So, Doctors and other medical/healthcare workers should work under a "salary cap" for the good of the rest of the population, whereas every other non-gov't worker can ask for whatever compensation their particular education, experience, talent or specialization is supported by the market?

That's basically what your (Socialist) example requires. 

Not necessarily. A voluntary salary cap would have a positive effect without the government control.

Since I am generally against the government trying to change society through laws I don't agree with forced salary caps but I think there is a strong argument to be made that we do have a bit of a greed problem in the USA. You can't legislate greed away but you can try to change society through other means. So in this case if you have doctors who are more socially conscious and decide to charge what is reasonable instead of whatever they think they can get away with then you could see a reduction in the price of healthcare.

A lot of people are willing to accept lower quality of care in exchange for cheaper prices and making it available to all....

....until they are stricken with a life threatening illness.  I would not want to be in any other country if I had cancer.

This is slightly off topic but I have heard it discussed that there are cultural aspects that come into play here as well. Whereas Americans seem to fight and suffer to the bitter end holding out for the smallest chance at a cure, some other cultures more accept a terminal diagnosis and choose a more peaceful end instead of fighting. Just a philosophy really, not right or wrong per se.

I looked it up and America is at the top when it comes to curing cancer. It is true that being broke is better than being dead. I guess the counter argument is what if affordable health care in the beginning might have caught the cancer before it became something that turned into a huge bill? Some people forego health care due to cost until the condition has progressed so far as to be impossible to ignore any further.

Not necessarily. A voluntary salary cap would have a positive effect without the government control.

Since I am generally against the government trying to change society through laws I don't agree with forced salary caps but I think there is a strong argument to be made that we do have a bit of a greed problem in the USA. You can't legislate greed away but you can try to change society through other means. So in this case if you have doctors who are more socially conscious and decide to charge what is reasonable instead of whatever they think they can get away with then you could see a reduction in the price of healthcare.

What you're describing is a price ceiling but "voluntary" .
It's part of getting hired for the position, the salary negotiation part. Would you give back a portion of your pay for the "greater good" ? The doctors and surgeons have extensive education, training and liability. They exist in a market like everyone else. There are stringent academic and institutional requirements for being a doctor in America. Good doctors get compensated well - and for good reason. There is a demand for them. Would you choose budget Dr A who went to a community college and graduated from an online university or expensive Dr B who went to the best medical school in the USA and successfully treated a large number of patients?

Not necessarily. A voluntary salary cap would have a positive effect without the government control.

Since I am generally against the government trying to change society through laws I don't agree with forced salary caps but I think there is a strong argument to be made that we do have a bit of a greed problem in the USA. You can't legislate greed away but you can try to change society through other means. So in this case if you have doctors who are more socially conscious and decide to charge what is reasonable instead of whatever they think they can get away with then you could see a reduction in the price of healthcare.

LOL

LOL

Patch Adams

What you're describing is a price ceiling but "voluntary" .
It's part of getting hired for the position, the salary negotiation part. Would you give back a portion of your pay for the "greater good" ? The doctors and surgeons have extensive education, training and liability. They exist in a market like everyone else. There are stringent academic and institutional requirements for being a doctor in America. Good doctors get compensated well - and for good reason. There is a demand for them. Would you choose budget Dr A who went to a community college and graduated from an online university or expensive Dr B who went to the best medical school in the USA and successfully treated a large number of patients?

I still own my last apartment and I rent it out. I rent it so I just about break even and it pays for itself. Currently I rent it for $1700 but the property manager suggests I rent it for $1800 and I would still be at or below current market value. Probably could even ask for $1900 a month.

So I could ask for more but I am currently living comfortably enough and the condo is currently paying for itself so I don't charge more. I know that Hawaii already has a high cost of living problem and I can either be part of the problem or I can set aside my greed and rent it at a more reasonable rate to make it affordable for someone who probably makes a fair amount less.

So no, my point has nothing to do with the best doctors vs marginal doctors, it has only to do with how much they choose to charge relative to the situation. The best doctor in the world could still decide to charge a reasonable affordable rate without sacrificing quality.

I still own my last apartment and I rent it out. I rent it so I just about break even and it pays for itself. Currently I rent it for $1700 but the property manager suggests I rent it for $1800 and I would still be at or below current market value. Probably could even ask for $1900 a month.

