Will physicians be taxed out the a** if Bernie Sanders is president?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering how much billionaires made off of the last decade and a half of war, I do not feel bad asking them to pay for them. They'll still come out ahead.

Newsflash... Anyone making over $100k is going to catch the brunt of this economic puke you no doubt gullibly acquired from some ranting lib. That means you someday, well maybe.

The Internet is full of these idiotic Robin Hoods who have no idea about the machine they want to willingly release.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
The people who don't save dig their own graves rather than that of the country. Seems much better to me.

And I think that in the richest, most powerful, most prosperous and productive nation in the history of the planet, we can do better than to turn our backs on people who are sick and poor and homeless and dying of treatable illnesses and say "tough luck, you should have saved more money."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 users
And I think that in the richest, most powerful, most prosperous and productive nation in the history of the planet, we can do better than to turn our backs on people who are sick and poor and homeless and dying of treatable illnesses and say "tough luck, you should have saved more money."
285.gif

strawman.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm not going to medical school for the money, and I like 90% of what Bernie Sanders stands for. However, he has historically been for a very high tax rate for the top income earners. Like most med students, I'm dropping at least 200 k for the pleasure of a medical education. How are we going to pay that back if we have a massive tax hike for the "rich"? Do these tax rates account for the fact that you have 200 k in loans accumulating at 6.8%?
Wait, you support 90% of what Bernie Sanders believes, but then you figured out that you'd be the one taxed higher to pay for it, and you want him to take into consideration that you're paying 200 k for med school, in determining your tax rate? Seems like actually paying for something is in that 10% you disagree with?
 
And I think that in the richest, most powerful, most prosperous and productive nation in the history of the planet, we can do better than to turn our backs on people who are sick and poor and homeless and dying of treatable illnesses and say "tough luck, you should have saved more money."
The problem is healthcare spending now is bankrupting this country and that is just Medicare and Medicaid. It has gotten so bad it is crowding out other spending and healthcare spending is stagnating salaries.
 
The problem is healthcare spending now is bankrupting this country and that is just Medicare and Medicaid. It has gotten so bad it is crowding out other spending and healthcare spending is stagnating salaries.

Other countries seem to implement universal healthcare at significantly less cost per person than our system that doesn't cover everyone. We spend way more per person than any other nation, and our outcomes are not the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Other countries seem to implement universal healthcare at significantly less cost per person than our system that doesn't cover everyone. We spend way more per person than any other nation, and our outcomes are not the best.
Other countries have a smaller population, more homogeneous people (hence more of the same diseases at same frequencies), have much more government rationing, I could go on and on. We spend way more per person because we don't have govt. rationing or govt. price controls. It's not as simple as putting everyone on Medicare.

Trust me, people have done the math. Vermont tried but it didn't even lift off the ground. It doesn't matter if everyone is covered, when the bill the hospital gives is just too high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
With a 17 trillion dollar debt, anyone making money will be takes to death before too long.
I expect increased taxes on the wealthy, which will be defined as family income over ~2x average income.
I also expect a government consumption tax or VAT type tax as well.
There is no other way.
The music can only play for so long.
The very wealthy will, of course, be protected as the capital gains tax, while increased, will still be well below what the regular income tax would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Other countries have a smaller population, more homogeneous people (hence more of the same diseases at same frequencies), have much more government rationing, I could go on and on. We spend way more per person because we don't have govt. rationing or govt. price controls. It's not as simple as putting everyone on Medicare.

Trust me, people have done the math. Vermont tried but it didn't even lift off the ground. It doesn't matter if everyone is covered, when the bill the hospital gives is just too high.

We clearly can't continue forever with these high per-patient costs. What do we do about it?
 
Other countries seem to implement universal healthcare at significantly less cost per person than our system that doesn't cover everyone. We spend way more per person than any other nation, and our outcomes are not the best.

Those rankings don't take into account the fact that individuals in those countries are inherently healthier and way more homogeneous. If you look at outcomes for more specialized conditions like cancer, the US has the best outcomes across the board. General advances in clinical research are also by consensus, most profound in the US. It's not for nothing that many leaders in all of those countries travel here for care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Those rankings don't take into account the fact that individuals in those countries are inherently healthier and way more homogeneous. If you look at outcomes for more specialized conditions like cancer, the US has the best outcomes across the board. General advances in clinical research are also by consensus, most profound in the US. It's not for nothing that many leaders in all of those countries travel here for care.

