwozero]

Value Added Tax. Essentially a tax on goods/services paid by the consumer at the end. In Europe it typically runs 12-20% ON TOP of exhorbitant income taxes. It's a much "fairer" tax in that everyone pays, and if you buy luxury items or spend a lot you pay more. Politicians don't like it as much though. With the income tax they can pick winners and losers from the tax code in order to reward special interests and certain demographic groups.

If we really want money out of politics, a VAT instead of an income tax would go a long way to getting rid of influence peddling.

VAT would disproportionately affect the poor, no? And I'm pretty sure putting and end to special interest groups donating millions to politicians will do more to get money out of politics. Getting rid of income taxes does not eliminate that practice.

 

[Brahnold Bloodaxe]

Of all the pie in the sky nonsense, that the politicians convince people to vote for that will never affect them, tax rates absolutely will affect us directly. And after spending decades to get where I am, working long hours studying for no pay, then working longer hours for minimal pay (as a resident) then a decade later still paying off loans I took out, just so I could not get paid for all those years, voting for any tax increase ever, anywhere, for any reason is an anathema to me.

I've worked so hard, so long to get where I am, it takes on enough importance for me that, I'm almost to the point of being a one-issue voter on it.

Propose to lower my taxes and I'll ignore about 10+ issues you're a total idiot in, and your five heads and that you have DNA from Martians. Propose to raise my taxes at all, for any reason, and you face a battle so uphill with me, you better pull some messiah-level sh¡t out of your bag of tricks, to even get me back on the fence about voting for you.

I've worked too hard, for too long, to just bleed out my income stream on a kiss and a promise that some politician is going to fix anything by stealing an extra $ ---- per year out of my bank account. I'm certain that money will most likely be wasted.

New taxes, changed taxes, added taxes almost ALWAYS come or go up, but seldom go down, and almost never go away.

If you all want to vote to be the sacrificial lamb to give more money to the government go right ahead. I'm happy to vote for lower taxes, every time. I don't care what party. Make that your siren song and I'll drop all loyalties, ignore ten other issues you swing and miss on, give you my vote and likely send you a check. It's the one issue I know will affect my life directly, certainly, tangibly and almost immediately in a real way. Most of these other pie in the sky issues they try to cloud the water with are nothing more than distractions, from my perspective.

Bottom line: Government will try to sell you on the social and "principles" stuff, but ultimately they want money from you to feed their system (both parties fill different troughs for feeding) to empower and enrich themselves and their cronies. They don't give away free stuff, not to doctors anyways, but only to their special interests (and it's not "free," we pay for it.) There's ALWAYS a price. And anything they "give," trust me, they already taken from you (in tax dollars) and "give back" after having taken a massive cut for themselves and their financiers and constituents. Having just prepared my 2015 tax bill, I've never been more convinced that taxes are numbers 1-100 on my list of issues of importance to me, and everything else starts at 101. Vote for your social stuff (that I probably agree with you on) but for me, when I go into that voting boot, I see my tax bill. I see what comes out of my monthly paycheck and there's no theory or "principle" no matter how idealistic sounding, that will take away from that the fact that I'm not voting to increase that amount. No way, no how, thanks for trying, but.....no.

It's also important to be at least a little bit strategic, because tax rates don't exist in a vacuum. There are issues which on the surface seem to have zero bearing on tax rates, but which on further analysis end up being intricately tied to how much money the government is going to steal from you long term. That is what I alluded to earlier in my immigration post. The demographic balance is already very unfavorable to whichever political party is perceived as being light on taxes and skimpy on gov benefits, and immigration is shifting that balance ever further in the wrong direction, to the extent that we will soon reach the point at which the party promising to offer the highest taxes and correspondingly generous benefits will always win. Lawd have mercy on our paychecks then.

Trade is another issue with similar implications. There are so few well paying jobs left out there due in part to offshoring, that more and more people just couldn't give a rat's ass about taxes because they don't make enough money to pay any. If we denude the labor market any further, then we will end up with a critical mass of voters who stand more to gain from increased taxation on "others" to get gov. benefits than they stand to lose from it, even without immigration.