So I could ask for more but I am currently living comfortably enough and the condo is currently paying for itself so I don't charge more. I know that Hawaii already has a high cost of living problem and I can either be part of the problem or I can set aside my greed and rent it at a more reasonable rate to make it affordable for someone who probably makes a fair amount less.

So no, my point has nothing to do with the best doctors vs marginal doctors, it has only to do with how much they choose to charge relative to the situation. The best doctor in the world could still decide to charge a reasonable affordable rate without sacrificing quality.

Another way to describe the apartment you rent out is you are letting someone move in and pay $1700, because charging $1800-$1900 somehow is the difference between being part of the "problem" and being "fair"?

LOL!!!

It must be nice living in your alternate reality, where $100/month is the difference between affordable housing and homelessness.

What if the person paying your mortgage via their rent checks is able to pay $2000?  You're making a HUGE assumption without presenting any evidence that the renter can't afford more than you are charging.

Maybe a better solution would be charging the renters $2000, pay the minimum due on your mortgage, and give the remainder to charity --something that actually works to help people who need it?

BTW, you're probably paying taxes on the rental income after expenses.  With depreciation, mortgage interest, repairs, other operating expenses and so on, you could be operating at a net loss which means you pay no taxes on that income.  If you charged more in rent, that might mean you lose money since you can't deduct the loss from your personal income.

Why is it greedy to want to maximize your income from a real estate investment?  Every person who takes the risk should be allowed to take the reward as well without being called derogatory names.  Lots of rental property owners lost their investments -- equity, property, etc -- when the housing bubble burst.  They could very easily take that money and invest elsewhere.  But, because they want a return on their investment, even if it means some people can't afford the rent, you call them greedy.

You really have some major problems with your thought processes.

I still own my last apartment and I rent it out. I rent it so I just about break even and it pays for itself. Currently I rent it for $1700 but the property manager suggests I rent it for $1800 and I would still be at or below current market value. Probably could even ask for $1900 a month.

So I could ask for more but I am currently living comfortably enough and the condo is currently paying for itself so I don't charge more. I know that Hawaii already has a high cost of living problem and I can either be part of the problem or I can set aside my greed and rent it at a more reasonable rate to make it affordable for someone who probably makes a fair amount less.

So no, my point has nothing to do with the best doctors vs marginal doctors, it has only to do with how much they choose to charge relative to the situation. The best doctor in the world could still decide to charge a reasonable affordable rate without sacrificing quality.

That's a bold assumption .
That's still $1700 someone has to pay for a measly little apartment. Why not let someone stay there for free? You are living comfortably. You are in a better position than many with 2 residences. You don't need two - just give away your apartment? You're not living in it. Someone is in need of a place to live...someone less fortunate than you. Or how about someone who doesn't want to work but is homeless? They just want a place to live...that's all.

"The best doctor in the world could still decide to charge a reasonable affordable rate without sacrificing quality."

What is "reasonable"?  What is "affordable?"

No matter what anyone charges, there will always be those who think the cost is too high or unreasonable.

Who sets that price?  The doctor?  Based on what?  Should he lower his standard of living, that of his family, and take out student loans to send his kids to medical school since charging "reasonable affordable fees" doesn't give him the option of paying for it out of pocket?

Just because a doctor -- or anybody else -- makes a larger-than-average income doesn't mean they are "greedy", and that that income isn't being used to make lives better for others.  Some use their income to sponsor themselves for Doctors Without Borders.  Some use it for scholarships for low income students who want to go to college but can't afford it.  Some DONATE THEIR TIME to working in clinics where they make $0.

So, if these doctors listened to you, they'd be living on what they make, have little to invest while paying off $150K in student loans, and can't afford to give their own kids the opportunities THEY WORKED THEIR WHOLE LIVES to be able to provide.

You really are sounding like a Socialist tonight.  Been binge-watching the Democrat Debates and rallies?

The difference between you and Bernie is he has 3 houses and is worth over a million bucks while preaching fairness and wealth redistribution. 

There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from giving away their wealth for the greater good of society.  Please, lead by example.

