Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

How to pay for the health care reform...Follow

#27REDACTED, Posted: Aug 18 2009 at 1:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) CBD,
#28 Aug 18 2009 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
If Obama gets his way and has the taxpayers insure the "47 million" uninsured you better believe their workload is going to skyrocket. Not only that but have you considered if this were to happen the demand for doctors will sky rocket in kind thereby increasing their pay? So where a doctor is getting paid 500k annually now if this plan passes they could conceivably raise their pay demands to 1mil.


The only way that would result in workload being maybe close to doubled is if everyone who suddenly gets insurance runs to every form of doctor for a check-up. That's just stupid. You're not thinking about what you're saying.
#29REDACTED, Posted: Aug 18 2009 at 1:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) CBD,
#30 Aug 18 2009 at 1:19 PM Rating: Decent
*****
12,846 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
U I'm still waiting for you people to tell us where we're going to find all these new doctors. And don't give me that line about nurses and physician assistants because it would still take them what 8yrs before they're actually resident physicians.





You obviously don't know what a Physician assistant or a Nurse Practitioner is (not to be confused with a Doctor, CNA, LVN or RN)

Both are programs that take about two years - most are graduate level a handful are undergraduate.

People who apply into the program are expected to already have some kind of medical background or hours (nurses, emts, paramedics)

# Physician assistant programs usually last at least 2 years; admission requirements vary by program, but many require at least 2 years of college and some health care experience.

# All States require physician assistants to complete an accredited education program and to pass a national exam in order to obtain a license. - they actually have to retake their exams every 4-6 years.

Quote:
Physician assistants (PAs) practice medicine under the supervision of physicians and surgeons. They should not be confused with Medical assistants, who perform routine clinical and clerical tasks. (Medical assistants are discussed elsewhere in the Handbook.) PAs are formally trained to provide diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive health care services, as delegated by a physician. Working as members of the health care team, they take medical histories, examine and treat patients, order and interpret laboratory tests and x rays, and make diagnoses. They also treat minor injuries, by suturing, splinting, and casting. PAs record progress notes, instruct and counsel patients, and order or carry out therapy. In 48 States and the District of Columbia, physician assistants may prescribe some medications.


Physician assistants work under the supervision of a physician. However, PAs may be the principal care providers in rural or inner city clinics where a physician is present for only one or two days each week. In such cases, the PA confers with the supervising physician and other medical professionals as needed and as required by law. PAs also may make house calls or go to hospitals and nursing care facilities to check on patients, after which they report back to the physician.


http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos081.htm

[quote]Nurse practitioners:
A nurse practitioner (NP) is a registered nurse (RN) who has completed advanced education (a minimum of a master's degree) and training in the diagnosis and management of common medical conditions, including chronic illnesses. Nurse practitioners provide a broad range of health care services. They provide some of the same care provided by physicians and maintain close working relationships with physicians. An NP can serve as a patient's regular health care provider.


where do you live that you have never heard of them? I grew up in dairy country Pennsylvania and even back in the late 80s, early 90s we have Physician Assistants.



#31 Aug 18 2009 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
So according to you placing another 47 million people into the system isn't going to affect the number of patients a doctor treats, lmao that's rich.


"It won't be doubled." only reads as "It won't be increased." if you're a fucking idiot.

#32 Aug 18 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
*****
12,846 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
CBD,

Quote:
The only way that would result in workload being maybe close to doubled is if everyone who suddenly gets insurance runs to every form of doctor for a check-up. That's just stupid. You're not thinking about what you're saying.


LMAO...Thank you for not taking the time to think through this statement before responding, I needed a good laugh.

So according to you placing another 47 million people into the system isn't going to affect the number of patients a doctor treats, lmao that's rich.





It would be better dispersed, rather then having them all waiting around emergency rooms.
#33REDACTED, Posted: Aug 18 2009 at 1:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) CBD,
#34 Aug 18 2009 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Assuming the percentage of people who are going to take advantage of this new "free" service is asinine.


Smiley: disappointed
#35 Aug 18 2009 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
*****
12,846 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
CBD,

Quote:
"It won't be doubled." only reads as "It won't be increased." if you're a @#%^ing idiot.


You're not taking into account that people who are all of sudden given something for nothing generally take advantage of the situation, moreso than someone who's actually paying for it. So while 47 million may get insured the percentage of that 47 million that's going to require service is most likely going to be far greater than the regular paying population. Assuming the percentage of people who are going to take advantage of this new "free" service is going to stay the same is asinine.



Edited, Aug 18th 2009 5:36pm by publiusvarus


It won't be any more or less than those on medicare, medicaid, chip or even private insurance. There are always going to be some people who will go to the doctor if they have the sniffles and others that have to be dragged in even when they are black with gangrene.

Other than my pregnancy(pregnancies - including all the miscarriages) and the yearly "well woman" exam, I almost never utilized my insurance.

#36 Aug 18 2009 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
There are almost 300 million people in the country. If roughly 47 million are uninsured, that means 250 million ARE insured.

So at most, if all 47 million start utilizing doctors as much as the other 250 million do, then the doctors will see an increase of roughly 20%.