To me, these issues are just as concretely personal as the current year's tax rate is to you, because they will certainly play a part in determining what the tax rate will be in the year 2023 and beyond when I start getting paid. The point is, I think it is a mistake to focus only on fiscal policy, because larger societal trends will determine whether the fiscal policy you favor is going to end up on the "right" side of history. You may not be interested in the world beyond your paycheck, but don't think for a minute that your paycheck will be unaffected by that world.

 

[Birdstrike]

It's also important to be at least a little bit strategic, because tax rates don't exist in a vacuum. There are issues which on the surface seem to have zero bearing on tax rates, but which on further analysis end up being intricately tied to how much money the government is going to steal from you long term. That is what I alluded to earlier in my immigration post. The demographic balance is already very unfavorable to whichever political party is perceived as being light on taxes and skimpy on gov benefits, and immigration is shifting that balance ever further in the wrong direction, to the extent that we will soon reach the point at which the party promising to offer the highest taxes and correspondingly generous benefits will always win. Lawd have mercy on our paychecks then.

Trade is another issue with similar implications. There are so few well paying jobs left out there due in part to offshoring, that more and more people just couldn't give a rat's ass about taxes because they don't make enough money to pay any. If we denude the labor market any further, then we will end up with a critical mass of voters who stand more to gain from increased taxation on "others" to get gov. benefits than they stand to lose from it, even without immigration.

To me, these issues are just as concretely personal as the current year's tax rate is to you, because they will certainly play a part in determining what the tax rate will be in the year 2023 and beyond when I start getting paid. The point is, I think it is a mistake to focus only on fiscal policy, because larger societal trends will determine whether the fiscal policy you favor is going to end up on the "right" side of history. You may not be interested in the world beyond your paycheck, but don't think for a minute that your paycheck will be unaffected by that world.

Sounds like we probably agree on much. But here's some real advice: Don't worry too much about Sander's tax plan. Candidates propose lots of things during campaigns, most of which never comes to fruition. But I agree, if enacted, it would be terrible for high earners. Terrible. His tax plan is absolutely, catastrophically terrible for people like you and I. We had tax rates that high before and it was such b---sh-t that so many loopholes were created just to get out of it, until this punitive insanity of it was finally acknowledged. See: Failed Carter presidency.

Could taxes go up in the future? Yes. If so, it would be a net loss for you and I. But I wouldn't worry too much on this specific tax plan ever becoming law. There's too many "ifs" between now and his tax plan ever becoming law, not to mention him being nominated, then elected, then law being unchanged, then passed. It's not likely to happen.

But if it did (and understand I'm 100% against his tax plan) you and I would survive. Get used to being a high-earning class-warfare target of the Left, "The greedy rich, who take take take from society" is how they play the card."

But ultimately, we'll be fine. We'll do the same thing we do now: pay a tax expert to do our taxes and find the least amount of taxes to pay and most deductions allowed within the law. We've always found a way to succeed and will continue to, whether or not socialist Sander's tightens the screws on us or not. Your best bet is on yourself.

We'll be fine.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[deltamed]

I completely disagree that VAT can be honestly classified as more fair given that it is so regressive. It is only fair if you think regressive taxation is fair. I hope you don't.

Maybe (probably) you know this already, but just for the sake of clarity: taxes can be placed somewhere on the spectrum from regressive to progressive. Regressive taxes tend to affect the poor disproportionately and progressive taxes are ones which affect everyone proportionally. That is not the same thing as everyone paying the same tax rate. In fact, a 'flat tax' of everyone paying the same rate on their income is the most regressive form of taxation that is seriously discussed on a regular basis.

Why is everyone paying the same rate affecting the poor disproportionately? After all, doesn't it sound inherently fair if everyone pays the same rate? To demonstrate, consider this somewhat extreme and simplified example. Imagine we have a 30% flat tax rate on everyone. And consider 2 people in that economy:

1) Blue collar dude making 30k/year. Paying 10k in taxes leaving him 20k is HARD.
2) White collar dude making 300k/year. Even though he is paying 100k in taxes, he has 200k of post tax income left, which is much LESS HARD.

