I am a bit shocked!! A conservative judge - John Roberts, appointed by G. Bush voted with the 4 liberal judges. Unbelievable!!!! Hold on to your cash, stock market will plummet.
I am a bit shocked!! A conservative judge - John Roberts, appointed by G. Bush voted with the 4 liberal judges. Unbelievable!!!! Hold on to your cash, stock market will plummet.
Anyone else hear of "Taxmageddon"? We are preparing for it my firm.....
Here's a calculator that the Washington Post devised: if you're single, out of college, over 26, burdened with student loans, and jobless, then you'll have to pay an additional $3,400 a year, or a $700 penalty...niiiiiice
If your 26, single, and have 0 adjusted gross income you fall under medicare, so its free. Also it won't affect your own firm if you have less than 15 employees.
So we have to do it all over again...new congress, new president is the only way
I don't qualify for MEDICAID. MEDICARE is for the elderly. So I, Like most, will be unjustly taxed.
I don't qualify for MEDICAID. MEDICARE is for the elderly and medicare is not free, the elderly have to pay for Plan B benefits.
So I, Like most, will be unjustly taxed.
In other news, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Montana Law limiting Campaign contributions was unconstitutional, refusing to re-visit the Citizens United ruling from a few years ago. Which corporation will be the next president? Any guesses??
@mena je twa - crazy reports about Roberts' epilepsy and how the medication "affects his cognitive abilities." Also, many are saying he switched at the last second since most of the documents switch "dissent" and "joint opinion" or whatever (someone with more legal expertise feel free to correct lol). They're also saying this might have been the best political move to remove Obama...it gives the GOP HUGE ammunition heading into November. Regarding the Constitutionality though is a different matter.
This is huge! Companies will keep on NOT hiring because they still don't know what their costs will be - so it will affect not only those that want to own their own firm someday, but also those looking for a traditional job both now and in the future.
Also, firms don't have an infinite pool of money to pay for salaries and benefits. Therefore, if a company wanted to pay you more money and not offer health benefits (instead you could use that higher salary to go purchase high deductible insurance at a fraction of the "company benefit" cost) - they will no longer be able to do that. They will either offer health insurance or pay a fine and there doesn't seem to be a way that the employee can choose what is best for themselves and their families.
Vote the tax raising jerks out!
This is a great analogy: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/29/a-modest-proposal/
I don't understand why people are "shocked." The Supreme Court's only responsibly is to judge the constitutionality of legislature; not to render an opinion about whether it's best for the United States. They're constitutional scholars and based on their opinion and knowledge of the constitution, they stated that the health care bill is not unconstitutional. That's it. The Republicans will certainly still have their chance to take it down, especially in an election year.
The Dems and Repubs are coming up with crazy theories about how dilusioned John Roberts is, and is on certain medication and what not...
See, i think Roberts voted on whether Obama care is constitutional or not!!!. What he also did was renamed this bill as a
"TAX" - this is not what Obama and company wanted this to be. Obama is calling this is a penalty.
This whole thing, in my opinion is a dog and pony show...
To me the "shocking" part is that the S.Ct. said that the government can "tax" me for something I'm not doing. So if the government says I must drive a 100 mpg Kia and I don't drive one, can the government "tax" me because I choose to drive a Nissan instead? What if I don't like milk...can they tax me for not drinking milk? Then when I go to the doctor and they ask me if I drink milk and I say "no", will my health insurance be in force because I didn't do everything the government mandated I do (e.g. drinking milk) to stay healthy?
The S.Ct. opinion is a clear over reach of individual liberty!
Implications of the new “tax-mandate”: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/implications-of-the-new-tax-mandate/
@Entourage is apparently fine with being forced to buy certain commodities by a central government...or paying a tax (penalty, whatever) instead. Sure, you have to have car insurance if you're going to drive, but you can just as well use public transportation or car pool and not pay for car insurance. You literally have NO option with health insurance now...this coming from the "party of choice." My dad is in health care, and he was not planning on retiring for probably another 10+ years, but now he's seriously considering just going into teaching because this law is a mess.
It's against my religion to have health care. Our family prays when someone gets sick. If I have to purchase Obamacare, that's in direct violation of my freedom of religion.
Look on the bright side guys, think about how much this will complicate the tax code, and provide new procedures and complications for auditing and consulting engagements. This could be as lucritive as SOX for us.