We are talking about costs for a procedure/office visit/hospital stay/operation/etc. How can the entire population be inherently healthier? If people make bad lifestyle choices on a daily basis, that can hardy be classified as inherent. These money that are spent on healthcare are not going into research; in fact we could be spending less on healthcare and more on research. We are the leaders in biomedical research, however we have started to fall behind in other areas of science and should not be so overconfident that biomedical research is somehow immune to this trend. And while the insured receive some of the best care in the world currently, I highly doubt that it will continue on forever given the unsustainable costs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ow-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
We clearly can't continue forever with these high per-patient costs. What do we do about it?
The only way to coerce hospitals (doctors) to charge much much less on the bill is to make it to where they don't have a choice in terms of payers, so like you said, a more single payer type system. The govt says we're only going to pay x amount of money for this, take it or leave it. But inherent to that system is telling a patient they can't receive chemo because they are too old and its too huge a cost to the system and society - rationing, or being put on a waitlist like for a non-emergent knee replacement, instead of getting it next 3 weeks. Americans, however, will not tolerate such a system as it is in antithesis to our American spirit.

Most likely it will be very very huge reimbursement cuts to hospitals, which will affect total amt. of money hospital brings in, which then affects amount of money that goes to employee salaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As a lowly ms1 (in lab rotations mdphd) with little econ background here are my thoughts.

A lot of people dont seem to understand the point of taxes and seem really fixate on how they "earned" their salary. Also bernie sanders may call himself socialist but hes much closer to the scadinavian ideals of social democracy. We receive our grants, our training, our payment a lot from government. Government allows us to have nice cushy 6 figure jobs without people getting upset at it. I don't understand why so many premeds eat up the supply-side economics theories which really don't seem to work. Romney got taxed like 15% on his ridiculous income. Scandinavia is kicking our ass in most social measures and yet we still pay more for healthcare than them. Seems like a lot of people really just want that fat paycheck without thinking of how that wouldn't exist without government.

Not sure if anyone addressed your points yet, but I just wanted to briefly in a constructive (hopefully) and non-aggressive way (I think part of the reason there is little cooperation is that people seem to think if people do not support their way, then they are being attacked or targeted. Not aimed at you, just prefacing my hopefully peaceful comments).

I often hear people compare the U.S. To Scandinavia or Belgium or whatever small european nation is hot at the time. Certainly these social programs work for them. Not disagreement here. I have been to Sweden and I have seen how seemingly happy and healthy everyone is.

The problem comparing the U.S. To these countries is that of apples to orange trees. The U.S. Is immensely larger than the Scandinavian countries in terms of general size, population, population density (in Sweden there really are only several major dense area of populations) and ethnicities/beliefs. As such a program that works for a smaller, homogenous population in a limited space could just as easily be disastrous in the U.S. It does not surprise me that Sweden has an educational program ranked higher than the U.S. As they have so many fewer kids to teach in addition to a much more homogenous population.
I think the diversity aspect is also crucial. I went to Sweden and I think I maybe saw two non-white people during my two week stay in a city. As such, there is are less cultural conflicts to deal with and as such social programs become easier to implement.

Anyways, I am typing this on my phone but I just wanted to give my two cents. If it seemed combative at all, I did not mean for it to be. I would love to hear your reply because you seem to have a good foundation for your own points. Let me know what you think about my points as I am always trying to refine and improve them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Those rankings don't take into account the fact that individuals in those countries are inherently healthier and way more homogeneous. If you look at outcomes for more specialized conditions like cancer, the US has the best outcomes across the board. General advances in clinical research are also by consensus, most profound in the US. It's not for nothing that many leaders in all of those countries travel here for care.
Copycat! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not sure if anyone addressed your points yet, but I just wanted to briefly in a constructive (hopefully) and non-aggressive way (I think part of the reason there is little cooperation is that people seem to think if people do not support their way, then they are being attacked or targeted. Not aimed at you, just prefacing my hopefully peaceful comments).

I often hear people compare the U.S. To Scandinavia or Belgium or whatever small european nation is hot at the time. Certainly these social programs work for them. Not disagreement here. I have been to Sweden and I have seen how seemingly happy and healthy everyone is.

The problem comparing the U.S. To these countries is that of apples to orange trees. The U.S. Is immensely larger than the Scandinavian countries in terms of general size, population, population density (in Sweden there really are only several major dense area of populations) and ethnicities/beliefs. As such a program that works for a smaller, homogenous population in a limited space could just as easily be disastrous in the U.S. It does not surprise me that Sweden has an educational program ranked higher than the U.S. As they have so many fewer kids to teach in addition to a much more homogenous population.
I think the diversity aspect is also crucial. I went to Sweden and I think I maybe saw two non-white people during my two week stay in a city. As such, there is are less cultural conflicts to deal with and as such social programs become easier to implement.

