Yep, but I might quit at 50 or so. My mortgage in the office is paid in 2 years. My home mortgage has only 60K less, and there is maybe 50K or so of other debt related to my business. 2-3 K a month is taken off, but there is college in 3 years for my kids. However my 260$ a week child support might cover my share entirely. 6750$ a year per kid.
My support stops at 18, so I’m planing on just using that for 4 years, with some more of course. I’m supposed to pay 1/3 after any financial aid. So maybe I’ll take a gubmint job not doing anything, get a pension, and not worry about crap. People just assume bright individuals will go into medicine, no matter what. They get into because they like science and want a good job.
I already told my son not to pursue chiropractic. Maybe medicine depending. But maybe not. He’s a smart kid, 2nd in his class out of 280+ in 10th grade. I’m not the only health care guy talking like this.
Maybe these Obama assholes need to work a real job that makes sense once and they’ll understand.
A huge step in cutting some of the costs in end of life care that you guys have been talking about is tort reform. The single biggest cost in end of life care is defensive medicine. Families go ape shit over the fact that Grammy, who’s 93 and bed ridden, is having complete memory failure and sleeps 99% of the time. Doctors know that Grammys time is just over but, because of ape shit family they throw MRI’s,CAT scans, and 100k worth of other tests at it out of fear of being sued for tens of millions if they don’t figure out the problem and Grammy’s doesn’t miraculously wake up and dance.
As harsh as it sounds, if there were a 250k cap on malpractice lawsuits, Doc could give his best diagnosis, write a script, and send her on her way without fear of bankrupting his hospital. Not to mention the VAST reduction in malpractice insurance and, subsequently, savings to the patient.
Elections DO have consequences, and the Democrats won big, last year. All over America, the public voted for the Democratic platform and Republicans were absolutely trounced. I don’t think even one single sitting Democrat lost their seat, in Congress.
The Republicans had 8 years to work on health care, and what did they do… the Prescription Drug bill which was a huge expansion of the budget. Millions of additional Americans had to drop their insurance or had their insurance cancelled during that time, and insurance prices skyrocketed. But if you ask Republicans now, many will say that the health care system in America doesn’t need any changes at all. Talk about being out of touch… the very definition of elitist, IMO.
People disrupting town hall meetings may make for exciting television, but it doesn’t represent the viewpoint of the majority of Americans.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Reason # 4560 why liberals are stupid. They think that they could do what they want, tax the hell out of people to pay for those to stupid and lazy to work and think we will keep producing at the same or higher level.[/quote]
President Obama hasn’t raised anyone’s taxes yet, but don’t let that interfere with your opinion. The sky is falling.
You know who doubled the social security tax rate, from 6% to 12%?
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Elections DO have consequences, and the Democrats won big, last year. All over America, the public voted for the Democratic platform and Republicans were absolutely trounced. I don’t think even one single sitting Democrat lost their seat, in Congress.
The Republicans had 8 years to work on health care, and what did they do… the Prescription Drug bill which was a huge expansion of the budget. Millions of additional Americans had to drop their insurance or had their insurance cancelled during that time, and insurance prices skyrocketed. But if you ask Republicans now, many will say that the health care system in America doesn’t need any changes at all. Talk about being out of touch… the very definition of elitist, IMO.
People disrupting town hall meetings may make for exciting television, but it doesn’t represent the viewpoint of the majority of Americans. [/quote]
Yet. How old are you? I was a college student during Reagan and could do a great compare and contrast to carter. And wasn’t there a Democratic congress then?
[quote]denv23 wrote:
As harsh as it sounds, if there were a 250k cap on malpractice lawsuits, Doc could give his best diagnosis, write a script, and send her on her way without fear of bankrupting his hospital. Not to mention the VAST reduction in malpractice insurance and, subsequently, savings to the patient.[/quote]
I just don’t know.
How big of a deal are malpractice suits, really?
Just playing devil’s advocate, but if a surgeon cuts off the wrong limb, you end up with a guy with no legs/arms. If I were to loose both arms, I could no longer work (i’m software dev… though there are specialized input devices, they are extremely expensive and slow), should my lawsuit be capped at $250k, which is not even 5 years income for a green developer?
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Elections DO have consequences, and the Democrats won big, last year. All over America, the public voted for the Democratic platform and Republicans were absolutely trounced. I don’t think even one single sitting Democrat lost their seat, in Congress.
The Republicans had 8 years to work on health care, and what did they do… the Prescription Drug bill which was a huge expansion of the budget. Millions of additional Americans had to drop their insurance or had their insurance cancelled during that time, and insurance prices skyrocketed. But if you ask Republicans now, many will say that the health care system in America doesn’t need any changes at all. Talk about being out of touch… the very definition of elitist, IMO.