And yes, as other posters are saying, the SC only rules on the constitutionality of a bill, not whether or not it is good policy. And I don't see how this would really be any less constitutional than anything else we've seen.
And also, we're highly regarded professionals, I think that we're safe when it comes to our employers providing health insurance. The only problem will be when they start taxing "Cadallac Insurance" policies. But that's so far out I expect this thing to be scrapped by then.
@RedStorm45 - I didn't say if I was for or against the bill, I simply said that the Supreme Court was doing their job. Is everyone an expert now on constitutional law? It's not up to them to decide anything else.
I don't agree with the decision but the point Judge Roberts was trying to make is, WE the people elected these bozos who pass these ridiculous laws. So if we don't like a law they pass, then WE have the right to vote the bums out and elect new representatives to repeal it. It's not the courts job to overturn constitutional laws, no matter how stupid they are. And unfortunately the power to "tax" (ie basically take money from YOU) is within their congressional power.
December 27, 2010, I passed out in Wal-mart. I fell flat on my face without any kind of warning. I spent three days in the hospital having everything under the sun done to me to find out why. My doctor, the surgeon, the hematologist and several other specialists finally concluded that I was exhausted and anemic. They gave me 2 pints of blood and sent me home. I don't have health insurance. The bill, just for the hospital, was $18,900. While I was very relieved that I didn't have cancer or something else just as bad, I was a bit miffed at $18,900 for two nights and three days. Like I said before, this was just the hospital. There were bills from every other doctor who saw me, looked at my chart, or basically passed by my room in those three days, the radiology dept, the anesthesiologist, the surgeon and the pharmacy. The total bill came to $29,500. The two pints of blood were free by the way, two friends of mine with the same blood type as me donated in my name. I started making payment arrangements at the hospital, after all, their bill was for more than I paid for my house. I knew I couldn't pay it all at once. The hospital gave me a Blue Cross rate, 50% or $9,000, if I could pay in 14 days. The surgeon sent me a bill for $4,000. He agreed to $1,000 cash in 14 days which was also the Blue Cross rate. Every other provider also gave me the Blue Cross rate. I paid a total of $11,750. I cashed out my IRA's, emptied my savings accounts, and paid my bills. I made the bills so I paid the bills. I guess I could have filed Bankruptcy, but that's not the way I handle my business.
If a surgeon charges you $4,000 and will take 25% because that's all they are going to get from the insurance company, then how is everyone having insurance supposed to make health care affordable? I can tell you, it's not. Why would anyone go into a profession that requires the amount of education, training and, some pretty hefty student loans, that doctors have, only to be limited in the amount they can earn? Most of the doctors I know are smarter than that. They won't go into that profession.
And just a side note, the hospital filled out a Medicaid application on my behalf, which is their standard procedure when they have a patient with no health insurance. Seven months after I was released, I received a notice from Medicaid saying I earned too much money to qualify for assistance. Go Figure!
@Kricket...sorry I don't understand your point, with respect...your pass out and two-night stays at the hospital just completely wiped out your IRA, but at the same time, you still feel the surgoen didn't charge you enough or his fee was to make a decent living? How much time doesn't the surgoen spend on you anyway if that isn't too personal?...politic aside, I feel we need to produce way more doctors in this country, it's supply and demand. We have eMBA fast track for master degrees, and I wish we could have a fast track system for medical students to become doctors, like 8 yrs instead of 12 years...just my two cents.
@CPA-Convertible I agree with you, doctors receive plenty of money for the work they perform, along with the hospitals. I have a basic problem with people making money, and not just a decent living, but an exorbitant amount on the suffering of others. I cannot help it if I have a debilitating disease, or some idiot runs me over with their car and speeds off; why should someone else then reap the rewards of overcharging me to save my life. Of course I am not going to refuse a drug or procedure if its life saving, so these people have a built in justification machine.
If you want to be a doctor, become one to help others not to make 400K+ per year. I also think the government needs to make med school more affordable someone so we get smart people into this profession, not just those who can afford to payback $350k of student loans.
Again @CPA-Convertible, they could shorten the education if all they required to get into med school was 1 year of prerequisites and not an entire undergraduate degree which lends nothing to learning the profession (I couldn't care less if my doctor knew about 16th century china or Walt Whitman as long as he knows how to perform brain surgery correctly).