Anyways, I am typing this on my phone but I just wanted to give my two cents. If it seemed combative at all, I did not mean for it to be. I would love to hear your reply because you seem to have a good foundation for your own points. Let me know what you think about my points as I am always trying to refine and improve them.

I think you bring up a great point about the sheer sizes of different countries. I am all for rational discussion about different ways healthcare can be delivered to people. In fact I think the solution to this crisis lies in comparative analysis of what works and what does not work throughout the western world. My problem is with those individuals who for ideological reasons and blatant chauvinism are eager to dismiss entire ways that a healthcare system can be set up; as they would rather personally pay more for their medical bill than see everyone covered under a "socialist" umbrella.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The people who don't save dig their own graves rather than that of the country. Seems much better to me.

Currently 1/3 of American seniors rely on social security for >90% of their income. It's easy to talk tough, but I really doubt you'd be willing to sign a bill that would put millions of the elderly on the streets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
And I think that in the richest, most powerful, most prosperous and productive nation in the history of the planet, we can do better than to turn our backs on people who are sick and poor and homeless and dying of treatable illnesses and say "tough luck, you should have saved more money."
Currently 1/3 of American seniors rely on social security for >90% of their income. It's easy to talk tough, but I really doubt you'd be willing to sign a bill that would put millions of the elderly on the streets.
We could have a forced savings plan, similar to Australia, rather than a government program. I know that seems unfathomable to most people who are used to social security, but it works, and had zero impact on the budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We could have a forced savings plan, similar to Australia, rather than a government program. I know that seems unfathomable to most people who are used to social security, but it works, and had zero impact on the budget.

That could work fine, I like the added fact that funds couldn't be raided by congress like they have been with SS and medicare.

Problem is I think you'd get democrats opposed to it because it lacks the redistributive quality of the current government programs and republicans would oppose it because it's strong paternalism and coercion on the part of the government.
 
We are talking about costs for a procedure/office visit/hospital stay/operation/etc. How can the entire population be inherently healthier? If people make bad lifestyle choices on a daily basis, that can hardy be classified as inherent. These money that are spent on healthcare are not going into research; in fact we could be spending less on healthcare and more on research. We are the leaders in biomedical research, however we have started to fall behind in other areas of science and should not be so overconfident that biomedical research is somehow immune to this trend. And while the insured receive some of the best care in the world currently, I highly doubt that it will continue on forever given the unsustainable costs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ow-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/

By inherent I'm referring to a level of health not out of the womb, but before medical intervention (i.e the "better" outcomes for bread and butter medicine in those countries are not due to the actual medicine, but the higher baseline level of health). This may be due to differences in cultural forces revolving around nutrition. Yes, you could potentially reduce reimbursements for certain procedures. However, the market forces operating in healthcare here (overhead, malpractice environment, device royalties/R&D) are fundamentally different from those in Europe. It's a very complex problem and it's difficult to make these kinds of direct comparisons and say that just because they spend less, we can mimic their methods and get an equivalent result. Some argue that while 93% of those insured here get excellent care (while 7% get the bare minimum), under a single-payer system 100% get something mediocre.
 
Look it up... I'd hyperlink it if I knew how, but I don't so you'll have to Google it.

I looked it up and could not find anything remotely like what you claim. It seems totally preposterous and impossible. Their 2014 revenue was almost $500 billion. You're saying that almost $400 billion of Walmart's 2014 revenue was from welfare programs?

The closest thing I could find is "as many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores using food stamps" which is a completely, completely different thing than what you claimed.
 
Wait, you support 90% of what Bernie Sanders believes, but then you figured out that you'd be the one taxed higher to pay for it, and you want him to take into consideration that you're paying 200 k for med school, in determining your tax rate? Seems like actually paying for something is in that 10% you disagree with?

Sure. Why shouldn't that sort of thing be taken into account?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
We could have a forced savings plan, similar to Australia, rather than a government program. I know that seems unfathomable to most people who are used to social security, but it works, and had zero impact on the budget.
Except the inherent redistributive characteristic to a greater number of people, is what makes the program attractive.
Sure. Why shouldn't that sort of thing be taken into account?
Because it would make u largely hypocritical.
 
Redistribution is inherently unamerican.
I didn't say it was fair. It's no different than "means-testing". Medicare is also redistributive. Just think of it as charity for the less fortunate.
 