Progressive taxation argues that these two people should be in different tax brackets. It would go something like:

1) Blue collar dude making 30k/year, pays 15% tax leaving him 25k, better off than he was before.
2) White collar dude making 300k/yea pays 40% leaving him 180k, slightly worse off.

The ethical argument of progressive taxation asserts that the white collar dude is only slightly worse off than he was before (even though he lost more money than the poor dude gained) because an extra 20k loss doesn't hurt nearly as much at that income as 5k at the low income. This may be difficult to intuitively understand for anyone who has not been both poor and well off in their lifetimes

Now the most progressive form of taxation imaginable, would be to tax them to the point that they are both taking home equal pay, but no serious/credible economists are advocating that.

Hopefully that shows why most people who understand the issue think that progressive is the more ethical approach to taxation. If you agree with that statement, then you just have to consider marginal spending rates for poor and rich people. When you are poor, you are spending 100% of any income (or more, if you are going into debt), therefore 100% of your income is tax liable. If you are better off, you have the option of not spending your entire income, so only a smaller portion of your income is tax liable under a pure VAT system. If you say that 'everyone has the option of not spending 100% of their income' then you have not been poor I guess, because otherwise that would be self evident.

VAT is only regressive if structured completely wrong so your argument is silly. Food, clothing under a certain price, utilities/rent etc would be excluded. If you are buying the basics to live you dont pay any taxes at all. If you are buying luxuries (as most well-off do) you pay a high percentage.

Now if you are making 30k and buying ipads and 200 dollar nike pumps (as i see many patients on medicaid with in clinic) thats your own fault and I have no sympathy. Self-responsibility.

If you make 400k and want to live frugally and not indulge in luxuries that should be your choice too- a bare minimum flat tax (say 5%) should cover roads, police, firefighters and military.

Anything beyond that is stealing money I earned and redistributing it (with incredible waste). Vat + a small flat tax makes perfect sense except to liberals. And it shouldnt penalize the poor who make good choices while incentivizing work rather the living off other people's labor.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[RustedFox]

So paying for the future generation's education is wealth redistribution? I think you're just really hooked on the good ol capitalism.
I'm Australian, trust me I know what it means when I see worthless people taking money from the government, spending it all on drugs and alcohol, living on the street begging for more money until they can go take some more of my hard earned money. BUT! I know that university fees are subsidised by my money. I know that healthcare is subsidised by money, and that doesn't stop me from having private health insurance that goes above and beyond what the government provides for us (which I do). So the healthcare argument doesn't really make sense, you'd still have enough money to go buy your own health insurance if that's what you want.

Ohhh-kayyy.

1.) Again, you're picking out tax-subsidized items which are generally well agreed upon as beneficial to all. Stop picking "targets" that I omit for brevity and pointing the finger of ignorance at me. Again, its telling.

2.) Yes, I still have "enough money" to go buy my own health insurance... if that's what I want. I still object to being forced to buy other people's health insurance thru taxation, especially as those taxes reach invasive proportions as our population gets "sicker on the whole". Healthcare is a different beast. I make good and healthy choices in an effort to preserve my own well-being and longevity. Many do not. I do not feel the need to be financially responsible for the consequences of other people's poor choices. Want to have a lifestyle of cigarettes, fast food, and inactivity? Enjoy; I'm just not responsible for your poor outcomes and their associated costs.

3.) Public health efforts are noble things, to be sure. That's fine and well and good. I'd like to see some data that its failed public health efforts that have resulted in Americans being so uniquely unhealthy, rather than other cultural/societal factors and norms. I would love for America to achieve better health outcomes such as those enjoyed by many other nations - but you see, its much more difficult to manage a varied and diverse population of 320 million than a more homogeneous and localized population of many of those other nations. The problem as I see it, isn't a "government one" - but rather a "cultural one".

Your assertion that I'm hooked on "the good ol capitalism" is clever. I'd much rather be hooked on capitalism (try this; "self-reliant") than be suckling at the teat of big brother out of necessity.

 

[gro2001]

VAT is only regressive if structured completely wrong so your argument is silly. Food, clothing under a certain price, utilities/rent etc would be excluded. If you are buying the basics to live you dont pay any taxes at all. If you are buying luxuries (as most well-off do) you pay a high percentage.

