What is it that you are implying here? The hospitals are overwhelmed with the influx of elderly people, are you under the impression that a private health care system wouldn't experience the same issue?
I think he's saying that people are dying outside hospitals in the UK, while waiting in line to get in, because they don't have enough resources or medical staff to care for them. Who can blame the doctors for wanting better pay? Would you rather make 50k pounds /year there or more than double that in a country that doesn't have a single-payer system? You think as many people in the USA will want to be in healthcare if salaries are cut in half? Hell no.
Many of those patients are among the growing ranks of Britain's elderly. The doctors say cutbacks in community nursing and social work mean that by the time many old people get to the hospital, minor ailments have become major. Then the lack of social safety nets at home means many stay at the hospital and continue to stay.
Wtf are you even talking about? This isn't about doctors pay so I have no idea where you pulled that from.
From the article you clearly didn't read:
Austerity measures are the cause not pay.
I'll just put this right here, enjoy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...e-empty-amid-warnings-of-crisis-shortage.html
The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) said more than 500 practices are under threat of closure, because so many doctors are close to retirement age, with too few younger medics stepping in to replace them.
What is it that you are implying here? The hospitals are overwhelmed with the influx of elderly people, are you under the impression that a private health care system wouldn't experience the same issue?
Seriously? You need me to clarify what I wrote? I'm implying nothing more than the direct response to the comment I quoted.
Here's a valuable tip - stop trying to assume everyone is implying things they aren't saying. It causes you to start up a lot of fights with others around here that are completely pointless. Do you seriously not have anything more productive you could be doing with your life than sitting around dreaming of how horrible everyone around you potentially could be?
It's relevant because the graph in question doesn't tell you anything about tax rates.
It tells you how much each percentile accounts for as a whole, relative to the total income and total taxes paid (and again totals for income and taxes paid are very different).
To determine the effective tax paid by individuals based on the graph, you need to know what the underlying values are for total income and total taxes paid (or alternatively simply refer to the original source linked above).
Yup. Doing just fine
http://www.npr.org/2015/01/11/376384632/overcrowded-hospitals-overwhelm-uks-national-health-service
Apologies for linking to an ultra-right-wing-nutjob website.
The doctors say cutbacks in community nursing and social work mean that by the time many old people get to the hospital, minor ailments have become major. Then the lack of social safety nets at home means many stay at the hospital and continue to stay.
Of course it does, in fact that's the primary purpose of the chart. If one group makes 10% of the income and pays 10% of the taxes and another group makes 20% of the income and pays 20% of the taxes guess what? Those groups have the same tax rate. That's the whole point.
You definitely don't need to know the underlying values. You could replace them with literally any number so long as the ratio remained the same. It's just not relevant information.
Yes if two groups have the same ratio between income and taxes paid then they pay the same tax rate, however exactly what that tax rate is cannot be determined from the graph without the underlying numbers.
And seeing as the ratios does in fact not stay the same between different groups, it is quite relevant to know the underlying numbers so that one can determine exactly what the various tax rates are, and thereby compare them (which I assume was the entire point to begin with).
Yes, and the groups in that chart mostly have quite similar ratios between income and taxes paid, which was the whole point. Whatever rate it is that they cluster around doesn't matter.
No, that wasn't the point.
That graph was brought up to refute a claim that the rich pay taxes at far higher rates than everyone else does, which is incorrect. (it's only true for federal income taxes) When you account for all taxes the percentage paid by the rich is comparable to what's paid by other groups. The exact rate that everyone pays doesn't really matter.
Of course the point was to compare tax rates. You can't refute the claim that the rich pays taxes a far higher rate without comparing the tax rates.
And for what it's worth I agree with that the rich does not pay a far higher rate, but it is higher and noticeably so (roughly 30% for the top 10% vs. 17-25 for the bottom half).
And of course the exact rate that everyone pays matter. If the top 1% paid twice as high a tax rate as the bottom half (and thus had twice the ratio in the graph), it would make a huge ass difference whether it was 10% to 5% or 50% to 25%. The first scenario is an irrelevant difference (5 percentage points), whereas the second is very significant (25 percentage points).
Are you serious? Did you bother reading the article?
Again, it's not about the pay and again, this issue would still exist even under a private system.
Yeah...I mean how can the poorest nation of the world, the USA, afford all this?