It means my doctor might choose to give up Friday afternoon golf to make more money, but that's about it.
#37 Aug 18 2009 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

And for the record, this whole anyone who makes over $250,000 is part of the "evil rich" is seriously getting old. Alot of people you and the rest of the rest of the victims of a public school education call rich are small business owners who put alot of that $250,000+ THEY make back into THIER businesses.


Hi, fuckstick. You're wrong. You're mistaking assets for income.

People putting money "back into their businesses" don't pay income tax on that money, because it isn't income.

I can't remember when I learned that, but it was either when I was prepping at Andover or when in an Economics course at Harvard.

Oh no, wait, it was when I was 5, in public school kindergarten. Imagine that.



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38ThiefX, Posted: Aug 18 2009 at 6:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The money that is put back into the business is to help the business grow which means bigger profits and more employees hired which leads to more taxes.
#39 Aug 18 2009 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
ThiefX wrote:
You are incredibly naive or ignorant if you think that money put back into a business is not taxed in some way and im leaning towards ignorant.


"Oh, wow, I was really, really wrong earlier in the thread. The proper course of action must be to say Smash said something he didn't, and then call him an idiot for it. I bet no one will ever notice."

You're cute. Stick around.
#40 Aug 18 2009 at 8:21 PM Rating: Default
**
739 posts
"
Quote:
Oh, wow, I was really, really wrong earlier in the thread. The proper course of action must be to say Smash said something he didn't, and then call him an idiot for it. I bet no one will ever notice."

You're cute. Stick around.



Quote:
People putting money "back into their businesses" don't pay income tax on that money, because it isn't income.


To which I replied with "You are incredibly naive or ignorant if you think that money put back into a business is not taxed in some way and im leaning towards ignorant.

Your right I made the whole thing up







Edited, Aug 19th 2009 12:25am by ThiefX
#41 Aug 18 2009 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
People putting money "back into their businesses" don't pay income tax on that money, because it isn't income.


Smasharoo wrote:
People putting money "back into their businesses" don't pay income tax on that money


Smasharoo wrote:
don't pay income tax on that money


Smasharoo wrote:
income tax


See how he said the word income? It's being used as an adjective to describe the type of tax. That doesn't mean the money they put back into the business isn't taxed in some manner. He didn't say that the money wasn't taxed in some manner. It isn't taxed as income though.

Aren't adjectives fun?! :D
#42 Aug 18 2009 at 8:58 PM Rating: Default
**
739 posts
Im aware that he said "Income"

My original post said nothing even close to Small Business owners had to pay income taxes on the money thet put back into thier businesses I already knew this.

I knew this because my brother and his wife own a small business that makes over $250,000 a year and believe me the majority of that profit goes right back into thier business in the form of supplies, upkeep, paying employees, advertising and various other expenseses that they get taxed on.

Smash is the one who made a post trying to describe how he learned about assests and income in kindergarden and cursing me and I am assuming trying to imply that the $250,000 that is put back into businesses is not taxed.

Understand now, or do you need me to talk slower?

#43 Aug 18 2009 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Your original post:
ThiefX wrote:
And for the record, this whole anyone who makes over $250,000 is part of the "evil rich" is seriously getting old. Alot of people you and the rest of the rest of the victims of a public school education call rich are small business owners who put alot of that $250,000+ THEY make back into THIER businesses.

The point being argued was not how much the reinvested capital ends up being taxed in some way.

The point is that someone whose company has revenue or profit of $250,000 is not being called "rich" by liberals precisely because he is not "making" $250,000. Therefore, they wouldn't be one of those "easily taxable rich bastards" that would be in the top 2% tax bracket.

The statement was inherently false and contradictory.

#44 Aug 19 2009 at 2:10 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The money that is put back into the business is to help the business grow which means bigger profits and more employees hired which leads to more taxes.

See how that works?

You are incredibly naive or ignorant if you think that money put back into a business is not taxed in some way and im leaning towards ignorant.


Actually, the outcome of money put back into a business is uncertain, you fucking slack jawed yokel. Sometimes it leads to more profits, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's a huge mistake that bankrupts the business. The idea that any investment automatically equates to profit growth in the long term is idiotic. I realize this because I wasn't educated by a retarded chimpanzee wielding a running vibrator lubed up with mayonnaise.

I happen to be self employed, which means, because I'm not a moron, that I'm also a corporation. I also earn more than $250,000 a year, and frequently deal with people who also do, essentially every day. Most of them aren't "small business owners" whatever the fuck that canard is really supposed to mean.

People who earn that much money can afford other people colloquially referred to as "Tax Advisers," or as I refer to mine, "my ***hole lawyer". For someone who earns $250,000 a year "owning" a "small business" to present the IRS with an actual AGI of $250,000 a year, they have to be actually earning far, far, far, far, more or be the kind of stupid rarely seen outside of head injury wards.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Aug 19 2009 at 2:15 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I knew this because my brother and his wife own a small business that makes over $250,000 a year and believe me the majority of that profit goes right back into thier business in the form of supplies, upkeep, paying employees, advertising and various other expenseses that they get taxed on.


Then it's not profit, idiot. Holy fuck, what does it take to stem the never ending tide of GOP stupid?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Aug 19 2009 at 4:13 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Ha.

Revenue = Profit

Profit - Expenses = Money you make

Money you make = mostly spent on more business expenses, which for some reason you decide not to claim as business expenses for tax purposes.


Duh.

1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 283 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (283)