I knew a mouth surgeon who had 2 BMW's and at least 2 homes.  He would take part in Operation Smile and go to 3rd world countries to help operate on people with IIRC, cleff lip or something.  Would he have done the same if he only had 1 car and 1 home?  IDK, I never asked.  This was back in 2008 and I didn't know anything about this subject or cared.

Learned about the history of medical insurance at the libertarian party conference.   Prior to WWII health insurance was uncommon.  Instead the local lodges, like Elks Lodge, hired doctors and members could be treated by those doctors.  This was affordable health coverage for many people.  Then after WWII there was pay caps, so employers used health insurance to compete for workers.  Doctors got paid more this way and discontinued services at the lodges.

That's a bold assumption .
That's still $1700 someone has to pay for a measly little apartment. Why not let someone stay there for free? You are living comfortably. You are in a better position than many with 2 residences. You don't need two - just give away your apartment? You're not living in it. Someone is in need of a place to live...someone less fortunate than you. Or how about someone who doesn't want to work but is homeless? They just want a place to live...that's all.

I don't make enough money that I could pay the mortgage on the apartment so as to let someone stay there for free so the premise of your question is wrong.

Another way to describe the apartment you rent out is you are letting someone move in and pay $1700, because charging $1800-$1900 somehow is the difference between being part of the "problem" and being "fair"?

LOL!!!

It must be nice living in your alternate reality, where $100/month is the difference between affordable housing and homelessness.

What if the person paying your mortgage via their rent checks is able to pay $2000?  You're making a HUGE assumption without presenting any evidence that the renter can't afford more than you are charging.

Maybe a better solution would be charging the renters $2000, pay the minimum due on your mortgage, and give the remainder to charity --something that actually works to help people who need it?

BTW, you're probably paying taxes on the rental income after expenses.  With depreciation, mortgage interest, repairs, other operating expenses and so on, you could be operating at a net loss which means you pay no taxes on that income.  If you charged more in rent, that might mean you lose money since you can't deduct the loss from your personal income.

Why is it greedy to want to maximize your income from a real estate investment?  Every person who takes the risk should be allowed to take the reward as well without being called derogatory names.  Lots of rental property owners lost their investments -- equity, property, etc -- when the housing bubble burst.  They could very easily take that money and invest elsewhere.  But, because they want a return on their investment, even if it means some people can't afford the rent, you call them greedy.

You really have some major problems with your thought processes.

By golly... the point slipped through your fingers like water.

Somehow you are trying to turn my personal choice to charge less for my personal property into an argument for socialism, that's absurd. It isn't socialism if it is a personal choice genius. Am I not free to charge less if I want to? Are you that threatened that I decide to make my apartment a little more affordable instead of charging more so I can make my life a little more comfortable?

You tell me to lead by example and that is what I am doing yet you criticize me for it. What kind of hypocrite are you?

Learned about the history of medical insurance at the libertarian party conference.   Prior to WWII health insurance was uncommon.  Instead the local lodges, like Elks Lodge, hired doctors and members could be treated by those doctors.  This was affordable health coverage for many people.  Then after WWII there was pay caps, so employers used health insurance to compete for workers.  Doctors got paid more this way and discontinued services at the lodges.

I think the advancements certainly account for a big portion of the increase in cost. Not only are there so many more treatments but we know so much more about medical problems that you have so many levels of specialists. A simple traveling clinic like you mention just wouldn't cut it these days.

Another new revelation in this Medicare journey I am taking with my wife. During the time I had her on private insurance our prescription copay was based on day of purchase. Meaning if we bought a 30 day prescription or a 90 day prescription the copay was always the same. So it is beneficial to always talk our doctor into prescribing a 90 day supply. But with Medicare, the copay is only based on a 30 day supply. So when her copay is $47 for 30 days and we buy 90 days worth we have to shell out $141 dollars at a time. And my wife has 5 of these ultra expensive prescriptions with the $47 copay. While I understand it is the same amount over the long haul, it is just another surprise that if I were a senior living on a small fixed income and barely making it every month this would be a hard pill to swallow. Especially the first time it happens and you are not expecting it.

