Not really,  we would be lowering taxes on us so if anything we can have the same amount of tax revenue overall.  Or use the money to pay down debt.  Make it mandatory.

Imagine having a hundred million dollars in your account but can't afford to buy a loaf of bread, then the government takes a huge chunk of it because according to their outdated legislation you are "wealthy".

The way they are attacking the debt is inflation, and that's only likely to get worse under the Trump administration.

Imagine having a hundred million dollars in your account but can't afford to buy a loaf of bread, then the government takes a huge chunk of it because according to their outdated legislation you are "wealthy".

The way they are attacking the debt is inflation, and that's only likely to get worse under the Trump administration.

I remember Jimmy Kimmel crying on TV that thanks to Barry Care, his son was able to get the surgery he needed.  I mean, it's not like he's a millionare or can fundraise easier than us regular folk.

Not really,  we would be lowering taxes on us so if anything we can have the same amount of tax revenue overall.  Or use the money to pay down debt.  Make it mandatory.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

There have been balanced budget resolutions in the past.  The problem is we must often spend more on mandatory expenses and interest on the debt than the IRS gets in revenue.  Unless we get those items under control (within budget), all the cuts in discretionary spending won't fix anything.

The United States federal budget is divided into three categories: mandatory
spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt. Also known as
entitlement spending, in US fiscal policy, mandatory spending is government
spending on certain programs that are required by law.[1] Congress established
mandatory programs under authorization laws. Congress legislates spending
for mandatory programs outside of the annual appropriations bill process.
Congress can only reduce the funding for programs by changing the authorization
law itself. This normally requires a 60-vote majority in the Senate to pass.
Discretionary spending on the other hand will not occur unless Congress acts
each year to provide the funding through an appropriations bill. Expenditure is
often influenced by Federal Reserve advisory.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending

Because of the way funding laws are written, there's really no way to balance the budget until one party with a mandate to fix those problems has enough of a majority in Congress to no longer be subject to an evenly divided vote on each change.

These things are outside the control of the WH and the President.  The WH submits budget requests, but Congress does the appropriations.

I remember Jimmy Kimmel crying on TV that thanks to Barry Care, his son was able to get the surgery he needed.  I mean, it's not like he's a millionare or can fundraise easier than us regular folk.

It’s a great example of how inflation is a regressive tax. Doubling the grocery bill is causing us financial pain, but Jimmy can still afford to buy the whole store. If his deductible and payments doubled under Obama care he’s not going to notice the difference, and therefore he’s unlikely to change his political stance until his compensation for spreading propaganda no longer covers his bills. In the meantime it’s not in his financial interest to try and figure out why people are so upset.

Flapp mentioned something about then doctors won't work extra, when I brought up England and how there's a cap on their income.  Then apply this to non medical field like Jeff Bezos.  Would he increase the lowest paid workers hourly or would he stop trying to grow Amazon to what it is today, if this were applied from day 1?

I was thinking more of the CEOs who make millions a year while the bottom employees make minimum wage. A quick google of the highest paid doctors salaries are still well under a million a year. But it is important to think through the proposal to try and anticipate all possible negative outcomes.

Bezos would still have the incentive to grow the company even if his salary didn't grow as long as he owned stock in the company because the stock price would still rise. It also wouldn't be a true cap on income because Bezos could always increase his income as long as he increased the income of his lowest employees.

Massive salaries, insider trading, and death lists are just a side effect of monopolization.
There's no reason someone has to see a certified medical doctor and pay thousands of dollars a month in insurance just so that they can get a few staples on a reef cut every once in a while.
We could solve most of our problems with dietary changes, but the food companies are owned by the same investment firms that own the medical companies, creating a perverse incentive.
The whole system is designed to keep people sick in order to maximize profit.

Healthcare is a mafia racket.

Reading a good book on this subject right now. There are so many ways things are inflated, one example they checked dozens of hospitals around the country for the price of a common surgery and it ranged wildly meaning that some hospitals were charging many times more for the procedure than it actually cost. In one case a hospital quoted a $150,000 surgery to a patient but when he said he would get it back home in France for $25,0000 they suddenly offered to do it for $35,000.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-We-Pay-American-Care/dp/1635575915/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3TYBZSQMRBIQS&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ZkiqDaZraR6YHsTFrDsb-F-cC9jtrzD2I9vls2VHGSoltafGmkxqb49LJEfcI621hiYGopcXT0Mj-uEKEzXpmVKJ1KLLU_6ZL_DVIBDCMknA0T9UAATBZuK3Gx2lo2NwTPpu4NDNUpmgmGjv-paVOXgsqhNnrcM6JLDed8bLB2utWv3g32-kpAiaq7bkthngvf11GAANvB2pMmI5dFnv4oXizNB2YF1bJmCpmTFlbek._eENDFwTpOmtRCmFFtmKQXGt-IF9fjbh1NxGp3T6Sf4&dib_tag=se&keywords=marty+makary&qid=1735297227&sprefix=marty+makar%2Caps%2C349&sr=8-2

There's a workaround for that:  COBRA coverage.

