Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, but that's not because Medicare is so great. It's demographics mixed with government mandate. There are a lot of old people, they're all on Medicare, and the government says you take them all or you can't take any. As far as reimbursements, they're actually continually adjusted because if they followed the government recommendations they'd be like zero.
I have taken most Medicare patients requesting to see me through the years. But all optional on my part. Some I didn't/don't take. So no, I do not have to take them all.
I have taken most Medicare patients requesting to see me through the years. But all optional on my part. Some I didn't/don't take. So no, I do not have to take them all.
Exactly. My elderly parents live in an area that has a high percentage of elderly in the population. It's a retirement destination. What the MD practices are increasingly doing there is charging a concierge fee each year ($1,500 to $2,000, or sometimes more) for Medicare patients to even have access to making an appointment for an office visit. The concierge fee is neither prohibited by nor covered by Medicare. And the MD practices submit all other charges to Medicare and the supplemental insurance for payment. So, IOW, they're charging a surcharge.
Doctors aren't obligated to take Medicaid patients, either.
No it doesn't surprise me.
Should it?
They still pay taxes, everytime they buy something.
Not to the federal government, which is funding Food Stamps, WIC, welfare, TANF, housing assistance, Medicaid, Medicare, SS, etc. We don't have a 20-25% VAT tax like Scandinavia and Europe, though we should.
Quote:
I'm not arguing for a flat tax system if that's what your getting at.
Why not? Why shouldn't everyone be taxed at the same rate? That would still mean that some would WAY overpay while many would still significantly underpay for what they get.
Why do you believe a significant percentage of the population should be excused from contributing? And how is that not a violation of the Constitution's equal protections clause?
But we don't "pool our resources." A surprisingly large percentage (about 27%) of the income tax filing population isn't expected to contribute at all in regards to federal income and payroll taxes.
Data for 2015:
Federal Income Tax Units: 171.3 million (Excludes those who are dependents of other tax units)
Federal Income Tax Payers: 93.8 million (Tax filers with a total federal individual income tax obligation of over $5 for the year, already withheld or not)
A tax unit is an individual tax return filer, or a married couple who file a tax return jointly, along with the inclusion of all (if any) dependents of that individual or married couple.
Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax:
77.5 million. 45.3% of all tax units.
Tax Units with Zero or Negative Sum of Income and Payroll Taxes:
Does it surprise anyone that about 27% of all tax units pay NO Federal Income Tax AND NO Payroll Taxes whatsoever on their earnings? That's almost always due to the various refundable tax credits offsetting them both, and almost always benefiting low to middle income earners.
Doctors are paid some of the highest earnings here.
Yet they HC system overall is terrible value for money.
I'm not saying the doctor get paid too much, but the current doctor per 1000 population numbers isn't great.
That discrepancy needs to be explained.
If wages are high, and there are fewer doctors per population, then it suggests there is room for more doctors, that should drive down wages.
Docs of course do tend to be high earners. But docs earnings have much less relationship to typical market demands than most occupations. Because so much in medicine is left undone in any locale.
So there is much that docs can do to help meet their income expectations by fulfilling those unmet medical needs. Both legitimate and less legitimate. Docs tend to have an easier time in satisfying their general income expectations than typical jobs.
More docs don't mean lower earnings in most locales. Most reimbursements are preset by 3rd parties. What happens is that more gets done as docs find themselves more work. More docs also means more medical spending, since the docs earning are but a small part of that overall spending.
There certainly is room for more docs in many areas. But that will only raise overall HC spending, as more patients get more stuff done.
Nothing wrong with providing dorm or barracks-style housing for those who cannot support themselves and their dependent children, and requiring a certain amount of work to maintain the facilities in exchange for receiving those '3 hots and a cot.' There are no equal outcomes, and it's ridiculous to even attempt such. That's why the limousine liberals in Hollywood and pro athletes earn millions, while others only earn minimum wage at part time jobs if they even work at all.
By writing this, you are essentially agreeing that the government/society has some responsibility for maintaining life. More, here you don't attempt to argue that the parents and dependent children should be denied life because of supposedly "bad" decisions - parenthood without the means to support the kid. You'll give them the basics - calories and rest.
Three hots and a cot works for the healthy. But what about the ill? Even if you can search out some "bad" decision connected to the illness (e.g., smoking) what rationale can you now use to deny the ill a shot at life?
I suppose you could argue that ERs might be the medical equivalent of your "3 hots and a cot." And nursing homes that accept Medicaid for the elderly. But once you've crossed the line of agreeing to "sustain life" and agreeing to provide "some" medical care, this issue becomes much more complex than acknowledged in many of the simplistic arguments seen on this thread.
Originally Posted by InformedConsent Nothing wrong with providing dorm or barracks-style housing for those who cannot support themselves and their dependent children, and requiring a certain amount of work to maintain the facilities in exchange for receiving those '3 hots and a cot.' There are no equal outcomes, and it's ridiculous to even attempt such. That's why the limousine liberals in Hollywood and pro athletes earn millions, while others only earn minimum wage at part time jobs if they even work at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
By writing this, you are essentially agreeing that the government/society has some responsibility for maintaining life. More, here you don't attempt to argue that the parents and dependent children should be denied life because of supposedly "bad" decisions - parenthood without the means to support the kid. You'll give them the basics - calories and rest.
Three hots and a cot works for the healthy. But what about the ill? Even if you can search out some "bad" decision connected to the illness (e.g., smoking) what rationale can you now use to deny the ill a shot at life?
I suppose you could argue that ERs might be the medical equivalent of your "3 hots and a cot." And nursing homes that accept Medicaid for the elderly. But once you've crossed the line of agreeing to "sustain life" and agreeing to provide "some" medical care, this issue becomes much more complex than acknowledged in many of the simplistic arguments seen on this thread.
Need to run and so I'll answer for you. Most "civilized" nations have set up some form of nationalized health system as the equivalent of your "3 hots and a cot" and in administering them struggle through the issues of where the "lines" are (when to deny care based on cost). Those who can afford your cadillac existence are free (in most but not all systems) to go private, which is why Canadians who don't want to deal with queues and the like often come to the US.
By writing this, you are essentially agreeing that the government/society has some responsibility for maintaining life.
Only if work is performed in exchange for that support. Did you somehow miss that?
Kids? That's the parents' responsibility. They'll have to work in exchange for society supporting their kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
