Yeah, that's the trend I am seeing. Punish those that make a living. Go after those that can afford to raise a family and live independently. Go after the salaries of those who build themselves up from nothing, and give bonuses to those who make millions or a year.

I hate seeing Docs who make 250 a year get lumped in with money hungry CEO's who make more and pay less overhead.

Indeed sir...

Interesting as the term "Nazi" stemmed from "National Socialist". In fact, under hitler, education, healthcare, etc. were all free for the average citizen.

Unlike anything else one cannot look at gross salary as actual income.


Lets do a little breakdown. MD's will make about 200 grand a year median pay. This will net about 125k. Now subtract about 25,000 for malpractice, and about 35,000 (annual student loan payment for 10 years). This will be a take home pay of about 65,000. This is for a 60 hour work week.

If they are not underpaid, they are at the cusp of being not worth the extra 10 years of training. If they are required to accept medicare/medicaid as viable insurance you'll be seeing a lot fewer doctors making 200k a year plus. Couple this with the fact that paperwork is taking more and more time and you have a less rewarding career altogether.

Wish I could get refund on my medical degree...

Agreed. But how we go about it makes 100% of the difference... And that's precisely what gets lost in translation.

so it sounds like the rates keep going up (increases the percentage of yearly income)...

The more I look into this the worse it sounds...

There are two ways of breaking this down. You can take from middle class and give to poor, thereby making the middle class poor, and sustaining it all under a status quo. Or you can provide opportunities for people to advance beyond poverty into the middle class where they can be self sustaining...

I have seen neither democrat nor republican go after the wealthy corporations of which you speak. Republicans give them tax breaks, democrats give them taxpayer money and pretend its for the good of the people.

Couple this with doctors leaving the field due to salary cuts.

No idea how im going to pay my student loans...


When calculating salaries/student loans/hours worked/and income, an MD would have to make about 190k a year to break even with nursing staff. And it takes only 2 years to get an RN degree and 12 years to get an MD. Wonder which one people will pick...

MD's are already underpaid. The only way I've seen a few get around it is by opening a private practice and denying medicare and medicaid.

But fear not, as i suppose we can outsource those too...

I think this message is worth repeating. Again, and again....

Agree completely

Interesting, as I've looked up these numbers at www.healthcare.gov i am seeing $3,899.76 yearly (that's about $650 a month for both of us combined), per person in my household at $70,000 a year for an income. This is the "silver" plan which only covers 70% of average costs (This covers less than medicare).

Admittedly its a bit tough to get info though, without actually signing up.

I thought they received 100% pay for life?

I suspect you would be correct. Eliminating terms would be a very logical first step... Although they'd probably start by attacking gun rights, which would open the doors for everything else.

Given the increasing costs of insurance, something did have to be done.

I fail to see how ACA is going to do anything but hurt doctors and/or increase medical costs.

Horrible idea #1. Not allowing doctors to deny insurance (which means they will have to accept medicare/medicade salaries)

Horrible idea #2. Taxing medical equipment and supplies. Is it just me, or is increasing taxing on medical care doing the opposite of making it more affordable?

There were much better ways to deal with rising costs of healthcare, and having this shoved down our throats before we even had time to review what in it is like playing russian roulette. Not sure how anyone could be comfortable with such an idea.

The only thing that would be worse than having only democrats or republicans to choose from, is having either party unopposed. Not a huge fan of republicans, but if they were to disperse, and democrats were the ruling party (without opposition), our country wouldn't last more that a couple terms.

This is a very beautiful outlook, and one that can actually make the world a better place, under perfect circumstances. The world is imperfect, however, and sometimes "the path to hell is paved with good intentions". Efficiency and effectiveness need to be taken into consideration (and corruption). Sometimes we need to take care of ourselves before others, because if we don't, we will find ourselves having to take from the same hand we were once funding.

It is important in realizing that a Utopia can never exist in this universe. It's mathematically and scientifically impossible. But we should all strive to want to help others.

I believe George Washington actually rejected the notion of Congress and the presidency receive any pay at first. He was then convinced otherwise when it was explained to him that only the wealthy will serve in congress and/or the presidency if one does not receive a paycheck. Washington, was the richest president in history, i 've been told, when you adjust his net worth for inflation. However, he supposedly spent a great deal of his own money paying for the revolutionary war. Always respected him for that.

Anyhow, I believe, that congressmen/women should not receive a pay rate larger than the median american salary, They should also have the same health benefits as the rest of the country and have to rely on social security for retirement. Furthermore a law should be made making it illegal to serve in congress at the same time you have money in the stock market.

Given the history of taxes, why would one want to raise it again? I'm sure if you added Medicare/social security, federal income tax, state income tax, property tax, vehicle registration, fees for licenses/permits, sales taxes, gasoline tax, and inflation (which is in all actuality, a tax), we are overpaying. Kinda hard to keep an economy stimulated when you are taking half, or more of someone's income in taxes...

This excludes the fact that whenever a new tax is created, is almost never, if ever, gets decreased or rescinded after it's purpose has been served.

Question... If I am making around $200,000 a year (gross income) does that mean i will have to pay $1,800 monthly for insurance?

(Bear in mind, medical malpractice insurance is about 3,700/month, student loan payments are about 2,700 monthly, and taxes are about 7,600 monthly)