Page 23 of 27 FirstFirst ... 1318192021222324252627 LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 536
  1. #441  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post

    And yes davidra....it is a "theory"....but so is all this health care reform BS, right? But yet you seem perfectly fine taking chances there. At least with the Fair Tax, we would know what is in the bill as there is a book on it that describes it. We wouldn't have to use the pelosi method of "voting for something before we can know what is in it". Wow, everytime I write that I have to say "wow".

    I was just meeting with a client who sells durable medical equipment. Listen to this BS. As you all know, the govt will be putting an additional tax on durable medical equipment. The maker of said equipment will increase the price of the medical equipment to my client to cover this new tax. My client meanwhile, who deals a lot with Medicare, can not increase what he charges (to pay for the now higher cost of the equipment) because the govt tells him what he can charge. He can't recoup the additional cost of the equipment. The medical networks are unlikely to negotiate a higher reimbursement rate either, so, he gets screwed. So what does he, the employer do? He lays of an employee or 2 to make up for this additional cost. This health care bill....this bill....it is going to hurt soooo many people in the pocket. In most cases, not the business owner, but the employees who either will lose jobs or benefits.
    First, universal health care is not a theory. It works in every modern country except ours. And not only that, we have definitive proof that government run health care works just wonderfully here, as well. Like the VA and Medicare. If not for the republican obstructionism, we would have had to struggle and would have a public option. Tax cuts for the rich are a theory that has failed to work for the past, how many, ten years?

    Second, what exactly do you know about DME reimbursement? Do you know that they are reimbursed based on a code and not based on the equipment they distribute? They get the same amount whether they provide high quality materials or the crappiest machine they can buy. Some kind of restrictions had to be put in place because although the profit margins are not as consistently ridiculous as drug companies, they are close. And I haven't even mentioned the tremendous amount of fraud. And of course, I know you want to control fraud that the taxpayers are covering, right?

    Melvin Kirschner, MD, was pleased to see his patient making progress walking after his hip surgery. The man had abandoned his walker for a cane.
    But then the man's neighbor received a motorized scooter. And even though the patient didn't meet Medicare's criteria, he easily found a supplier who insisted he was entitled to one, too.
    He brought an authorization form from the supplier to Dr. Kirschner, a family physician from Van Nuys, Calif. The heat was on.
    "If I write down honestly what I know to be true about you, you won't get this scooter," Dr. Kirschner told the man.
    The patient pondered the situation a moment. "Well, write down the truth, and we'll take our chances."
    The gamble paid off for the patient, who got his scooter. But for Dr. Kirschner, the experience was just another example of how suppliers of durable medical equipment game the Medicare rules. He and other physicians are getting fed up.
    Medicare pays up to 88% more than the VA for some durable medical equipment."I want my patients to have what they need, but I don't want durable medical equipment people fishing around in the guise of filling a need," he said. "You name it, there's durable equipment being sold that the patient doesn't need or doesn't want."

    Because Medicare requires a physician to certify that the equipment is medically necessary, doctors are stuck being the ones to tell patients "no" and to resist the hard sell from persistent vendors.
    "Medicare is making us the cop, and the durable medical equipment suppliers are making us the patsy," Dr. Kirschner said. "There are caring people in the DME field, but there are also an awful lot of scalawags."
    Some are outright fraudulent. Federal officials in Florida recently uncovered a multimillion-dollar scam in which a DME supplier sold $2,000 motorized scooters in senior centers and housing developments, and billed Medicare for $6,000 power wheelchairs. In some cases, physicians signed certificates of medical necessity without fully reviewing them. If the doctor refused, the vendor would find a "friendly" doctor or just forge the signature.