Now if you are making 30k and buying ipads and 200 dollar nike pumps (as i see many patients on medicaid with in clinic) thats your own fault and I have no sympathy. Self-responsibility.

If you make 400k and want to live frugally and not indulge in luxuries that should be your choice too- a bare minimum flat tax (say 5%) should cover roads, police, firefighters and military.

Anything beyond that is stealing money I earned and redistributing it (with incredible waste). Vat + a small flat tax makes perfect sense except to liberals. And it shouldnt penalize the poor who make good choices while incentivizing work rather the living off other people's labor.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

You are partly right. You are right in the sense that a variable VAT system (ex: 0% on essential goods, 20% on luxuries, 10% on everything else) can be made to be slightly less regressive than a flat VAT, though with the amount of influence/lobbying available to special interest groups I am skeptical as to the degree this mechanism can realistically be implemented in our political system. But yes, in theory a VAT system can be made slightly less regressive. If you consider marginal spending rates however, it becomes clear that it is still a regressive form of taxation compared to our current bracketed income tax system because the poor spend a greater percentage of their income than do rich people, and can not really avoid doing it. There is an income level below which even with the best possible choices you are living paycheck to paycheck and many people are below that level. Yes, it is possible to make 200k and still live paycheck to paycheck but it is impossible to make 30k and not. The VAT does not distribute the burden equally. It distributes it more heavily on the poor.

There is another argument that could and has been made on the relative regressivity of the VAT, looking at spending distribution over time. It's a little complex so I don't want to go into the theory too much, but basically if in your model you extend time to infinity the VAT becomes just as regressive/progressive as any other tax system because EVENTUALLY the chance of any particular dollar being spent approaches 1. However, in reality (human lifespans being less than infinite) that is not the case.

 

[gro2001]

Ohhh-kayyy.

1.) Again, you're picking out tax-subsidized items which are generally well agreed upon as beneficial to all. Stop picking "targets" that I omit for brevity and pointing the finger of ignorance at me. Again, its telling.

2.) Yes, I still have "enough money" to go buy my own health insurance... if that's what I want. I still object to being forced to buy other people's health insurance thru taxation, especially as those taxes reach invasive proportions as our population gets "sicker on the whole". Healthcare is a different beast. I make good and healthy choices in an effort to preserve my own well-being and longevity. Many do not. I do not feel the need to be financially responsible for the consequences of other people's poor choices. Want to have a lifestyle of cigarettes, fast food, and inactivity? Enjoy; I'm just not responsible for your poor outcomes and their associated costs.

3.) Public health efforts are noble things, to be sure. That's fine and well and good. I'd like to see some data that its failed public health efforts that have resulted in Americans being so uniquely unhealthy, rather than other cultural/societal factors and norms. I would love for America to achieve better health outcomes such as those enjoyed by many other nations - but you see, its much more difficult to manage a varied and diverse population of 320 million than a more homogeneous and localized population of many of those other nations. The problem as I see it, isn't a "government one" - but rather a "cultural one".

Your assertion that I'm hooked on "the good ol capitalism" is clever. I'd much rather be hooked on capitalism (try this; "self-reliant") than be suckling at the teat of big brother out of necessity.

Hey Fox, I may be misremembering but didn't you post a while back that you were glad for Obamacare's preexisting conditions provision that finally allowed you to get insured? Or was that another user? I thought you wrote about how your personal experience changed your approach to the mandate.

 

[RustedFox]

Hey Fox, I may be misremembering but didn't you post a while back that you were glad for Obamacare's preexisting conditions provision that finally allowed you to get insured? Or was that another user? I thought you wrote about how your personal experience changed your approach to the mandate.

Correct. I have a pre-existing condition that would otherwise prohibit me from purchasing *any* private-market insurance That was a provision that needed to change. My pre-existing is an autoimmune condition that is clearly not a result of lifestyle choices, etc. The difference is; I'm bringing my own hard-earned money to the insurers and desiring to buy a product at full-price, and I am well aware that my condition will make my insurance more expensive. I am not, however - looking to cost-shift the consequences of the preventable illnesses of some onto the masses thru a mandate. Furthermore, I have stated on multiple occasions that the "healthcare requirement" feature of the ACA is unethical, as it creates a scenario in which a governing body is now telling you how to spend your own private property (money). If you choose to not purchase insurance, then you should have that right to choose as such.

