Got some evidence to back this up? 

My step-dad has a practice and ALL his clients are on Medicaid or Medicare.  He doesn't make much more than I do!  The doctors that are making more money are specialists or in a network that benefits through pharmas and private insurance.  Medicaid and Medicare's history for keeping costs down is not paying doctors for their services and making them do more paperwork than the private sector.  They own a small condo that is meager.  Nothing fancy.  The doctors that are making more money than ever are NOT taking Gov't insurance.

Just as we are light years from the Stone Age. Though we are uncomfortable with trial and error and wish achievemens came more easily, we still make the effort toward a better world. "Peace on earth goodwill to men" is a drean but we still pursue it.

Now you're just being linguistically silly. Fair is the opposite of undue accolades for performance. Safeguarding other people's money, which made  the company in the first place, should be the key. That is, reinvesting, declaring minimal dividends, opening up ways to a better product, and not blowing the wealth on a handful of executives, though fairly acknowleging their usefulness.

If you want specific answers buy my book Politics Now & Then

http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=404902

 

Your stepfather is obviously fairminded and knows the reality that if he turned his back on his patients they would go without healthcare until the fateful move to the emergency room. It simply is not true that private insurance entails less paper work and quibbling with the doctor over "medical necessity."

I recently had open heart surgery, and the hospital specialists were great and Medicare paid them the bulk and the supplement a very small part, yet the doctors seemed satisfied.

LOL - love your answer.

But you will note I combined socialism with Communism - on purpose actually.  In both cases, the rewards come from the government, not from the workers.  So while communism may be dead (cuba, Vietnam, north Korea and China may argue that point), the core - government control - remains and is the core of socialism (for proof, just look at health care where the mantra is "Government can do it better").

Thugs do exist in Wall street (Geithner anyone???), but then I never said "no government".  Indeed, government (limited) is needed to take care of the Madoffs and Lays (not the chip or street corner variety).  But for every madoff, there are 100 smart, bright people that are earning their money based upon performance.

Again, as you indicate:

In the end, someone or thing or group has to play the part (the BIG Guy does not meddle) and when the market rules, then it is many people, not a Feinberg.

You stinker!  When did you write a new book?

It will make fascinating reading.

I think this explains a lot: "Politics from Reagan to George W. from the perspective of an old Democrat" - Richard Kennedy

 

Do you think this Czar will get a bonus?

Do you know he will not?