Now I have a much better understanding of why some seniors are choosing to continue to work just to pay for private healthcare. For me it is not so much that Medicare and all its rules and requirements are completely ridiculous and unnecessary. And it is not so much that it is costing us more than private health insurance in states that don’t force Obamacare down our throats. It is that it is a very much a bloated bureaucracy controlling our lives due to the requirement we have to eventually sign up and pay for Medicare if we don’t maintain our own private insurance. BTW, since we live in (and I am moving to) a state that requires we purchase Obamacare as our only choice of private insurance, private insurance actually costs WAY MORE than states that allow insurance companies to compete. For us it is the Part D (Prescriptions) that is costing us so much. Medicare Parts A & B is actually considerably cheaper even if you purchase the most expensive supplement plan than any private insurance plan you can buy. So if you don’t have to take certain expensive prescriptions like my wife, you will actually have cheaper healthcare with Medicare (All Parts).

Medicare and all the bureaucracy that goes along with it is so hard to understand and deal with that I am sure some seniors are working and getting private insurance just so they don’t have to deal with all this crap. I feel sorry for all of you that will have to deal with this when you get to that point in your life.

I don't make enough money that I could pay the mortgage on the apartment so as to let someone stay there for free so the premise of your question is wrong.

Exactly. You could let a Section 8 recipient live there. Nonetheless your kind but insignificant act most likely enabled another person to enjoy another pleasure or luxury in life at your cost of $100 a month - money that couldve gone into unit repairs or improvements. Maybe that person will get a manicure or enjoy more Starbucks coffee. To alleviate the "homeless problem" takes a bigger perspective than an egocentric perspective. It's a competitive environment here. So instead of growing and diversifying the economy we restrict it with more taxes and focus in on our seemingly sole economic driver - tourism. People want more opportunities not subjugation. Philanthropy is a choice not an obligation imposed by government.

Exactly. You could let a Section 8 recipient live there. Nonetheless your kind but insignificant act most likely enabled another person to enjoy another pleasure or luxury in life at your cost of $100 a month - money that couldve gone into unit repairs or improvements. Maybe that person will get a manicure or enjoy more Starbucks coffee. To alleviate the "homeless problem" takes a bigger perspective than an egocentric perspective. It's a competitive environment here. So instead of growing and diversifying the economy we restrict it with more taxes and focus in on our seemingly sole economic driver - tourism. People want more opportunities not subjugation. Philanthropy is a choice not an obligation imposed by government.

Ren,

I saw your quote of the fish eye troll in your response and something caught my eye. I stopped following him so I no longer see his posts but if someone quotes him I can see some of what he posts. I stopped following him because of his lies and especially due to his lies by omission. So I went back and checked out other posts where he is quoted so I could piece together your conversation with him. Don’t let him lie to you by not telling you the entire story.

There are several reasons to rent property. The first reason is cash flow. If you are not bringing in more in monthly income than your monthly expenses you are an idiot. Having cash flow is one of the main reasons to rent out a property. If you don’t have positive cash flow to an extent then you will have a negative cash flow over the long haul due to your having to put money into it every time something breaks and every time you turn it over for your next tenant. If you are not getting positive monthly cash flow you are running your business at a negative cash flow. And that money has to come from somewhere else. That is just plain stupid. The second reason is appreciation of the property. The last 3 years median price appreciation for condos/apts is 8.3%, 3.8% and 3.7% with a median price increase from $390k to $420k. Based on median price data he has made approximately $30k in appreciation in the last 3 years (assuming he has owned the place for that long). The third reason is principle pay down. His tenant his paying down the principle on his loan. Meaning every month he owns a bigger chunk of the property that is being paid for by his tenant. And the fourth reason to own rental property is the tax advantages. Every penny you spend to maintain and upgrade and run the property as a business can be deducted against income. The IRS also allows you to depreciate the property over 27.5 years. And you can deduct as much as $25k a year against your income. So in other words, most if not all of his income is not being taxed due to the depreciation deduction. So while he is running his rental business at a negative cash flow, he is still making big bucks thru appreciation and principle pay down (which he only gets when he sells his property) and he is not paying much if anything in Federal and State taxes due to all the tax deductions. All I can say is he better be paying his 4.5% GET quarterly taxes because the County will charge fees and penalties if he is not doing it currently.