Kricket, I'm with you on this.
Last November I traveled to Boston for superior canal dehiscence syndrome surgery and my 18 hour hospital stay was $19k and the surgeon's charge was something like $25k for a total of $55k for the medical procedure and related tests. This was after I spent thousands in my home town trying to get diagnosed and additional thousands going through the VA (even though my cost was not thousands). Fortunately I have a HDHP with $6,000 OOP limit.
When I picked my surgeon, I wanted the BEST and cost was not an issue. I don't care if Dr. Poe got rich off of my surgery - good for him. What was most important to me is that I had the BEST CARE POSSIBLE. I'm happy to read that you got the rate that the doctor and hospital would have gotten from BCBS...that tells you how much is being eaten up by the insurance "middleman". Maybe it's worth it to go the pure cash route as often as possible???!!!
I think it's important that people understand the difference between health insurance and health care. While you don't have health INSURANCE, you were not denied health CARE. ObamaCare is supposed to ensure everyone has health INSURANCE, but health INSURANCE does not guarantee health CARE (case in point...those with Medicaid often have a hard time finding a doctor who accepts it). ObamaCare also appears to be doing very little, if anything, to control health CARE costs.
Thanks for telling your story!
@JakeO...My BEC materials tell me this is a barrier to entry. It's not like everyone can become a doctor even he is wiling to put in the years. I would say most doctors come from well off families who have the financial means to back their children's education. Regardless what health care policy we have, under then current or the new one, the hospitals are going to be as crowded as used to be. Of course, their certificate board is going to argue about its legitmacy on their 12 yrs program...just like those old CPAs complaining the new testing system is "way easy it's give away." Why they complained? 'cause they are afraid more people are going to share their pie.
@CPA-Anydaynow - Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. Health insurance doesn't make you healthy. Health Care makes you healthy. I wasn't denied health CARE because I didn't have health INSURANCE.
@CPA-Convertible - I agree that we need to produce more doctors, better doctors, in this country. But where is the incentive if they can't make enough money to cover their overhead?
I was an insurance clerk at a governmental agency once upon a time. I had a bunch of people upset at one point because their personal physician wasn't going to be "in-network" any longer. He refused to sign a contract with the Office of Group Benefits (State Insurance). I called him and asked why. He told me that their contracted rate for an office visit was $7. He told me that all he asked for was $15 per visit. They refused. His argument, and it is a valid one, is that he can't keep the lights on and provide any kind of decent treatment for his patients on $7. He said he could run patients in like cattle through a slaughter house but he wasn't willing to sacrifice the health and well being of his patients. They still had the option of staying with him, paying his bill upfront and filing the claim themselves. Most of them stayed because he's a good doctor. My argument isn't with health care. It's with health insurance.
Another 69: " if you're single, out of college, over 26, burdened with student loans, and jobless, then you'll have to pay an additional $3,400 a year, or a $700 penalty...niiiiiice"
not true. under ppaca, If you have an income up to 134% of the federal poverty level, you qualify for medicaid. If you are jobless, and assuming that you dont have household income that exceeds the threshold for filling a tax return, you are exempt from having to purchase health care and exempt from having to pay the fine for not having it. also, if it is against your religion, you are exempt as well.
@Kricket...to be CPAs, we all have to put in at least 150 credits hours, pass all four exams within 18 months, and at least 1-2 years of experiences...after all, how much we make? $70-$100K as an experienced CPA. For that kinda money, there are still tons of people like you and me trying to get into this profession...the incentives are always there for the doctors too, sometimes it's more than monetary. In my personal experience, the doctors have been runing patients like cattles regardless anyway... I wasn't trying to argue on obamacare or any reforms, which I think most people have their mind set anway. I just think the cost of being sick shouldn't be this expensive, and I hope we can find a way to produce more doctors who are qualified but not need to go thru all lengthy and expensive medical schools...of course, when it comes to our body and health, we all want to the best care, but expensive cost doesn't translate quality.
@Entourage - sorry, you said you didn't understand the shock. Please tell me another commodity, good, service, etc. that all citizens are FORCED to buy or pay a tax if they don't. I know we're supposed to keep politics out, but look around...the NY ban on food/drinks. You are being told what to do, what to buy, what to eat, drink, etc. etc. Freedom of choice is gone.