Well its partly about the pay and working conditions. I would imagine under such a system doctors lose some of their ability to exercise their expertise and become more of a commodity. The career is no longer attracting the type of talent required to be a doctor.
My grandfather was a doctor on my dads side now that I think about it. I'm sure I have the ability. But I know whats coming and I nope'd my way out of that one.
An increasingly older, sicker population, as well as people living longer with chronic diseases, such as cancer, is the reason for the increased demand," Darrell G. Kirch, the AAMC's president and chief executive, told reporters during a telephone news briefing.
Sorry I'm calling bullshit. If there were any truth to that at all then the US wouldn't be facing the exact same issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...age-by-2025-medical-school-association-warns/
As far as working conditions go, you'll have to source that as that issue hasn't come up once in any of the articles I've looked at or that have been posted in here.
So, free tuition? Y/N?Doctors are looking to GTFO and retire rather than deal with all the new regulations.
More money would of course help, but you'd just be throwing money at the problem.
In terms of money, there is a problem with all professional schools right now in terms of cost. TWO years ago we were hearing about Dentists with $500k, although that was extreme. Pharmacists are up to $200-300k. Doctors about the same. You don't start working until 33 as a specialist MD.
Older doctors are trying to retire earlier than expected, especially since they have the means to do so.
So yes, money is an issue. Money is the reason hardly anyone becomes a pediatrician or general practitioner anymore. Money is the reason everyone has to become a specialist to pay their student loans. A constantly changing regulatory environment is why older doctors throw in the towel and retire because they can't keep up.
Doctors are looking to GTFO and retire rather than deal with all the new regulations.
More money would of course help, but you'd just be throwing money at the problem.
In terms of money, there is a problem with all professional schools right now in terms of cost. TWO years ago we were hearing about Dentists with $500k, although that was extreme. Pharmacists are up to $200-300k. Doctors about the same. You don't start working until 33 as a specialist MD.
Older doctors are trying to retire earlier than expected, especially since they have the means to do so.
So yes, money is an issue. Money is the reason hardly anyone becomes a pediatrician or general practitioner anymore. Money is the reason everyone has to become a specialist to pay their student loans. A constantly changing regulatory environment is why older doctors throw in the towel and retire because they can't keep up.
Are you serious? Did you bother reading the article?
Again, it's not about the pay and again, this issue would still exist even under a private system.
The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) said more than 500 practices are under threat of closure, because so many doctors are close to retirement age, with too few younger medics stepping in to replace them.
and in Canada
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadas-doctor-shortage-worsening/
That's not happening in countries with private systems, I wonder why? Hmm... :hmm:
The United States faces a shortage of as many as 90,000 physicians by 2025, including a critical need for specialists to treat an aging population that will increasingly live with chronic disease, the association that represents medical schools and teaching hospitals reported Tuesday.
But knowing the exact rate that each group pays was not necessary to do this, only what they paid relative to others. That chart explicitly refutes the claim that the rich pay a far higher rate, and does so without using exact tax rates. There's no getting around it.
The exact rate absolutely matters, just not for the purposes of this discussion. We all know that the bottom half of taxpayers in the US don't pay a 5% rate, so I can't see how this hypothetical matters.
I think you're now agreeing with me, so I don't see much point in continuing to discuss it.
The post you originally replied to didn't stipulate relative tax rate ratio. On the the contrary it actually stipulated effective tax rates (no mention of ratios, or relative whatsoever), so your insistence on only looking at it from the perspective of relative ratios is quite frankly a bit of a strawman. If you actually wanted to refute the claim, you should look at effective tax rates (which is what I have been talking about all along).
And the reason why I brought up the two scenarios (10/5 and 50/25), is because it illustrates the fallacy of trying to use just ratios to disprove anything about a claim like "the top half pays a far higher effective tax rate then the lower half". As I said in the previous post I believe that most people would describe these two scenarios very differently (and quite rightly claim that the top half pays far more in the second scenario), even though they have the same ratios.
Also just out of curiosity, at what point (in terms of tax rate ratios) would you say that the top pays "far more" than the bottom? Because based on the graph the top 20% pays a 71.4% higher tax rate ratio than the bottom 20%. 71.4% more would arguably fall within the category of "far higher".
It explicitly talked about relative rates. (That's what 'far more' means. It's a relative measure)