    amednews: A hard sell on DME: How suppliers try to game Medicare :: Sept. 1, 2003 ... American Medical News
  2. #442  
    Yes....this company employees 57 people.....providing jobs for 57 people, darn those owners. I've known these guys (3 partners) for quite awhile, and they run a straight up business. It sounds to me like they are moving away from the DME market as there is simply no money to be made there. They told me that in SC no one bid on the "walker" reimbursement (not what I do, but apparently you have to bid on these products and then the goverment awards you the contract to deal in that product under Medicare?) so walkers will have to come from hospitals only....no outside vendors? You may know how this workers better than I davidra, I simply don't get involved in it. Sounded like a huge headache.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #443  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yes....this company employees 57 people.....providing jobs for 57 people, darn those owners. I've known these guys (3 partners) for quite awhile, and they run a straight up business. It sounds to me like they are moving away from the DME market as there is simply no money to be made there. They told me that in SC no one bid on the "walker" reimbursement (not what I do, but apparently you have to bid on these products and then the goverment awards you the contract to deal in that product under Medicare?) so walkers will have to come from hospitals only....no outside vendors? You may know how this workers better than I davidra, I simply don't get involved in it. Sounded like a huge headache.
    As usual, it's the crooks in the business that bring the rain down on the honest ones....but in many cases that is based on a lack of self monitoring by professions. Certainly true in medicine. This particular business, however, is full of crooks, and they advertise on your tv every day. They needed regulation to save taxpayers money, because many are profit-greedy crooks. I know that's hard for you to fathom, that making a profit could be unethical or illegal, but that's the case.
  4. #444  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yes...exactly...but corporations will also do what it takes to make a buck, and that is reduce their price and stay in a country that isn't taxing them. You do realize that taxes are a cost, right?
    in my post corps and people are interchangable. Yes i understand that taxes are a cost.
    My point is and will continue to be, that corps/people, will do damn near anything at all to get out of paying taxes. What is fair in your mind is unfair in others.
    I look at the number of businesses off shoring at this very moment, but turn around and sell the same goods at the same price while paying mere pennies on the dollar compared to what they use to pay as wrong. I see nothing wrong with making a good profit, what i see is the explotation of your average working man.
    The conatation that the average working stiff is a comodity to be used at will is the biggest problem.. Remember, there are a lot of rich people in the states, the middle class out spends them hundreds of times over. if they disappear, so goes the economy.

    just keep off shoring all those jobs, what is it 70% of all consumer goods are sold in the states.. where does that number go if they are all only making min wage and can no longer afford all those nice middle class items.. hmmmm
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  5. #445  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    it's not about fantasy. it's simple math. they keep less, they spend less. they spend less, the economy slows. the economy slows, they cut jobs to stay afloat.
    Since Reagan, companies have been paying a fraction of the taxes they were paying before. It went from 70% down to 20% back up to where we are now, around 35%. Then with H. Bush /Clinton, we got NAFTA which gave even more tax cuts to those who shipped their manufacturing overseas. Have prices gone down for the consumers? No. Remember, all of these tax cuts were going to boost the economy and create jobs! Did the owners create new jobs because theses tax breaks? No. Were the shareholders/CEO's raking in record profits? Yes! We have been following conservative economic principles for a few decades now, Miceal. When is this big trickle down pay off going to happen? Forget "simple math" let's look at Simple History. Conservative trickle down economics DO NOT WORK!!!!
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  6. #446  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    How would the large corporations be "raking in more profit" if the rich are buying the products else where? That makes no sense. Please explain how a corporation makes more money when no sales are being made because they (the wealthy) are buying from foreign corporations. Why wouldn't the corporations here just reduce the price, be competitive, and still make the same amount of money? Did you read what you wrote? The American corporation wouldn't want to leave since they now would be paying no corp taxes, so there would be no reason to do that. In fact....ever think that maybe more corporations might move back to the US?

    Think about it....no more worrying about your receipts for tax time....no more filing taxes....no more worrying about what is exempt and what isn't exempt....no tax deadlines....no setting up trusts to try and avoid estate taxes....and likely....no more IRS!
    Reading comprehension has failed you...

    The rich won't be buying "foreign products" they will be buying IN or FROM foreign countries to avoid our new magical tax system...