This is a pretty good opinion piece written by a constitutional scholar:
@RedStorm45--I don't know what you read, but there is no "ban" on soda in New York. You can still buy soda there and drink as much of it as you want. The only change is that you now can't buy a size over 16 ounces. However, you can buy as many 16 ounce drinks as you want. So if you still want a 32 ounce (or bigger...and if you want to put all that sugar and all those chemicals into your body, that's your decision), you can still buy two 16 ounce sodas and no one will stop you. However, no one is forcing you to eat or drink certain things.
@Wicked - they want to ban the sale of popcorn (and other "less healthy" items). But why cap it at 16 oz? If it's so bad, why not make it all 8 oz? If I can buy 2 16 oz to get to 32 why not just let them sell the 32 oz cans/cups? Why force restaurants to not use unsaturated fats?
The Supreme Court made a mockery of our judicial system and the Constitution:
Before getting to the heart of the case, the justices first wanted to deal with what seemed to be a side issue: Was the penalty imposed by the individual mandate in Obamacare a tax?
The first question the justices had for the lawyers: Is this a tax?
"If it was, the case would run afoul of a 19th century-law known as the Anti-Injunction Act, which said a tax cannot be challenged in court until someone has actually been forced to pay it."
So, the Administration was allowed to argue in Court both ways...that the law was Constitutional under the Commerce Clause AND (if that wasn't good enough - which it wasn't) that the law was also OK because of the government's power to tax. The Court (specifically, Chief Justice Roberts) RE-WROTE the law as a TAX...which cannot be tried in court until someone has actually been forced to pay that tax/penalty. We might as well just shred the Constitution at this point.
Yes! This couldn't be more clear....we're being made to pay a tax on something we never purchased. And it's not a true penalty since the TAX "penalty" is less than the cost of insurance...and to be a penalty, it's got to be more.
A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax — despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds.
"Don't believe the hype that the other side is selling," Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call.
"This is a penalty," Patrick said. "It's about dealing with the freeloaders."
Another thing to note is that Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion on the taxing power is limited. He noted that it could not be considered punitive because the amount citizens are required to pay for not having insurance is far less than they would have to pay to obtain insurance. He strongly suggests that, if Congress were to require citizens to pay an amount greater than the costs of insurance, that would constitute a penalty, and thus would be unconstitutional. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/implications-of-the-new-tax-mandate/
This is essentially walking into a 7-11, saying I don't want gum, and the cashier saying that'll be $1.99.
That's exactly the point! It's one thing to tax "bad" choices, (e.g. taxing the purchase of cigarettes or anything "they" deem to be negative). But this is taxing for NOT making what "they" consider to be a "good" choice!
You have to pass it before you can read what's in it: "A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor." Seriously? What else is in it?
Penalties on individuals. Individuals will pay a yearly penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they cannot show they have purchased a government-approved health policy.
Penalties on families. Families will pay a yearly penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents cannot show they have purchased a government- approved policy.
Penalties on employers. Business owners with more than 50 employees must buy government- acceptable health coverage or pay a yearly penalty of $2,000 per employee if at least one employee receives a tax credit.
Tax on investment income. ObamaCare imposes a 3.8 percent annual tax on investment income of individuals making $200,000 or more and on families making $250,000 or more. The new tax is not indexed to inflation, so more people will fall under it each year. Seniors on fixed incomes and people with IRAs and 401(k) plans will be hit particularly hard.
Tax on “Cadillac” health plans. Starting in 2018, imposes a 40 percent annual tax on health care plans valued at $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.
Medicare tax increase. Requires single people earning $200,000 or more and couples earning $250,000 or more to pay an additional 0.9 percent in Medicare taxes. An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.
Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are “rich” for only one day – the day they sell their house and buy a new one. A 3.8% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends that applies to single filers earning more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000.
A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that's already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.
Several major manufacturers have been roiled, including: Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs; Indiana-based Zimmer Corp., which cites the tax in laying off 450 and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Indiana-based Cook Medical Inc., which has scrubbed plans to open a U.S. factory; Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc., which expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million, and Boston Scientific Corp., which has opted to open plants in tax-friendlier Ireland and China to help offset a $100 million charge against earnings.