@charmiedermie I don't see why that makes me hypocritical. I think that with the absurdity of the student loan crisis in America right now, a tax rate that takes into account how much student loan debt someone is in shouldn't be out of the question.

Person A is a 30 year old trust fund baby who sailed his way into his dad's hedge fund business and makes 200 k with little to no student debt.
Person B is a 30 year old physician making 200 k, but with 250 k in student loans accumulating at 6.8%

I think person B should get a little more slack from the government. I don't understand how I have contradictory principles for believing this.
 
@charmiedermie I don't see why that makes me hypocritical. I think that with the absurdity of the student loan crisis in America right now, a tax rate that takes into account how much student loan debt someone is in shouldn't be out of the question.

Person A is a 30 year old trust fund baby who sailed his way into his dad's hedge fund business and makes 200 k with little to no student debt.
Person B is a 30 year old physician making 200 k, but with 250 k in student loans accumulating at 6.8%

I think person B should get a little more slack from the government. I don't understand how I have contradictory principles for believing this.

Person B does get a little more slack. He gets to deduct student loan interest from his taxes.
 
@charmiedermie I don't see why that makes me hypocritical. I think that with the absurdity of the student loan crisis in America right now, a tax rate that takes into account how much student loan debt someone is in shouldn't be out of the question.

Person A is a 30 year old trust fund baby who sailed his way into his dad's hedge fund business and makes 200 k with little to no student debt.
Person B is a 30 year old physician making 200 k, but with 250 k in student loans accumulating at 6.8%

I think person B should get a little more slack from the government. I don't understand how I have contradictory principles for believing this.
Because it's not the govt.'s job to adjust your federal income tax rate just because you voluntarily chose to enter med school. What makes you special in getting an exemption when it comes to Bernie's federal spending which you agree with? Have you even listened to Bernie at hearings re: med students not going into primary care? Hint: It's not favorable to docs.
 
So we should punish people for making more money? Why not tax them 90% or even 100% on their earnings?

Yes. When they are "making" that money on other peoples labor. These billionaires no longer earn money off of their labor. The Waltons have more money than 130 million of the lowest income people. It is not possible for one family to work enough to earn that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Person B does get a little more slack. He gets to deduct student loan interest from his taxes.

I didn't realize that. Does his principle get taken into account?
Because it's not the govt.'s job to adjust your federal income tax rate just because you voluntarily chose to enter med school. What makes you special in getting an exemption when it comes to Bernie's federal spending which you agree with? Have you even listened to Bernie at hearings re: med students not going into primary care? Hint: It's not favorable to docs.

It is the government's job to adjust tax rate based on financially clout, and consequently, how much a person is obligated to give back to the rest of society. I'm arguing that a person making 200 k with 250 k in compounding student interest should be considered well off, but less well off than somebody making 200 k with no student loans. If I were in control of tax rate I would absolutely take this into account.
 
I love how everyone against universal healthcare always points out the differences between the countries and use it as a strawman, then also claim it's the apocalypse for doctors' salaries. I suggest you do some research on western european countries, Japan, Australia and then give me facts to support that this will in fact be bad for the united states. You know a coherent argument? Countries with universal healthcare aren't all without their diversity: look at the demographics of England/Australia. Also being "different" or "less homogeneous" seems like an even BETTER reason to enact universal health coverage immediately. We need a regulatory body to ensure that everyone gets fair and effective access, paying doctors better than under medicaid/medicare (one of the policies that Bernie Sanders supports is INCREASED REIMBURSEMENT for doctors in a universal system), and then also private hospitals where wealthiest americans can pay extra to get the same quality of care they have always received. I think this country could only have universal healthcare if we make it a truly two prong system without completely dismantling private healthcare. In the public sector completely eliminate insurance companies and hire a bunch of retired MD/DOs (again one of Bernie Sanders ideas) to run the public sector/system of healthcare. Also separate the public and private hospitals so there isn't the chaotic mess we have now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Also in socialists countries the tax rate for the top .1% is around 60% of income, top 1% is -48-50%of income, top 10%- 35% income. It works well in Germany, one of the strongest economies in the world, it can work here IMHO
 
What people don't seem to realize is that 'soaking the rich' never really works.
Your increased corporate taxes are passed on to consumers via higher costs or offshoring.
The very rich, the ones people seem to hate the most, will be largely immune to any taxes increases, as previously stated by others in this thread.
They can hide their weath and thus avoid higher taxes. Not only that, but hiding their wealth offshore and investing overseas in more favorable business climates deprive America of needed investments for economic growth.
Like it or not, we need investments to stimulate growth, and increasing the capital gains tax just stifles investment.