The ACA mess would have never been necessary if insurance companies wouldn't have put their corporate greed and expanding bloat before the needs of their members. Now, we have a sub-optimal solution that only fixes a few facets of the original problem. We can have a better solution than the ACA that doesn't exclude or marginalize people who are very "insurable".

The really funny part of my "personal experience" was that it was my WIFE (who was by most measures; healthier than I was on paper) who had a rougher time getting coverage than me for obviously ridiculous reasons. That illustrates just how backwards the insurance companies had it. Profits before people.

 

[hoot504]

VAT is only regressive if structured completely wrong so your argument is silly. Food, clothing under a certain price, utilities/rent etc would be excluded. If you are buying the basics to live you dont pay any taxes at all. If you are buying luxuries (as most well-off do) you pay a high percentage.

Now if you are making 30k and buying ipads and 200 dollar nike pumps (as i see many patients on medicaid with in clinic) thats your own fault and I have no sympathy. Self-responsibility.

If you make 400k and want to live frugally and not indulge in luxuries that should be your choice too- a bare minimum flat tax (say 5%) should cover roads, police, firefighters and military.

Anything beyond that is stealing money I earned and redistributing it (with incredible waste). Vat + a small flat tax makes perfect sense except to liberals. And it shouldnt penalize the poor who make good choices while incentivizing work rather the living off other people's labor.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

I have to point out something. I'm a self-avowed Liberal. I practically throw up in my mouth when I think about the Republican party and Conservative thinking in general. I read Jacobin mag for chrissakes. But it's incredible how quickly residency can make you start to sympathize with posts like above.

I guess my point is, any liberal-minded medical students on here who are reading the above... reserve judgement until you're out in 'the real world'.

 

[Silent Cool]

What would happen to current student loans under Sanders's plan?

 

[Silent Cool]

communism =/= socialism

It's pretty common to afraid of things you don't understand. Knowledge is power!

Try cracking a history book once in awhile:

 

[Silent Cool]

.

 

[Silent Cool]

communism =/= socialism

It's pretty common to afraid of things you don't understand. Knowledge is power!

 

[Kazaki]

Ohhh-kayyy.

1.) Again, you're picking out tax-subsidized items which are generally well agreed upon as beneficial to all. Stop picking "targets" that I omit for brevity and pointing the finger of ignorance at me. Again, its telling.

2.) Yes, I still have "enough money" to go buy my own health insurance... if that's what I want. I still object to being forced to buy other people's health insurance thru taxation, especially as those taxes reach invasive proportions as our population gets "sicker on the whole". Healthcare is a different beast. I make good and healthy choices in an effort to preserve my own well-being and longevity. Many do not. I do not feel the need to be financially responsible for the consequences of other people's poor choices. Want to have a lifestyle of cigarettes, fast food, and inactivity? Enjoy; I'm just not responsible for your poor outcomes and their associated costs.

3.) Public health efforts are noble things, to be sure. That's fine and well and good. I'd like to see some data that its failed public health efforts that have resulted in Americans being so uniquely unhealthy, rather than other cultural/societal factors and norms. I would love for America to achieve better health outcomes such as those enjoyed by many other nations - but you see, its much more difficult to manage a varied and diverse population of 320 million than a more homogeneous and localized population of many of those other nations. The problem as I see it, isn't a "government one" - but rather a "cultural one".

Your assertion that I'm hooked on "the good ol capitalism" is clever. I'd much rather be hooked on capitalism (try this; "self-reliant") than be suckling at the teat of big brother out of necessity.

I really don't understand what your point is.
I was always told that Americans are stupid and that I shouldn't bother arguing with them. This sort of shows me why. Australia isn't the USSR, we don't have a nanny state that takes care of everything for us. Capitalism is alive and well down under I assure you, and we're as self reliant as any other developed nation. But see the difference between us is that you don't want to sacrifice a little for the benefit of the entire population. Which is weird because since we're doctors and all, I assumed (how dumb of me) that we were in this to help people.