Until last year, people could pay for over-the-counter medications with tax-free Flexible Savings Accounts and Health Savings Accounts. No more, thanks to Obamacare’s medicine cabinet tax. Starting on Jan. 1, these tax-free accounts will be capped at $2,500, punishing families who face higher than normal medical expenses. The threshold for deducting those costs will also go up from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of adjusted gross income in 2013.
2014 is also when health-insurance companies face a new surcharge on sales that will result in an estimated $350 to $400 increase in annual premiums. So much for the president’s promise to reduce the cost of insurance by $2,500.
Americans who refuse to go along with Obamacare by buying a policy not approved by the government will be charged 1 percent of their income in 2014, rising to 2.5 percent in 2016. Employers with more than 50 employees who don’t offer health coverage and have at least one employee who qualifies for a health tax credit will be penalized $2,000 per person. If the employee receives coverage through this exchange, the penalty goes up to $3,000. An employer with a 30- to 60-day enrollment waiting period will have to pay $400 per person.
A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons. Business owners will collect the tax from customers and send it to the federal government. This appears to be the first federal sales tax in the United States.
A $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance" and other rules set by the Health and Human Services Dept.
A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.
A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies.
ObamaCare will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service. The tax agency plans to hire 16,500 new auditors, agents and investigators, and to increase enforcement audits. The IRS can confiscate tax refunds, place liens on property and seek jail time if health-related penalties and taxes are not paid.
^ Wow, that's a lot of info. I'll have to read it all after my exam Monday. Safe to say...one of, if not the largest tax increase in decades?
It's actually not the largest tax increase in US History. According to Politifact, it would be the tied for 9th all time or tied for 5th in the modern era (beginning with 1968).
If anyone wants more info on the decision, I felt that this site had a good breakdown of the ruling and answered a bunch of questions that have been asked previously: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120630110614135
I'm not a fan of the law, but the ruling seems fair. The ruling doesn't expand the power of the government under the commerce clause or necessary and proper clause and just falls back to the normal power to lay and collect taxes. I get that it is a political issue, but from the law side I have nothing to disagree with. Politically if you disagree, there is an election in November.
On another note, I cannot wait to hear the story behind the scenes of this ruling whenever (if it ever does) come out. It really seems Roberts was writing the majority opinion at one point to overturn the law and then at the last moment changed sides and joined the liberal branch of the SC to write the majority to uphold the law. If you check out the dissent it reads like a majority ruling, and except for a couple of paragraphs at the end, it never attacks Roberts majority opinion to uphold. Also, Ginsburg's concurring opinion attacks Roberts awfully a lot which is really weird since he was the 5th vote and to attack the guy who gave you winning vote seems really odd.
"I'm not a fan of the law, but the ruling seems fair. The ruling doesn't expand the power of the government under the commerce clause or necessary and proper clause and just falls back to the normal power to lay and collect taxes."
My problem is that I'm being taxed on something I did not purchase. In anyone's mind, how is that fair? I don't have a problem paying REASONABLE income taxes, taxes on cigarettes (if I smoked), taxes on the beer I drink or even gasoline tax. But my question again is...HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT TAX ME ON SOMETHING I HAVE NOT PURCHASED?
So much for my high deductible plan. At 47 years old, I pay $122/mo for a high deductible plan with a maximum of $6,000 annual out of pocket. It works for me and because I pay for it myself, it means that I don't have to stay in a sucky job just to keep my health insurance. However, under ObamaCare there is no way I can keep my plan because the law says my insurer (Medica [not mediCARE]) must provide all the preventive services (see below) without charging me a deductible or co-pay. So my personal premiums will likely increase because I'm forced out of what I currently have.
My state offers a plan for those with pre-existing conditions (http://www.chand.org/rates/) and if I went that route, I'd pay in excess of $500/month plus applicable co-insurance for a total cost of approx $9,000 per year whereas right now my total out of pocket cost will not exceed $7,464.
For ObamaCare, my premiums would be $4,920 (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/pre-existing-condition-insurance-plan/nd.html) per year and the maximum I would pay out-of-pocket for covered services in a calendar year is $6,050 in-network/$7,000 out-of-network. Assuming I stayed in-network and maxed out my policy, my total cost would be $10,970 per year.
So, since I don't have any pre-existing conditions, why would I want to change what I have? But it looks like I'll have to since Medica does not cover all of the Obama mandated preventive services for my monthly premium of $122.00. Why can't every state set up something like CHAND (run by BC/BS) for state residents with pre-existing conditions - and leave the rest of us alone?
