AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 8, 2012 12:01:37 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:03:20 GMT -5
"For starters, they lost most all other deductions at $125K- including the home mortgage interest deduction." Really... got a cite in the law for this claim? I bet you cannot find one.... but what do I know, maybe you can teach me with you and your buddy's vast knowledge of the tax law... how often to you address tax matters, once, twice a year... yep, you must know more than me... isn't it Romney who is actually proposing to do away with loopholes and deductions... and it was both the Bush and Obama tax commissions that suggested curtailing the mortgage interest deductions, both other than the AMT issue for home equity borrowings and the million dollar cap (1.1 in some cases, and the cap relates to interest associated with the borrowing, not the allowable interest deduction), but what do I know.... "(Wouldn't be the first time I've had to take a CPA to school) " "Though he should stick to giving tax advice.... " and you should stick to not telling me what to do The opinions of two extremist who always pat themselves on the back and who often claim the sky is falling always have valuable than the opinions of others, there opinions are true and the rest of us are just plain stupid, needing to be schooled and being told what to do.... (one of these them claimed all rapes are fake and another who uses this as his tag line "to argue with the person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" speaks volumes about them, in my opinion) I was only slightly off- guess it has been adjusted up. However, we're talking about tax increases on those earning over $250K so everyone I was talking about I was also correct in stating they lost their other deductions: www.financialsamurai.com/2011/05/25/mortgage-interest-deduction-limit-and-income-phaseout/right- and this is all part of CURRENT policy. so, if what you are saying is true, why are there so many people reporting incomes of over $166,800?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 12:05:15 GMT -5
Just like the Fair credit act a few years ago, ushered in a massive contraction of consumer credit, raising taxes on dividends and cap gains will dry up venture capital, the source of capital for young start ups seeking that capital...
Very predictable stuff, nothing complicated here.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 12:06:23 GMT -5
right- and this is all part of CURRENT policy. so, if what you are saying is true, why are there so many people reporting incomes of over $166,800?
You do realize there are reporting requirements and regulations don't you?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 8, 2012 12:14:17 GMT -5
right- and this is all part of CURRENT policy. so, if what you are saying is true, why are there so many people reporting incomes of over $166,800? The fact is that on the mere presence of the persistent threat of higher taxes, along with the phase in of higher taxes from ObamaCare and the looming cloud that and other unwarranted, overreaching regulation-- there are fewer people reporting high incomes. Look, dj, this isn't 'theory'. It's proven. It has been repeatedly proven. And when confronted with this FACT, Obama doesn't argue it. He instead stated that raising taxes is about "fundamental fairness" and has nothing to do with the economic outcome that he is well aware of. Obama has shown again and again that he is well aware of the devastating economic consequences of higher taxes on the America's most productive citizens, but that he does not care because he has an unflappable ideological commitment to higher taxes on the rich because he just flat doesn't like them. Here's a bonus read- enjoy: www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 8, 2012 12:21:00 GMT -5
Why do liberals support an increase in taxes on cigarettes? Why do they feel in some cases that a tax of $1 a pack should be mandated? What arguments do they put forth on this subject?
If $1 a pack tax on cigarettes deters people from smoking, wouldn't you agree that a higher tax on income would deter the production of income?