    FUN FACT: Did you know that the US now imports 70% of its goods? 50% of that are goods imported to the US... by US companies.

    Gee! Where did all of our jobs go? You can't blame that on taxes! When the corps paid 70% in taxes, they had all of their plants here. Now that they pay around 35%, they shipped their manufacturing over to Communist China... and now they are becoming the worlds #1 consumer!

    With jobs comes buying power, and we no longer have either...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  7. #447  
    Freaking socialists, filing your tax returns is a personal responsibility! People should be responsible enough to continue to file proper tax forms! What is this trying to pawn off the responsibility onto government and businesses?! People need to be more responsable for themselves and their tax documents!
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #448  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Since Reagan, companies have been paying a fraction of the taxes they were paying before. It went from 70% down to 20% back up to where we are now, around 35%. Then with H. Bush /Clinton, we got NAFTA which gave even more tax cuts to those who shipped their manufacturing overseas. Have prices gone down for the consumers? No. Remember, all of these tax cuts were going to boost the economy and create jobs! Did the owners create new jobs because theses tax breaks? No. Were the shareholders/CEO's raking in record profits? Yes! We have been following conservative economic principles for a few decades now, Miceal. When is this big trickle down pay off going to happen? Forget "simple math" let's look at Simple History. Conservative trickle down economics DO NOT WORK!!!!
    Ummm, maybe your history is simple, but it's definitely twisted. Tax cuts for shipping their manufacturing overseas? Exactly which tax code was that again? lol

    I guess for you, taxes increases is what this country needs, right? At least for those evil rich guys.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #449  
    the prosperity of lower tax rates happened for most of the last 25 years, or have we forgotten how much the economy thrived since carter...
  10. #450  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Ummm, maybe your history is simple, but it's definitely twisted. Tax cuts for shipping their manufacturing overseas? Exactly which tax code was that again? lol

    I guess for you, taxes increases is what this country needs, right? At least for those evil rich guys.
    Let me feed you baby bird!

    # ·Other Reforms to Reduce Tax Evasion and Incentives to Shift Investment Overseas: Transfer pricing reform is part of a broader package of international tax reforms that has been modified from last year to better meet the goals of taking on international tax evasion and cutting back tax incentives for shipping jobs overseas. For example, the proposal to deny an immediate deduction for deferred expenses has been modified to increase its focus on eliminating the incentive to create jobs overseas. Under current law, businesses that borrow money and invest it overseas can claim the interest they pay as a business expense and take an immediate deduction on their U.S. taxes, even if they pay little or no taxes on their overseas profits. The Budget would eliminate this tax advantage for overseas investment by requiring that the deduction for the costs of overseas investment be delayed, saving $26 billion over the budget window. The Budget also includes a package of provisions to reduce tax evasion through the use of offshore accounts and entities to hide income and assets from the IRS. The full package of international proposals would raise $122 billion over the budget window.
    TG-522: Administration’s FY2011 Budget Proposes Tax Cuts for Job<br>Creation, Small Business, and Middle-Class Families <br>While Promoting Fiscal Discipline
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  11. #451  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Forget "simple math" let's look at Simple History. Conservative trickle down economics DO NOT WORK!!!!
    Let's look at both:

    President Jimmy Carter's last signed and executed fiscal year budget results ended with a $79.0 billion budget deficit, ending within the period of David Stockman's and Ronald Reagan's first year in office, on October 1, 1981, and provided the benchmark of where the national debt stood at the beginning of the Reagan administration. The gross federal national debt had just climbed to the $1.0 trillion level in October 1981 ($998 billion on 30 September 1981), which was the cumulative fiscal budget results of 205 years as a nation (1776–1981). Four and a half years into the Reagan administration, upon Stockman's resignation at the OMB in August 1985, the gross federal debt level had nearly doubled with the national debt standing at $1.8 trillion on 9 September 1985. Stockman's OMB work within the administration in 1981 up to August was dedicated to negotiating with the Senate and House on the next fiscal year's budget, executed later in the fall of 1985, which resulted in the national debt officially doubling to $2.1 trillion on fiscal year end 30 September 1986, and reached $2.7 trillion when Reagan left office in 1988.
    David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Or:

  12. #452  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Reading comprehension has failed you...