"The National Academy of Sciences said the Obama administration had told its experts not to consider “the cost-effectiveness of screenings or services” in deciding which ones to recommend. Insurers expressed concern that coverage for some of the newly required preventive services could be costly.
Under the federal rules governing preventive services, insurers can use “reasonable medical management techniques” to control costs and promote the efficient delivery of care. The administration said Monday, for example, that an insurer could charge co-payments for brand-name drugs if a lower-cost generic version was available and was just as safe and effective.
In addition to contraceptive services for women, the government will require health plans to cover screening to detect domestic violence; screening for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; and counseling and equipment to promote breast-feeding, including breast pumps.
Other preventive services that must be covered, without co-payments, include screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women; DNA testing for the human papillomavirus as part of cervical cancer screening; and annual preventive-care visits. Such visits could include prenatal care and preconception care, to make sure women are healthy when they become pregnant.
A major goal of the law is to increase the use of preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pressure checks and childhood immunizations. The law generally bans co-payments, deductibles and other charges for preventive services recommended by expert professional organizations. The law directed federal health officials to pay attention to the health needs of women in particular when listing preventive services that must be covered.
The new standards require coverage of the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as sterilization procedures. Among the drugs and devices that must be covered are emergency contraceptives including pills known as ella and Plan B."
BTW: Researchers have found that people who have coverage of preventive services, under Medicare or private insurance, use them much less than recommended.
There is a simple way to solve this. Those who can afford insurance and choose not to purchase insurance must pay for all hospital visits up front before any service is rendered. If they cannot afford the price of a $25,000 hospital bill, they are not treated and are simply told to take 2 tylenol and drink plenty of fluids. Also, people with pre-existing conditions will NOT be allowed to purchase insurance plans after the law goes into effect if they have not done so in a reasonable amount of time. This will stop people from being "forced" into purchasing health insurance and will keep everyone else's premiums from going up due to people getting care from a hospital without being able to pay for it.
Why is that doctors are the only ones who can EASILY make six figures after spending years in schools.
I think it is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS on how much these people make. Are they the ONLY profession that requires YEARS of education and experience. So Physicists, Mathematicians, Engineers, even accountants do not DESERVE a higher starting salary. Or better yet the teachers who TAUGHT those "doctors". Police officers or firemen do not deserve a higher starting pay FOR PROTECTING THOSE "DOCTORS"?
How is it acceptable for doctors to paid an exuberant salary just because they are doctors?!
Accountants IMO are VERY underpaid and they work the same amount of hours that a doctor does IF NOT MORE! They're ability to DO their job can bring a company LITERALLY to their knees! (We all know what happens when a HUGE company goes under or almost)[BIG3 auto/Wallstreet bailout...without it,we would have a nationwide depression]
After obtaining BA/BS, MBA/MAcc/etc, CPA, 10 years experience you "may" start at 60K-70K? While doctors who 80% of the time you do not even see(a MD assistant or RN is usually helping you) when you go to the hospital make a cool 6 figs for signing a script?! Why is this not questioned? And dont even get me started on congress, how they make 150k+ for having the brain of a 10th grader! Really?! I vote EVERY chance I get but unfortnately all of us smart people are outnumbered by the not so smart people o_O
I AGREE with some of the above posters, there needs to be reform for how students obtain their MDs. Colleges make you take unnecessary classes that employers could care less about it BUT YET these same people say "Oh we want our students to excel" Obviously FUCKING NOT because if you bitches gave a damn, you would not make us take those "General ED" classes that MOST professionals don't effing use anymore. I guarantee you if I ask my mom about Gen Ed Chem, she will BARELY remember how to spell the damn thing[I am exaggerating and actually my mom didn't go to college...just trying to make a point]
But lets not forget ALL schools are EXPENSIVE! NOT just medical schools.
i.e Lets consider a family that makes 180k
Their first born is going to be a freshman
[Oh that income seems like a lot] Well not really,Not if those parents STILL have 150k in student loans too(that they are paying off WITH interest mind you), STILL paying mortgage and NOW they're child is in college] That child cannot get financial aid because his/her parent makes too much...and his/her parent DEFINITELY cannot tackle on their child's 100k/4years of college education(worst case scenario....the child could not get any scholarships) [Scholarships are out there but you have to keep in mind that you have 1000s of applicants vying for the same scholarship].