When you leave your job and lose your group health coverage, you are usually eligible to enroll in COBRA.  The cool thing is you can delay paying any premiums for at least 3 months.

You first have to respond that you intend to enroll.  Then you need to pick a plan.  Then you get a bill for your plan that isn't due for a month or more.  If you find you need to use the insurance, all you have to do is pay the premiums you owed from the time you became eligible through the date you need to file a claim.  it works out to about 3 months of free coverage unless you actually use it.

That's not only a safety net to fill that end of employment gap in coverage, but it also maintains you in that plan so you aren't  shopping for coverage while uninsured.  It's a lot harder to apply for a new plan with someone else if you have a period with no coverage at all.https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra

I think you have to enroll within the first 3 months after ending that job, and it's only available for a fixed time period -- I want to say 12 months, but don't quote me.

The premiums are expensive, so if you can work it out so you get replacement coverage within 3 months, you'll be covered without costing you anything as long as you don't have to make use of the COBRA coverage.

Thanks, thats good info. I have a few more years till I can retire but at least I know it is out there.

Don't cap salaries, increase taxes.   If you make 1 billion dollars a year you can afford paying 60% tax.  Anyone under 500k or 1mil per family should have their taxes lowered.  Tax other ways to hide money.   People who own 3+ houses, should be taxed higher than one who owns 1.  Same with cars,  if your car is 200k + you should pay more tax.  Don't make all these taxes extreme  just more reasonable  than the billionaires paying less taxes than a minimum wage worker.

The top 5% shouldnt have more wealth than the bottom 95%.  But we shouldnt be communist, there is a balance.  You can make all the money you want but you just end up paying more.


Also doctors should make more than most other perfessions.  They go to alot of school and specialties.     

I don't like this idea is because it just punishes wealth and success and does nothing to incentivize better wages. Tying a CEO's wage to the lowest paying wage seeks to make the CEO want to pay the employee better.

I was thinking more of the CEOs who make millions a year while the bottom employees make minimum wage. A quick google of the highest paid doctors salaries are still well under a million a year. But it is important to think through the proposal to try and anticipate all possible negative outcomes.

Bezos would still have the incentive to grow the company even if his salary didn't grow as long as he owned stock in the company because the stock price would still rise. It also wouldn't be a true cap on income because Bezos could always increase his income as long as he increased the income of his lowest employees.

Then prices would have to also increase. Wages go up, insurance goes up, cost to customer goes up.  So now would Amazon be as afforable as it i is in todays time?

Your googling of salaries have nothing to do with what I mentioned Flapp said.  A cap is a cap. So say the highest doctor gets $500K a year (made up #), and they cap it at $200K.  This is what I was getting at that Flapp responded to. 

The problem with health insurance is it's not really health insurance and doesn't work how it's setup and regulated.  People want the best health coverage at the lowest premiums or even free.

It's like equating it to car insurance with no caps on coverage and a flat rate premium (or free) for everyone.  Like coverage that would cover a $20 million dollar lawsuit, $25,000 in repairs for a car worth $5,000, and covers routine things like safety checks and replacing worn tires or if you want to transition a car into a truck.  And coverage that would cover everyone at the same flat rate premiums whether you have a lamborghini or a Kia, 50 speeding tickets, multiple DUI arrests, etc plus allowing people to forgo insurance and only getting it right after an accident to get it covered.  People that can't afford the premiums get free coverage subsidized by everyone else.  Unnecessary things go through insurance incurring a middleman with additional administrative costs that make it inefficient.

That's basically what health insurance is now and why it doesn't work.

Also the US is subsidizing the rest of the world on medal research and developments which is why healthcare is so expensive here compared to other places.

It’s not like tweaking the system is going to help at this point. Become a zillionaire by ripping people off and eventually they will chase you down the street and kill you. Not saying it’s right, that’s just the way these things always play out. We have a whole class of corporate parasites that will never change their ways until the rug gets pulled and the system comes crashing down. Att this point arguing about salary caps and adding new regulations is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

The problem with health insurance is it's not really health insurance and doesn't work how it's setup and regulated.  People want the best health coverage at the lowest premiums or even free.

