From the tone of everyone's responses I guess you don't think ExxonMobil should make profits on the oil they provide? Remember that market conditions set oil prices. It is our(meaning the world's) demand that determines the price of crude and gasoline. Exxon Mobil spent years investing in infrastructure and oil fields, why should they be hated because the commodity they trade has increased in value? Should we set a "windfall tax" on every sector when it happens to be hot? Gold is over 500 dollars an ounce, should we tax gold owners for making a wise investment?
I think it ludicrous to blame "Big Oil" for profit that is returned to shareholders. I actually laughed during the Democratic response by Kaine after the state of the union when he was proud of the dems for suggesting this.
As for the cuts to medicaid, I do have a question for everyone. At what point does money become the limiting factor in health care? Don't call me a heartless bastard because I want to understand why people think money is no object when it comes to health. Is it the fact that consumers are not exposed to the costs of the system because of third party payors? Should healthy individuals be forced to subsidize the care of those who are obese, smoke, or have otherwise unhealthy lifestyles? Should wealthy people subsidize the care of the poor at all? Should health care be paid for in a progressive or regressive manner? ETC These are all questions that revolve around money. It should be a part of a physician's education to understand the complexity of the issues at hand. I wish they forced somehealth economics on students in medical school. I am an undergrad at UCSD and I read the textbook the medical students read about the business of health care. It provides some background about a doctor's role in healthcare but does not even attempt to provide anything on the economics behind the system as a whole. Health care consumes nearly 15% of the US GDP, nearly twice the percentage in other western nations. Why shouldn't physicians be forced to understand the fiscal ramifications of their profession?
Now that I have gone on slightly thread jacking(sorry), I want to actually discuss the "Deficit Reduction" act cited by Mota. As much as I laughed at the Democratic suggestion of Windfall taxes, the idea that the current administration is fiscally responsible is even more hilarious. Call me a "fiscal conservative" if you wish, but the idea of massive deficit spending is inherently wrong. Unlike states which must maintain balanced budgets or suffer credit rating drops that increase borrowing costs, the federal government has no such check. It can keep spending money it doesn't have so long as the deficit ceiling is raised and there is someone to buy treasuries. My concern with this Deficit Reduction is that it isn't what it says. Seriously, 39Billion dollars over 5 years. Come on! With the deficit predicted to be $400 billion this year, you call an $8B cut(~2%) progress? I disagree with where the cuts were made, but I see this entire thing as a publicity stunt with a nice name. What makes it worse is that they decided to take the money from medicaid recipients that can hardly afford life's necessities as is. For shame...
. I work at an ER. We see lots of legitimate cases where these people need our help and can't afford it. However, we also see lots of cases where these people abuse the system at every angle 