 

[Silent Cool]

What's VAT?
I'm interested in the Panama Papers report - there's more names to be mentioned, and undoubtedly some will be American politicians. I wonder if the Clintons could be named.

https://armoryoftherevolution.wordp...ns-have-three-accounts-in-the-cayman-islands/

 

[RustedFox]

I really don't understand what your point is.
I was always told that Americans are stupid and that I shouldn't bother arguing with them. This sort of shows me why. Australia isn't the USSR, we don't have a nanny state that takes care of everything for us. Capitalism is alive and well down under I assure you, and we're as self reliant as any other developed nation. But see the difference between us is that you don't want to sacrifice a little for the benefit of the entire population. Which is weird because since we're doctors and all, I assumed (how dumb of me) that we were in this to help people.

I'm pretty sure that you get my point. Its not hard to grasp.

Capitalism is alive and well down under; great. So, why are you so vocal about the glorious benefits of your state-run social/communist healthcare system?

Your last sentence; spoken like a true medical student.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Throw away years of planning and public health initiatives taken by these countries. It's all gotta do with the fast food chains that force feed you guys crap yeah? No. It's because your government doesn't give a rat's arse about public health. Simple.
Thank you for your opinion, granted that most of the things you said make no sense. But please, no offence, either try to come up with a decent argument or allow someone more knowledgable and more articulate to try to do so because I'm honestly trying to understand the reason behind doctors opposing someone who wants to invest in healthcare.

Oh yes, public health initiatives.
Give me a break.
If all you have is cheap, low nutrient, caloric dense foods available on the cheap at every corner do you think most poor folks with their iPhones supplied by the gov't is going to pay extra for good quality, healthy food options? No. There's a BK, McDs at every corner, name your favorite cheap TV dinner readily available at the local Walmart. The poor food choices in this country is what has led to the epidemic we now have. It wasn't the case 40-50 years ago. European and Asian countries buying into the Western diet have shown a similar rise in obesity and similar comorbid diseases.
Did our Public Health initiatives suddenly disappear? Hell no. If anything, it's become more prominent.

Don't kid yourself. All our issues would mostly disappear if we had better food options that were cheaper or if individuals below the poverty line would quit having multiple kids from multiple individuals and try to live a healthier life. Instead, it's how many kids can we have, when can we light up our next cig, and which McD's menu do we want to buy dinner from all the while collecting welfare checks.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

I really don't understand what your point is.
I was always told that Americans are stupid and that I shouldn't bother arguing with them. This sort of shows me why. Australia isn't the USSR, we don't have a nanny state that takes care of everything for us. Capitalism is alive and well down under I assure you, and we're as self reliant as any other developed nation. But see the difference between us is that you don't want to sacrifice a little for the benefit of the entire population. Which is weird because since we're doctors and all, I assumed (how dumb of me) that we were in this to help people.

Way to call all of us Americans stupid, stupid.

 

[Birdstrike]

I have to point out something. I'm a self-avowed Liberal. I practically throw up in my mouth when I think about the Republican party and Conservative thinking in general. I read Jacobin mag for chrissakes. But it's incredible how quickly residency can make you start to sympathize with posts like above.

I guess my point is, any liberal-minded medical students on here who are reading the above... reserve judgement until you're out in 'the real world'.

So true


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Birdstrike]

I really don't understand what your point is.
I was always told that Americans are stupid and that I shouldn't bother arguing with them. This sort of shows me why. Australia isn't the USSR, we don't have a nanny state that takes care of everything for us. Capitalism is alive and well down under I assure you, and we're as self reliant as any other developed nation. But see the difference between us is that you don't want to sacrifice a little for the benefit of the entire population. Which is weird because since we're doctors and all, I assumed (how dumb of me) that we were in this to help people.

What works for Australia may not work for the USA or all countries. That's alright. Stay where you're happy and where you feel it's best.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Birdstrike]

Which is weird because since we're doctors and all, I assumed (how dumb of me) that we were in this to help people.