People disrupting town hall meetings may make for exciting television, but it doesn’t represent the viewpoint of the majority of Americans. [/quote]
GWB was hardly conservative, fiscally speaking. Neither party is, anymore. The only difference is that the Republican politicians whine about God and socialism and the Democrats whine about the poor.
Did they find that poll buried underneath Dan Rathers’ forged documents?
[/quote]
Now, now, that’s not fair.
According to Dan’s $70 million dollar lawsuit against CBS, it’s all their fault for not stopping him, the General Manager of CBS Evening News, from going ahead with that.
Too bad Dan didn’t have a sense of humor and couldn’t do a Cronkite imitation: it would have been great if he’d ended his broadcasts with “Fake but accurate… and that’s the way it is.”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Elections don’t mean shit. The majority is a bunch of assholes and idiots. Hello? George Bush for 8 years…? I rest my case.
As long as the majority has an opinion and is allowed to exercise it it will mean slavery for the rest of us.
We will either be enslaved to fight their wars or enslaved to feed their children and provide them social security.
So yeah, the majority can eat a dick.[/quote]
That is roughly how I feel.
My life is my own, and as long as I’m not hurting anyone else, they have no claim on me. Just because you’re in the majority doesn’t mean you are right.
[quote]tom8658 wrote:
How big of a deal are malpractice suits, really?
Just playing devil’s advocate, but if a surgeon cuts off the wrong limb, you end up with a guy with no legs/arms. If I were to loose both arms, I could no longer work (i’m software dev… though there are specialized input devices, they are extremely expensive and slow), should my lawsuit be capped at $250k, which is not even 5 years income for a green developer?[/quote]
Tort reform is a red herring. Lawsuits aren’t why health insurance costs have exploded.
Also, the bar for pursuing a legitimate malpractice lawsuit (read 'not thrown out of court immediately") is already high. In order to make it that far, a plaintiff probably has a serious complaint.
GWB was hardly conservative, fiscally speaking. Neither party is, anymore. [/quote]
I might take the Tea Party folks seriously, if there was even just one single demonstration from them during Bush’s eight years of big spending.
But there wasn’t a peep, just a lot of self-satisfied back slapping on the right during the Bush years, so I consider that ‘movement’ to be a joke. It’s driven by partisan politics and nothing else, and designed to appeal to rubes. “Deficits don’t matter” when Republicans are in power, but the rules change when the Democrats are in control.
GWB was hardly conservative, fiscally speaking. Neither party is, anymore.
I might take the Tea Party folks seriously, if there was even just one single demonstration from them during Bush’s eight years of big spending.
But there wasn’t a peep, just a lot of self-satisfied back slapping on the right during the Bush years, so I consider that ‘movement’ to be a joke. It’s driven by partisan politics and nothing else, and designed to appeal to rubes. “Deficits don’t matter” when Republicans are in power, but the rules change when the Democrats are in control.
Utter hypocrisy.
[/quote]
Two things here:
There were a lot of dissatisfied people during Bush’s years on both sides of the aisle. There weren’t any demonstrations, but I will lay you 1000 to 1 that a lot of those people at the tea parties were unhappy with Bush too, that just did not get on the bandwagon of the left sided people who were already protesting, but that doesn’t make them any less vocal–just less visible. They do come from both sides of the spectrum–now I do grant that most of them are right side, but there are a number of former Obama supporters there too.
What’s wrong with political organizing? It’s a legitimate way to participate in the system, and it’s been present since the inception of this country. And it’s almost always driven by partisan politics. Moveon.org is partisan out the wazoo, but I don’t see you arguing that they are terrible. So, you can’t just attack the tea parties for being partisan driven. If you want to criticize the right sided people go for it, but lets not pretend this is anything new under the sun. Furthermore, there are a large amount of people for whom–whether it is organized by grass roots or partisan orgs–the tea parties are a genuine expression of their outrage and not a giant conspiracy. Many of them would qualify themselves as “independents” or non-affiliated as well.
There were a lot of dissatisfied people during Bush’s years on both sides of the aisle. There weren’t any demonstrations, but I will lay you 1000 to 1 that a lot of those people at the tea parties were unhappy with Bush too…[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not buying it. Either the Tea Party folks weren’t paying any attention to politics under Bush (possible I guess) or it’s just partisan politics (or both).
How many… three? Sorry, I’m not buying that either.
Nothing wrong with it. It’s just a phony rationale, that’s all.
Anyway, people don’t respond to Code Pink style tactics (what you see at these Town Hall disruptions). It’s not effective, it turns people off, unless they already agree with you anyway. So good luck with that, Republicans.
And like Beck is saying we probably wouldn’t have seen them under McCain either. Obama the magic marxist has done a nifty little time travel trick by catapulting us into the future and letting us see today where we have been going for decades in a much accelerated fashion. Trouble is, it’s a bit late now. Some of us have been screaming for years and years that we were going there.