Going to college then becomes a vicious cycle. Continuing my example:
The student owes 100K....the job she gets pays only 35k(HS Math Teacher)<<<<<which requires years of math....HIGHER LEVEL MATH.
His/her loan repayments will be EASILY over 1000 per month. That's about 12k per year!(pretty much paying for a brand new sedan every single year) so lets do some math! 35k-12k=23k And that student still needs to pay rent, utilities and blah blah blah...not even considering if this student has gotten married themselves and may have children too. But society tells us, oh he/she is just a HS teacher....their role is not as important as a "doctors" well before these people became "doctors" they were taught by "teachers" who make BARELY a fraction of what they make and their job is JUST as important. If you do not think so, let all the teachers across the US go on strike for one week and have congress and their doctors teach class. They are paid so handsomely that teaching some basic math to 20 kids should be a no brainer.
My point that I am trying to make is that I am sick of hearing wimpy stories about doctors,how they are not paid enough. When the fuck is enough?! 500K,800K , 1M annually???? I mean DAMN!
Dont get me wrong, they save lives BUT not alone! The equipment they use were made by tech and engineers who make b/n (32k-60k avg), those who are USUALLY caring for the patients are nurses and assistants(40k-70k avg), those who "account" for their finances are auditors and accountants(45k-65k avg) and WITHOUT these people doctors wouldnt be able to do what they need to do.Their 150k+ salary RELIES heavily on us "lower" workers.
This is the EXACT same problem with corporations. They seem to forget without "middle class" workers, their companies dont mean ANYTHING!
A lot are against Obamacare but w/o it,what will happen to those children who NEED it? what will happen to those students who CANNOT afford the healthcare offered by their employers...my fiance Healthcare plan would cost him 260 bi weekly for our family! We had to say no to it and we "make too much" for Medicaid. There are millions like us out there! What do you say to people like us, oh well life's not fair. Romney says oh use your employers insurance...well dumbass, you can't use it IF you cannot afford it! Obamacare is NOT perfect by any means but NO child should be turned away from "affordable" health care ESPECIALLY when we are spending TRILLIONS on helping OTHER countries and war! I was turned away from a dentist for my son because I could only pay 75 dollars upfront and not the whole 120 for a check up! Mind you that I was willing to make a payment plan and pay in cash[the money i earned working 8/hr at a local supermarket]. Many people deal with this and it is not right.
Inmates in prison get FREE healthcare(well, not really its paid for by OUR taxes)...Obamacare is pretty much the same thing[it follows pretty much the same concept]....it helps EVERYONE get healthcare. if ppl have a problem with that then please those who do,rise up against congress and TELL THEM to stop supplying healthcare for prison inmates for FREE!
Thank you for your post, Acctnewbiemom.
I don't want the government to control anything - especially 1/5 of the U.S. economy.
Obamacare is designed so that people will be forced to be on Government-run health insurance.
The "tax" for not providing health insurance is much cheaper than the cost of the insurance, so companies will pay the tax and the employee will be on government insurance.
The Government should never be a player in the market ... being both participant and referee. Let free market forces work.
Open the state borders so health insurance companies can compete across state lines.
We need tort reform so doctors don't have to pay insane malpractice rates.
If I go to college 10 years for a special skill - I darn well better be making more than a teacher - 5 to 10x more minimum or I'm not going to do it. Period. ROI on both time and money tell me this.
The US Government spends $18k per kid per year on education. Give us all $18k vouchers and let us send our kids to the school of our choice ... put the market back into the education system again - and just like everything else - it will thrive.
My wife has a teaching degree by the way.
That was my mini-rant ... I tried to not be political or offensive!
I'll tell you one very good reason doctors make more than other professions: 10-60k a year in malpractice insurance.
Ill tell you another good reason doctors make more than any other profession: because they are the only ones who meet the true original criteria of a profession.
every other "profession" has just decided to adopt the term without fully meeting the true criteria of the term, mainly trust of society.
other "professions" only require society's trust when society has created laws requiring that trust. (yep that's circular).
However, even in complete anarchy you must give full trust to a doctor because you can't perform your own heart transplant or remove your own kidney.
You must log in to post.