Wouldn't you simply have to agree that we would have an overall healthier economy if we moved away from taxing the production of income, savings, and investment and instead taxed consumption? If you're honest, you'd have to admit that it would solve many of the problems liberals claim we have. They're constantly decrying "conspicuous consumption" so why not tax consumption over a certain subsistence level? They're always calling proposals like the "flat tax" unfair and regressive- but they don't have anything to say about our flat tax-- the one we already have- in the form of FICA (payroll taxes). Why would anyone oppose giving a working poor person their entire paycheck (along with a pre-bate) in the form of the ultimate progressive tax-- one that truly hit the "rich" hardest? Why would anyone who thinks our pathetically low savings rate wouldn't be remedied in part by removing the penalty on savings and investment and shifting the cost of taxation to consuming rather than productive activities?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:33:37 GMT -5
right- and this is all part of CURRENT policy. so, if what you are saying is true, why are there so many people reporting incomes of over $166,800?You do realize there are reporting requirements and regulations don't you? more sideshows, eh? how about an answer to the questions: how much additional tax per $10,000 earned would ending the Bush Tax Cuts add to the $266,800/yr+ community?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:35:51 GMT -5
right- and this is all part of CURRENT policy. so, if what you are saying is true, why are there so many people reporting incomes of over $166,800? The fact is that on the mere presence of the persistent threat of higher taxes, along with the phase in of higher taxes from ObamaCare and the looming cloud that and other unwarranted, overreaching regulation-- there are fewer people reporting high incomes. that makes no sense to me. but continue.Look, dj, this isn't 'theory'. It's proven. It has been repeatedly proven. And when confronted with this FACT, Obama doesn't argue it. that is because he is economically stupid, imo. you expect me to defend him?He instead stated that raising taxes is about "fundamental fairness" and has nothing to do with the economic outcome that he is well aware of. Obama has shown again and again that he is well aware of the devastating economic consequences of higher taxes on the America's most productive citizens, but that he does not care because he has an unflappable ideological commitment to higher taxes on the rich because he just flat doesn't like them. Here's a bonus read- enjoy: www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdfthanks. i will see if it supports your case or not here in a moment.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Oct 8, 2012 12:36:51 GMT -5
For those that think capital plays a smaller role, or shouldnt get any benefit from their initial investment, consider this How many people do you know, with a decent idea for a business, but that NEVER start it? Why? Capital to risk is the number one reason. Period. So those ideas go by the wayside...and maybe someone else thinks about it, and actually makes a go of it, because they find somewhere to get the initial capital needed to start the business When a business opens their doors to make a product or provide a service, they create jobs. Without investment in all forms, they will not open. No jobs will be created, and no taxes paid by the company, or their employees Business is the key.....there is no economy without it. Government coffers will not be filled, jobs will not exist, and government is unsustainable by itself. Now...the question is, if you increase the taxes on the higher ups, will they "invest" less of their capital in these endeavors? In my opinion, yes. They will have less to invest from the taxes, and they will be more careful about new investments. But, if no one, say the middle and lower classes, has the disposable income to purchase those goods and/or services, how long then would that company stay in business? Will the "rich" and/or "wealthy" keep it afloat? The only people that are really making money hand over fist right now are those that provide goods and/or services that we need for daily living, water, gas (home heating/automobile, electric. Even food is getting expensive and stores are getting really creative and providing a lot of incentives to get people to shop. Once one that is fortunate enough to put money away for retirement, savings, pay mortgage/rent, obtain the basics and possibly some consumer debt repayment, there is nothing left really to spend. What is happening is that more and more people are finally differentiating between wants and needs. I need food, health insurance, shelter, clothing, transportation (to get to work), water, electricity and my job -- my job is what allows me to purchase my primary needs. Everything else is gravy. As an example, I would love to have a new car, but my 13 year-old car, with 301K + miles is still running great. My desire for a new car is not a need it is a want. I have a perfectly good running car that has served me well ... and I will drive it until it dies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:38:53 GMT -5
Why do liberals support an increase in taxes on cigarettes? Why do they feel in some cases that a tax of $1 a pack should be mandated? What arguments do they put forth on this subject? If $1 a pack tax on cigarettes deters people from smoking, wouldn't you agree that a higher tax on income would deter the production of income? no. this is a non-sequiter, because it is not necessary to smoke to put a roof over your head or food on the table. you can't do without income. you can do without cigarettes. furthermore, consuming MORE cigarettes does not lead to a more abundant life. consuming LESS of them does. your argument would make sense if it could be shown that poverty was better for people's health and happiness than wealth was. but there is no such case to be made, Paul.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:42:31 GMT -5
Wouldn't you simply have to agree that we would have an overall healthier economy if we moved away from taxing the production of income, savings, and investment and instead taxed consumption? If you're honest, you'd have to admit that it would solve many of the problems liberals claim we have. no, i think that would create a grossly unfair situation for precisely the reason that are fundamental to this thread. this system would be horribly regressive from an income standpoint, since the poor use far larger %'s of their income for consumption than the rich. this is a FACT, Paul. you know it, and so do i. so you are basically asking the poor to disproportionately shoulder the burden for the social contract that disproportionately benefits (and works in the service of) the rich. that, to me, is antithetical to fairness. a FLAT tax has some merit in terms of fairness. the so called Fair Tax is monstrously unfair.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:44:27 GMT -5
Paul- i am not a big Sowell fan, but i will read that paper on my trip to Australia. i just have to remember Hoover, as in the thing that sucks.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Oct 8, 2012 12:44:57 GMT -5