    The rich won't be buying "foreign products" they will be buying IN or FROM foreign countries to avoid our new magical tax system...

    FUN FACT: Did you know that the US now imports 70% of its goods? 50% of that are goods imported to the US... by US companies.

    Gee! Where did all of our jobs go? You can't blame that on taxes! When the corps paid 70% in taxes, they had all of their plants here. Now that they pay around 35%, they shipped their manufacturing over to Communist China... and now they are becoming the worlds #1 consumer!

    With jobs comes buying power, and we no longer have either...
    As usual....you deflect into another area when you can't defend your statement. You are connecting jobs moving offshore to the Fair Tax....ummm....those jobs have moved offshore without the Fair Tax....the 2 are not connected. While I can't think of a connection to reverse it, but perhaps if jobs have been moving off shore without the Fair Tax in place, maybe the Fair Tax reverses this trend? Again....I don't see your connection to begin with....but...if you can say something that makes no sense, I guess I can as well.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. #453  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    As usual....you deflect into another area when you can't defend your statement. You are connecting jobs moving offshore to the Fair Tax....ummm....those jobs have moved offshore without the Fair Tax....the 2 are not connected. While I can't think of a connection to reverse it, but perhaps if jobs have been moving off shore without the Fair Tax in place, maybe the Fair Tax reverses this trend? Again....I don't see your connection to begin with....but...if you can say something that makes no sense, I guess I can as well.
    The jobs being shipped offshore has less to do with taxes and more to do with cheap labor. For every one person hired here, you can hire 10 in China. Even with your magical pipe dream, fair tax, those companies will not come back...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  14. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #454  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Well that's a useless chart...if Truman had held things constant we would be at 120+% of GDP. Or of Nixon had held things constant we'd be at 40%. Picking a historical point is arbitrary and ignores how things might have changed had debt levels remained the same moving forward at any given point in time.

    The bottom line is that under Republicans and Democrats the national debt as a % of GDP has gone up and down at varying times. My view of Bush Jr. is heavily jaded because of his irresponsible spending habits and so it is for Obama also. The chart also ends at 2010 - projected deficits are expected to continue increasing - the red line will continue going up - it will not be flat in 2011.

    I was told growing up "two wrongs don't make a right" - Bush's spending habits don't excuse Obama's.
    Last edited by solarus; 10/01/2010 at 09:23 AM.
  15. #455  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    The jobs being shipped offshore has less to do with taxes and more to do with cheap labor. For every one person hired here, you can hire 10 in China. Even with your magical pipe dream, fair tax, those companies will not come back...
    I really didn't say they would...but you seemed to pull this out of a hat as if the Fair Tax was somehow related. I realize it was a smoke screen....but just thought you should be called on it. The Fair Tax will have no bearing on labor being moved offshore.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #456  
    LOL. Omg that's so rich! "cutting back tax incentives for shipping jobs overseas" does not mean that there was actual tax code that stated "if you ship jobs overseas, we'll give you X dollars off of your taxable income".

    It's political double talk. "tax incentives to move jobs offshore" EQUALS
    "tax liabilities that force you to move jobs offshore".

    BTW, thanks for offering to buy me lunch! I'm starved. How about some super hot wings, fries and beer?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #457  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Well that's a useless chart...if Truman had held things constant we would be at 120+% of GDP. Or of Nixon had held things constant we'd be at 40%. Picking a historical point is arbitrary and ignores how things might have changed had debt levels remained the same moving forward at any given point in time.

    The bottom line is that under Republicans and Democrats the national debt as a % of GDP has gone up and down at varying times. My view of Bush Jr. is heavily jaded because of his irresponsible spending habits and so it is for Obama also. The chart also ends at 2010 - projected deficits are expected to continue increasing - the red line will continue going up - it will not be flat in 2011.