Exactly. You could let a Section 8 recipient live there. Nonetheless your kind but insignificant act most likely enabled another person to enjoy another pleasure or luxury in life at your cost of $100 a month - money that couldve gone into unit repairs or improvements. Maybe that person will get a manicure or enjoy more Starbucks coffee. To alleviate the "homeless problem" takes a bigger perspective than an egocentric perspective. It's a competitive environment here. So instead of growing and diversifying the economy we restrict it with more taxes and focus in on our seemingly sole economic driver - tourism. People want more opportunities not subjugation. Philanthropy is a choice not an obligation imposed by government.

Insignificant? To me maybe but to the renter? Maybe not so insignificant.

Note that I never claimed to be solving the problem of homelessness. I only doing a small part that I can do to make housing a little more affordable.

But the greater point I was making was not about house prices, it is about how we as a society value wealth and how much we keep.

Take the guy who became in charge of the company that sold epinephrine pens, he increased the cost 10 fold or something insane all to rake in huge profits. That is obviously one extreme but more common we hear about CEOs making 20 million a year in compensation. Are they worth that much? Sure, the argument could be made that their leadership earned them that salary, and a private business certainly has the right to pay the CEO that much if they want. But imagine just a societal shift if people valued wealth a little different. Imagine that same CEO deciding to cut his pay in half and increase the wages of his employees. Please clearly note that I am not suggesting laws to force this, I am only talking about individual choices that someone could make to raise others up.

Doctors are just one small piece of this puzzle. I am sure many of them volunteer or work at relatively low salaries to keep costs down for patients so don't think that I am maligning all doctors here. Just saying that there is an element of greed that does increase the cost of health care in this country. Sometimes by the doctor, sometimes by the health insurance company, sometimes by the pharmaceutical company.

Insignificant? To me maybe but to the renter? Maybe not so insignificant.

Note that I never claimed to be solving the problem of homelessness. I only doing a small part that I can do to make housing a little more affordable.

But the greater point I was making was not about house prices, it is about how we as a society value wealth and how much we keep.

Take the guy who became in charge of the company that sold epinephrine pens, he increased the cost 10 fold or something insane all to rake in huge profits. That is obviously one extreme but more common we hear about CEOs making 20 million a year in compensation. Are they worth that much? Sure, the argument could be made that their leadership earned them that salary, and a private business certainly has the right to pay the CEO that much if they want. But imagine just a societal shift if people valued wealth a little different. Imagine that same CEO deciding to cut his pay in half and increase the wages of his employees. Please clearly note that I am not suggesting laws to force this, I am only talking about individual choices that someone could make to raise others up.

Doctors are just one small piece of this puzzle. I am sure many of them volunteer or work at relatively low salaries to keep costs down for patients so don't think that I am maligning all doctors here. Just saying that there is an element of greed that does increase the cost of health care in this country. Sometimes by the doctor, sometimes by the health insurance company, sometimes by the pharmaceutical company.

Businesses exist to make profit. Basic economics.
https://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48648.html

And to your next statement that doctors work at less than they are worth - Can you name a few? I'd like to dump my healthcare plan so I can get medical care for free. Please share.

Businesses exist to make profit. Basic economics.
https://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48648.html

I notice EEF wants doctors, and I assume all other healthcare professionals, to be altruistic by donating their wealth-earning time, skills and sacrifices to the people who need their services.

I also notice sports professionals, Hollywood actors, big name singers, and financial fund managers should keep every dime they earn at whatever level the market will bear.  Why is that?

I guess it's okay to steal the fruits of one's labor in the form of taxes.  So, it must also be okay for gov't to steal the labor as well, since it's for the good of others.

What if a Hollywood superstar making, say, $20M per picture, or a TV star making $1M per episode for a sitcom, needs to see a doctor?  Why not charge the wealthy patients 1,000 times more for the same services everyone else needs?  That way the doctors and nurses get what they are worth, those who can't afford the best doctors get a deep discount, and the people performing no intrinsically valuable service but receives massive wealth because "the market decided" gets to subsidize everyone else?

First it's the doctors and nurses, then it'll be dentists, plumbers, mechanics, and so on.  Anyone who performs a critical and expensive service must involuntarily work when, where and for how much the gov't decides, because they know how to control greed.