Some people can do with less income, I think most people would agree that 100% tax on income would stop people from producing income at that tax rate, but what about 99%, would people stop producing income if it was taxed at 99%, many would, they would at least stop producing the income in the area where it was taxed at 99%. There will be some point where the effort exceeds the reward.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 8, 2012 12:45:29 GMT -5
Wouldn't you simply have to agree that we would have an overall healthier economy if we moved away from taxing the production of income, savings, and investment and instead taxed consumption? If you're honest, you'd have to admit that it would solve many of the problems liberals claim we have. no, i think that would create a grossly unfair situation for precisely the reason that are fundamental to this thread. this system would be horribly regressive from an income standpoint, since the poor use far larger %'s of their income for consumption than the rich. this is a FACT, Paul. you know it, and so do i. so you are basically asking the poor to disproportionately shoulder the burden for the social contract that disproportionately benefits (and works in the service of) the rich. that, to me, is antithetical to fairness. a FLAT tax has some merit in terms of fairness. the so called Fair Tax is monstrously unfair. Dammit, dj- FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF with the www.fairtax.org before you post crap like this. The www.fairtax.org is infinitely more progressive than our current system. You just have absolutely no idea what it is. You don't know the first thing about it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 8, 2012 12:48:44 GMT -5
Under the fair tax, low income workers would receive: 1. Their ENTIRE PAYCHECK and, 2. All necessities tax-free www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2012.pdfUnder the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR25/S13) provides a monthly, universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax-free at or beyond the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application. This is not an entitlement, but a rebate (in advance) of taxes paid – thus the term prebate. Everyone pays taxes at the cash register. Although everyone pays the same tax rate at the cash register, the chart below shows that the effect of the prebate is to increase the actual tax rate (annual taxes paid as a percentage of annual spending) as the level of spending increases, a progressive tax rate structure. For example, a person spending at the poverty level ($30,260 for a family of four) has a 0% effective tax rate because the annual prebate of $6,960 refunds all of the taxes they paid. Whereas someone spending at twice the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 11.5%, and so on. Annual spending would have to be in excess of $14 million per year to reach the statutory rate of 23%. Catch the rest here: www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2012.pdf
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:53:08 GMT -5
no, i think that would create a grossly unfair situation for precisely the reason that are fundamental to this thread. this system would be horribly regressive from an income standpoint, since the poor use far larger %'s of their income for consumption than the rich. this is a FACT, Paul. you know it, and so do i. so you are basically asking the poor to disproportionately shoulder the burden for the social contract that disproportionately benefits (and works in the service of) the rich. that, to me, is antithetical to fairness. a FLAT tax has some merit in terms of fairness. the so called Fair Tax is monstrously unfair. Dammit, dj- FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF with the www.fairtax.org before you post crap like this. The www.fairtax.org is infinitely more progressive than our current system. no it isn't.You just have absolutely no idea what it is. You don't know the first thing about it. sure i do. it is a consumption tax. all things consumed would be subject to taxation. i got it. therefore it is not an investment tax, and it is not an income tax. i only have one question about it: is it a property tax?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:54:27 GMT -5
Under the fair tax, low income workers would receive: 1. Their ENTIRE PAYCHECK and, 2. All necessities tax-free oh god, it is even worse than i thought. anyone over the poverty line would be subject to it. misery.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 12:56:45 GMT -5
Annual spending would have to be in excess of $14 million per year to reach the statutory rate of 23%. who spends $14M/year, Paul? and how are we going to get by with less than 23% when we are in deficits with nearly twice that rate, now?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 12:58:15 GMT -5
But, if no one, say the middle and lower classes, has the disposable income to purchase those goods and/or services, how long then would that company stay in business?
These income strata are maintaining spending levels that were prior to the 2008 meltdown. Consumer spending is fine, though the last quarter it has softened. What is lacking is business investment spending, the type of spending that drives growth, innovation and expansion.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 8, 2012 13:01:03 GMT -5
It would do wonders for the accumulation of wealth to a small few.
But it ain't happening.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 13:01:24 GMT -5
But, if no one, say the middle and lower classes, has the disposable income to purchase those goods and/or services, how long then would that company stay in business?These income strata are maintaining spending levels that were prior to the 2008 meltdown. Consumer spending is fine, though the last quarter it has softened. What is lacking is business investment spending, the type of spending that drives growth, innovation and expansion. agreed- and this is entirely associated with economic confidence and GDP growth, neither of which are happening right now. it is not a tax related issue, at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 13:01:56 GMT -5
It would do wonders for the accumulation of wealth to a small few. But it ain't happening. i would fight it with every fiber of my existence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2012 13:12:22 GMT -5
Where was Paul talking about gas prices and income dropping the other day... I was reading today that the larget drop in median income actually occured under Bush ?? Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent." ... www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 13:18:07 GMT -5
Where was Paul talking about gas prices and income dropping the other day... I was reading today that the larget drop in median income actually occured under Bush ?? Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent." ... www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/ much hay has been made of Obama's performance in this respect in Romneyland, but they forget that this trend has been going on a while.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 13:28:22 GMT -5
d- and this is entirely associated with economic confidence and GDP growth, neither of which are happening right now. it is not a tax related issue, at all.