It's like equating it to car insurance with no caps on coverage and a flat rate premium (or free) for everyone.  Like coverage that would cover a $20 million dollar lawsuit, $25,000 in repairs for a car worth $5,000, and covers routine things like safety checks and replacing worn tires or if you want to transition a car into a truck.  And coverage that would cover everyone at the same flat rate premiums whether you have a lamborghini or a Kia, 50 speeding tickets, multiple DUI arrests, etc plus allowing people to forgo insurance and only getting it right after an accident to get it covered.  People that can't afford the premiums get free coverage subsidized by everyone else.  Unnecessary things go through insurance incurring a middleman with additional administrative costs that make it inefficient.

That's basically what health insurance is now and why it doesn't work.

Also the US is subsidizing the rest of the world on medal research and developments which is why healthcare is so expensive here compared to other places.

Personally, I don't want best care for lowest premiums.  I want good to best care for reasonable premiums.  Premiums that I've paid into the system fo decades.  I understand it's not like social security, but it's more on principle.  Then there's the entilement attitude that while has always been brewing, Obamacare kicked that into high(er) drive (IMO). 

People often also relate/compare with healthcare from other countries.  While valid, many haven't lived under those systems.

Heard some rumors that shooter was a millionaire. I mean, another story said he did have $8K USD on him and some foreign currency at time of arrest. So not like he was paycheck to paycheck.

I wonder if his med bills put him in debt and he just didn't pay them.  Did the hospital try to garnish anything? 

The problem with health insurance is it's not really health insurance and doesn't work how it's setup and regulated.  People want the best health coverage at the lowest premiums or even free.

It's like equating it to car insurance with no caps on coverage and a flat rate premium (or free) for everyone.  Like coverage that would cover a $20 million dollar lawsuit, $25,000 in repairs for a car worth $5,000, and covers routine things like safety checks and replacing worn tires or if you want to transition a car into a truck.  And coverage that would cover everyone at the same flat rate premiums whether you have a lamborghini or a Kia, 50 speeding tickets, multiple DUI arrests, etc plus allowing people to forgo insurance and only getting it right after an accident to get it covered.  People that can't afford the premiums get free coverage subsidized by everyone else.  Unnecessary things go through insurance incurring a middleman with additional administrative costs that make it inefficient.

That's basically what health insurance is now and why it doesn't work.

Also the US is subsidizing the rest of the world on medal research and developments which is why healthcare is so expensive here compared to other places.

Partly and partly not,   the covid vaccine was German.  The biggest weightloss meds are European.   A bunch of stuff is still created worldwide.  We do a bunch though.   I think the USA has too much admin staff.   They outnumber medical perfessionals.  That's what our money is going to. 

Then prices would have to also increase. Wages go up, insurance goes up, cost to customer goes up.  So now would Amazon be as afforable as it i is in todays time?

Your googling of salaries have nothing to do with what I mentioned Flapp said.  A cap is a cap. So say the highest doctor gets $500K a year (made up #), and they cap it at $200K.  This is what I was getting at that Flapp responded to.

Companies would still have to compete for customers which means they will still find ways to make the product more affordable or better. Under the model I mentioned rather than crapping on the bottom guys to make the price more affordable you would see a cut in the pay at the highest levels. Depending on the business and market some products/services may see a price increase

It sounds like Flapp is talking about something a little different than I am, the model I mentioned really isn't a hard cap, it is just tied to other worker's pay levels.

Companies would still have to compete for customers which means they will still find ways to make the product more affordable or better. Under the model I mentioned rather than crapping on the bottom guys to make the price more affordable you would see a cut in the pay at the highest levels. Depending on the business and market some products/services may see a price increase

It sounds like Flapp is talking about something a little different than I am, the model I mentioned really isn't a hard cap, it is just tied to other worker's pay levels.

You act like healthcare is just the same as any other product.  It's not.

First, it's a service -- not a product.  insurance is a product, and some policies are much better than others.

But, when it comes to services, the best people cost what they cost.  You can't sell the services of the best doctors, nurses and technicians in the industry without paying the salaries required to attract and keep them.  As an HMO or hospital, you pay more than the next HMO, or you get less than excellent talent.

In other words, the HMO can only control the prices they have to pay for doctors if the competition is unable or unwilling to increase what they offer.

It has nothing to do with "our surgeons cost the patient less than that HMO's surgeons." 

Healthcare is a unique service.  It's one of the few things people are willing to pay as much as is asked of them, because the alternative is to get no care or lower quality care.  when faced with death or debilitating damage to the body, no price is too high -- even if it means financial ruin for the patient and their family.  you can always recover from poverty, but it's difficultt to enjoy your nice house and possessions when you're dead or severely ill.