Does the US govt seriously not take in enough money already? Maybe the issue isn't revenue, but how it is allocated? Think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Also in socialists countries the tax rate for the top .1% is around 60% of income, top 1% is -48-50%of income, top 10%- 35% income. It works well in Germany, one of the strongest economies in the world, it can work here IMHO
And their doctors leave the country at a high rate...it is insane to advocate taking 1/3 of someone's income. You have no claim to their money
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And their doctors leave the country at a high rate...it is insane to advocate taking 1/3 of someone's income. You have no claim to their money

The money is not earned in a vacuum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It is the government's job to adjust tax rate based on financially clout, and consequently, how much a person is obligated to give back to the rest of society. I'm arguing that a person making 200 k with 250 k in compounding student interest should be considered well off, but less well off than somebody making 200 k with no student loans. If I were in control of tax rate I would absolutely take this into account.
That is not at all government's job. Your job is to pay your federal tax bill. If you have a personal loan for your med school tuition then that is your problem. You'll just take longer to pay it off. Your other personal expenses is not the govt's business.
I love how everyone against universal healthcare always points out the differences between the countries and use it as a strawman, then also claim it's the apocalypse for doctors' salaries. I suggest you do some research on western european countries, Japan, Australia and then give me facts to support that this will in fact be bad for the united states. You know a coherent argument? Countries with universal healthcare aren't all without their diversity: look at the demographics of England/Australia. Also being "different" or "less homogeneous" seems like an even BETTER reason to enact universal health coverage immediately. We need a regulatory body to ensure that everyone gets fair and effective access, paying doctors better than under medicaid/medicare (one of the policies that Bernie Sanders supports is INCREASED REIMBURSEMENT for doctors in a universal system), and then also private hospitals where wealthiest americans can pay extra to get the same quality of care they have always received. I think this country could only have universal healthcare if we make it a truly two prong system without completely dismantling private healthcare. In the public sector completely eliminate insurance companies and hire a bunch of retired MD/DOs (again one of Bernie Sanders ideas) to run the public sector/system of healthcare. Also separate the public and private hospitals so there isn't the chaotic mess we have now.
I can guarantee I've researched this stuff more than you. Being less homogeneous has to do with overall healthcare costs which any healthcare system has to take into consideration, not anything to do with race. You need to do some more reading. And decreased reimbursement to hospitals does affect salaries. Also Bernie Sanders only wants increased reimbursement to primary care as he has said specialists are overpaid.
 
...Why hasn't this been moved to SPF yet?


So much selfishness here, which is sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
And their doctors leave the country at a high rate...it is insane to advocate taking 1/3 of someone's income. You have no claim to their money

You talk like money is a god-given right... Money is federal property. Its part of the whole social contract thing. Sure your paystub may say 1 million or 1 dollar, but that's not accurate. Obviously individuals have no claim to each others money, but the government has a true claim to it. If you want to be in the 1% of salary, you gotta pay back for all the things you use in the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You talk like money is a god-given right... Money is federal property. Its part of the whole social contract thing. Sure your paystub may say 1 million or 1 dollar, but that's not accurate. Obviously individuals have no claim to each others money, but the government has a true claim to it. If you want to be in the 1% of salary, you gotta pay back for all the things you use in the government.
Bull...there is no social contract. The government is nothing but a collection of individuals and it has no more moral right to my property than any individual does
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Bull...there is no social contract. The government is nothing but a collection of individuals and it has no more moral right to my property than any individual does

Did you read locke or hobbes (you know the philosophy the constitution was built on?) There is most certainly a social contract (you even swear it when you get citizenship). Your property only exists because the government will protect it. If we follow your example, (no taxes or minimal taxes or whatever you want), you are going to have a rough time if you want to be a doctor (patients cant pay anything, no research for new treatments, no money for residency, etc. etc. etc.)
 
Did you read locke or hobbes (you know the philosophy the constitution was built on?) There is most certainly a social contract (you even swear it when you get citizenship). Your property only exists because the government will protect it. If we follow your example, (no taxes or minimal taxes or whatever you want), you are going to have a rough time if you want to be a doctor (patients cant pay anything, no research for new treatments, no money for residency, etc. etc. etc.)
The market should determine the rate of payment and cost of education for medicine...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Except for the fact that all practicing physicians will earn too much income to quality for the deduction, you are correct that the loan interest is deductible.

I guess I never earned enough to notice that. Doesn't really matter though.. no one should get a tax break because they have a lot of debt they decided to take on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top