    I was told growing up "two wrongs don't make a right" - Bush's spending habits don't excuse Obama's.
    Uh, did you note the big "WW II" label on the chart before Truman's administration? That was kind of a pricey job, but well worth the cash.

    As for "two wrongs," for every old adage, I can give you a counter-old adage. And this is a case in point, because, in fact, Bush's spending habits *do* partially justify Obama's, since we needed to dig ourselves out of economic disaster with the stimulus.

    Speaking of wars and deficits, Bush's critics like to say he was a lousy president, but he sure was some salesman. It takes real chutzpah to start a multi-trillion-dollar war, claiming that victory is absolutely essential to the very existence of the American way of life, and simultaneously not ask Americans to sacrifice and pay for it, and actually *lower taxes*. Talk about bogus economic "theories." I mean, how can that work, exactly, at least in this universe?
  18. #458  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Speaking of wars and deficits, Bush's critics like to say he was a lousy president, but he sure was some salesman. It takes real chutzpah to start a multi-trillion-dollar war, claiming that victory is absolutely essential to the very existence of the American way of life, and simultaneously not ask Americans to sacrifice and pay for it, and actually *lower taxes*. Talk about bogus economic "theories." I mean, how can that work, exactly, at least in this universe?
    That is pretty amazing.

    What we need is a real incentive to prevent starting these wars in the first place. Clearly the lose of life isn't incentive enough but I have an idea what might be enough incentive for a war to be justified before launching into it. What we need is a law that removes ALL tax cuts, brings all tax rates up to whatever is the default level for the duration of war time and leaves anything above that default level as-is. Paying taxes seems to be the ONLY thing that could actually de-incentivize war in this country, which is sad really..
  19. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #459  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Uh, did you note the big "WW II" label on the chart before Truman's administration? That was kind of a pricey job, but well worth the cash.

    As for "two wrongs," for every old adage, I can give you a counter-old adage. And this is a case in point, because, in fact, Bush's spending habits *do* partially justify Obama's, since we needed to dig ourselves out of economic disaster with the stimulus.

    Speaking of wars and deficits, Bush's critics like to say he was a lousy president, but he sure was some salesman. It takes real chutzpah to start a multi-trillion-dollar war, claiming that victory is absolutely essential to the very existence of the American way of life, and simultaneously not ask Americans to sacrifice and pay for it, and actually *lower taxes*. Talk about bogus economic "theories." I mean, how can that work, exactly, at least in this universe?
    You won't get any arguments by me on the merit, or lack thereof, of George Bush's administration... cutting taxes while spending like a drunken sailor is not my idea of smart. A second war while another is ongoing isn't the best idea either.

    My point about the 120% wasn't that the money shouldn't have been spent it was that you can pick any point on the chart and say "if things had held constant". Problem is things don't hold constant, they change. Even if Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't escalate the debt whose to say what would have happened in the Clinton administration (hint, no one can b/c it didn't happen). The country would have been on a completely different economic, social and international footing.

    You can claim that Obama had to spend to stimulate the economy due to Bush's spending but that is based on the assumption that dramatic increases in government spending to solve unemployment & deep recessionary pressures works - it doesn't, not effectively anyway - unemployment was all over the place in the 1930's down for a couple of years, up for another couple, it never could stabilize itself. Japan tried the government stimulus plan strategy in the 1990's and for a decade its economy never recovered.

    I actually think the tax rates and government spending during the Clinton administration stuck a nice balance - provided enough room for economic growth while providing enough money to run the government and pay down debt, so a phase in of tax rates back to 2000 levels (for everyone) at the personal level would not be a deal breaker for me. However given the spending of the last 10 years I cannot say the same for government spending though - it needs a complete overhaul and drastic reductions.
    Last edited by solarus; 10/01/2010 at 11:58 AM.
  20. #460  
    They both rock at racking up huge deficits on the tax payers credit card. I honestly don't know that I can tell them apart.

Posting Permissions