There is too much uncertainty coming out of DC.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 13:31:44 GMT -5
Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent." ... www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch....h-legacy/26402/ Are they keeping more of their income?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2012 13:40:20 GMT -5
d- and this is entirely associated with economic confidence and GDP growth, neither of which are happening right now. it is not a tax related issue, at all. There is too much uncertainty coming out of DC. i see. so having the lowest tax rate in two generations is not enough. they want stability, too. hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 13:59:22 GMT -5
I apologize for the numerous stray characters in this post. It appears some formatting is not being converted.... _________________________________________________________We all know that Obamacare will eliminate 1000s of jobs in the health care industry: Physicians leaving practice. www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/10/08/prl11008.htmArticle is too long to post here...kinldy click link for full textWill a "silent exodus" from medicine worsen doctor shortage? Many physicians, nervous about the impact of health system reform and dispirited by trends in medicine, are exploring career options that involve treating fewer patients. By Kevin B. O'Reilly, amednews staff. Posted Oct. 8, 2012. Frustrated by mounting regulation, declining pay, loss of autonomy and uncertainty about the effect of health system reform, doctors are cutting back the number of hours they work and how many patients they see. Between 2008 and 2012, the average number of hours physicians worked fell by 5.9%, from 57 hours a week to 53, and doctors saw 16.6% fewer patients, according to a survey of nearly 14,000 doctors released in September. If the trend continues through 2016, it would equate to the loss of 44,250 full-time physicians, said the report, conducted by the doctor-recruiting firm Merritt Hawkins & Associates for the Physicians Foundation. The foundation was started in 2003 with more than $30 million from class-action settlements that 22 state and county medical societies made with health plans. "This is a silent exodus," said Mark Smith, president of Merritt Hawkins. "Physicians are feeling extremely overtaxed, overrun and overburdened." Only half of doctors will continue their current practice during the next three years, the survey said. Many plan to cut back on hours, retire, see fewer patients, seek hospital employment, work part time, transition to a concierge model or seek a nonclinical job in health care. Sixty percent would retire today if they could, compared with 45% in 2008. A quarter of doctors cited long hours and lack of personal time as among the least satisfying elements of their careers. Nine in 10 physicians agreed that most doctors gare unsure where the health system will be or how they will fit into ith during the next five years. gTherefs a great degree of uncertainty and angst related to problematic reimbursement, the high-regulation environment and many other things,h said Walker Ray, MD, a retired pediatrician and vice president and research committee chair for the Physicians Foundation. gNow, what this all is about is more than professional grumbling. All professions at times have unhappiness surfacing. What wefre looking at are trends where physicians are in their own individual minds and their own individual practices, making decisions that may affect the supply of physicians going forward.h Impact on access to care The less-intensive doctor work schedule could hamper access to care for the 30 million Americans the Congressional Budget Office estimates will obtain health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act during the next decade. The U.S. Census Bureau also projects a 36% rise in Americans eligible for Medicare during that period. In 2010, the Assn. of American Medical Colleges projected a shortage of 130,600 physicians by 2025, with half of the shortfall occurring in primary care specialties. That estimate accounts for the work patterns of older physicians and female doctors, who are more likely to work part-time schedules, said Clese Erikson, director of the AAMCfs Center for Workforce Studies. But the projection does not factor in growing hospital employment of physicians, a trend noted in the foundationfs report. Hospitals directly employ about 20% of practicing physicians, according to the American Hospital Assn. Many other physicians are employed in group practices owned by health systems. The proportion of doctors in independent practice is now a minority, says the MGMA-ACMPE, the entity formed by the merger of the Medical Group Management Assn. and the American College of Medical Practice Executives. That matters because hospital-employed physicians work fewer hours and see fewer patients than do independent doctors, the foundationfs survey showed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2012 14:06:18 GMT -5
Wanna know a secret ? I don't think i've seen an actual doctor in years... mostly its a PA or Nurse Practitioner Edited.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Oct 8, 2012 14:08:51 GMT -5
Wanna know a secret ? I don't think i've seen an actual doctor in years... mostly its a PA or CNA... Wait, i don't think CNA is right ??... whats a Nurse who has higher privledges than most nurses??... They work under the supervision of physicians. I had my annual physical six months ago and my visit was overseen by a PA. The PA worked under the direction of a physician who signed off on my visit.
|
|