aREDSKIN Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Gee Gov. Rendell can you pick on anyone else but the sick and in need? The Rendell administration is considering taxing patients for every doctor's office visit as a way of helping physicians offset the high cost of malpractice insurance. The proposal surfaced last week during a meeting between Roger Mecum, executive vice president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, and Rosemarie Greco, director of the Office of Health Care Reform, which is leading Gov. Ed Rendell's efforts to improve health care in the state. On Monday, a spokeswoman for Greco's office downplayed the significance of the discussions. Sick tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Bad idea. Although, where you cut the story off is questionable (and even laughable) - what did you think no one was going to call you on it? If you are going to end the story midway - why not end it with this - the very next paragraph? "It is one idea among many ideas on the table being considered," Amy Kelchner said. She added that the proposal is so preliminary that "I can't even give you details." Or even paste the rest of the story so people can decide?... "Although the medical society hasn't taken a position on the proposal, Mecum said physicians have "serious, serious concerns" about the prospect of being forced to levy an extra fee on their patients for every visit. The sicker patients are, the more visits they make and the more it costs them out of their own pockets, he said. Dr. Jitendra Desai, of Aliquippa, Beaver County, president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, said the measure would turn doctors into "tax collectors." "We are opposed to that," Desai said. "It's a tax on people in addition to the co-payment. ... We'd be tax collectors. We don't want to tax the patient. I practice in a small, rural area with poor people who can't even come up with the co-payment." Only two other states have imposed patient taxes -- Minnesota and West Virginia. The money was used to help pay for health care for low-income families. Minnesota imposed a 1.5 percent out-of-pocket tax on all medical services in 1992, and groups have been trying to repeal it ever since. In 2001, West Virginia repealed a 2 percent tax on a doctor's gross income that was used to help pay for Medicaid costs. The revenue generated by a patient tax would be used to help offset the costs physicians must pay for supplemental insurance from the state through the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund, or MCare. In addition to a primary coverage policy, doctors must obtain the supplemental policy from the state to cover malpractice awards or settlements that are not covered by primary policies. Mecum said a tax of $2 to $4 per visit, based on an estimated 30 million patient visits a year, would yield an estimated $100 million. "In general, we have very serious concerns about such a tax and are not in favor of what we look upon as a sick tax," Mecum said. "Our real concern is about access to health care, about not going to a doctor when you should because of hesitation about paying an extra fee." When Rendell became governor, he pledged to help physicians find a way to cope with the increasing malpractice insurance premiums, which have risen between 250 percent and 300 percent over the past four years, according to Mecum. Rendell promised to find revenue sources to pay for the MCare surcharges. Greco's office is continuing to hunt for financial solutions, Kelchner said. "Groups are constantly contacting her about the problem," she said. "The governor is studying those proposals."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Whether it's part of many proposals, it's still an extremely dumb idea for any number of reasons, not the least of which has to do with the idea that the government has no *$%^$# business how many times I visit the doctor unless they're paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsBry Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I don't go to the doctor much anyway (only if I'm dying). My problem is that M-Fer wants to raise the tax on beer. :finger: :soapbox: :cuss: :mad: :box: :moon: :hammer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 My understanding TEG is that we shouln't post copyrighted material in it's entirety on this board. I provided the link to the entire article. If you find evilness in my approach then so be it. I assume people are smart enough to follow the link. However, in the future I will happily provide instruction as to where to go just for others like yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by aREDSKIN My understanding TEG is that we shouln't post copyrighted material in it's entirety on this board. I provided the link to the entire article. If you find evilness in my approach then so be it. I assume people are smart enough to follow the link. However, in the future I will happily provide instruction as to where to go just for others like yourself. And when you do -- make sure your link is correct. The fact that you tried to spin this as a the DEM solution is laughable. Moreover, is the FACT that you tried to sell this as a absolute accepted practice. It was not - what it it was is, as I posted, one of many ideas being considered. You conveniently didn't quote that in your blatant attempt to mislead. That said - this is a HORRIBLE idea, IMHO. But it does fall in line with those who favor a consumption tax. Since this is the same principle thats behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 It's a laughable idea. And one that not even the Dems would enact. But I dont necessarily have a problem with them looking at every possible angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 TEG- now you're the one telling only part of the story. This is only a consumption tax if you love socialism I suppose, because they're doing nothing about the income tax as part of this. I'd love to have a consumption tax-based system, but this ain't it if they ignore income tax! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 TEG. You see it your way & I see it mine. Sick Tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Redman, Despite any other taxes going into it - and correct me if I am wrong - but isnt any tax based on the amount that you buy a consumption tax? So if you are buying medical services each visit - under this principal - you would be paying a consumption tax right? Or is my thinking all wrong on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Services are not consumable. In the consumption/sales tax plans I have seen, there is no tax on services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I saw an article somewhere today that England is going to tax patients that are fat from not exercising and eating ding dongs all day or smoke, extra for doctors visits. Gee, I thought all the other taxes they pay were supposed to pay for that stuff. So much for socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Services are not consumable. In the consumption/sales tax plans I have seen, there is no tax on services Here in Florida there are no State taxes on Lawyer services fees. Go figure that one. With the amount they charge that would seem to me to be a key area of interest to the politicians. Well at least one side of the aisle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 I find it hard to see this proposal as some form of consumption tax. The idea behind the consumption/fair tax is to give the power to choose back to the people. What really intrigues me about a tax of this nature is the means in which the public can voice it's displeasure with the govt. and it's spending habits by clenching their teeth and choosing not to buy something (a luxury item for instance) and therefore not giving the revenue from the tax back to the govt. to waste on social programs that are both ineffective and wasteful. Everyone gets ill at one time or another, god willing they don't visit the hospital for an extended stay. I find taxing this service, a true necessity yet unfortunate, not in the govt.s best interest. An example: Recently on MSNBC I saw a report about govt. waste on Scarborough Country. Are you aware that the federal govt. GAVE $25mil to some organization in order for them to build a research monkey/chimp retirement community, complete with acres of land and posh living quarters? Is this something the govt. ASKED ME whether I wanted to spend my hard earned money to fund? Example #2: It has been reported that the FEDERAL GOVT. writes a check to publicly traded companies like McDonalds so they can market the products overseas in a effort to increase US trade. Do I give a damn whether McDonalds markets their products overseas... and should I have to pay for a company to market their product overseas. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!! So.... you Dems and liberals who want nothing more than to figure out ways to spend my money...... GO TO H*ll!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.