Common political intimidation technique. Because one disagrees with another's viewpoint or proposal therefore they're "not in it to help people" and therefore are lesser or morally inferior.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[takeurmeds02]

Of all the pie in the sky nonsense, that the politicians convince people to vote for that will never affect them, tax rates absolutely will affect us directly. And after spending decades to get where I am, working long hours studying for no pay, then working longer hours for minimal pay (as a resident) then a decade later still paying off loans I took out, just so I could not get paid for all those years, voting for any tax increase ever, anywhere, for any reason is an anathema to me.

I've worked so hard, so long to get where I am, it takes on enough importance for me that, I'm almost to the point of being a one-issue voter on it.

Propose to lower my taxes and I'll ignore about 10+ issues you're a total idiot in, and your five heads and that you have DNA from Martians. Propose to raise my taxes at all, for any reason, and you face a battle so uphill with me, you better pull some messiah-level sh¡t out of your bag of tricks, to even get me back on the fence about voting for you.

I've worked too hard, for too long, to just bleed out my income stream on a kiss and a promise that some politician is going to fix anything by stealing an extra $ ---- per year out of my bank account. I'm certain that money will most likely be wasted.

New taxes, changed taxes, added taxes almost ALWAYS come or go up, but seldom go down, and almost never go away.

If you all want to vote to be the sacrificial lamb to give more money to the government go right ahead. I'm happy to vote for lower taxes, every time. I don't care what party. Make that your siren song and I'll drop all loyalties, ignore ten other issues you swing and miss on, give you my vote and likely send you a check. It's the one issue I know will affect my life directly, certainly, tangibly and almost immediately in a real way. Most of these other pie in the sky issues they try to cloud the water with are nothing more than distractions, from my perspective.

Bottom line: Government will try to sell you on the social and "principles" stuff, but ultimately they want money from you to feed their system (both parties fill different troughs for feeding) to empower and enrich themselves and their cronies. They don't give away free stuff, not to doctors anyways, but only to their special interests (and it's not "free," we pay for it.) There's ALWAYS a price. And anything they "give," trust me, they already taken from you (in tax dollars) and "give back" after having taken a massive cut for themselves and their financiers and constituents. Having just prepared my 2015 tax bill, I've never been more convinced that taxes are numbers 1-100 on my list of issues of importance to me, and everything else starts at 101. Vote for your social stuff (that I probably agree with you on) but for me, when I go into that voting boot, I see my tax bill. I see what comes out of my monthly paycheck and there's no theory or "principle" no matter how idealistic sounding, that will take away from that the fact that I'm not voting to increase that amount. No way, no how, thanks for trying, but.....no.

You guys have brought some amazing points and this thread has caused me to think a lot about how I would feel in each scenario presented. In regards to being a one-issue voter for a paycheck regardless of what else that candidate may spewing, that can present a challenge for some; particularly those people who have been targeted or have loved ones who have been targeted, either directly or indirectly, by the same bigotry that a candidate outwardly supports. If I were even close to being an attending, it wouldn't be such a no-brainer decision. In a way, voting for that person could prove an anathema to my experience. I certainly don't disagree with some of the points you've made because as a physician you've worked your ass to get to where you are and you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor but sometimes the answer isn't so cut and dry.

 

[deltamed]

I really don't understand what your point is.
I was always told that Americans are stupid and that I shouldn't bother arguing with them. This sort of shows me why. Australia isn't the USSR, we don't have a nanny state that takes care of everything for us. Capitalism is alive and well down under I assure you, and we're as self reliant as any other developed nation. But see the difference between us is that you don't want to sacrifice a little for the benefit of the entire population. Which is weird because since we're doctors and all, I assumed (how dumb of me) that we were in this to help people.

Before you get too high and mighty about "stupid yanks" please understand a few things. The US healthcare system has some major problems (mainly spending too much on futile care, unwillingness to ration care in a meaningful way and administrative bloat) for various cultural and historical reasons. Unfortunately, "progressive" taxes and how much doctors "care" about helping people here has almost nothing to do with that.

In addition, before you throw rocks think about how much money your country spends (in relation to gdp and the usa) on
1) medical education
2) military defense of other countries
3) drug and medical research
4) supporting immigrant populations

Healthcare outcome comparisons wont be fair until US citizens aren't subsidizing other countries by paying 100k for a hepatitis C drug that is then sold in another country for 100 bucks.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app