Yes, that's *exactly* what I think. Of course. :-/

Post #327,172 by Another Scott 6/1/10 11:32:46 AM 6/1/10 4:04:49 PM Reply	Yes, that's exactly what I think. Of course. :-/ [edit:] Just to be clear: I was trying to be snarky. I have no particular knowledge why some malpractice insurance rates are so high. I didn't address that. I was trying to point out that numbers I've seen indicate typical malpractice rates are not the dominant expense in a doctor's office. Even in practices where they are spending $100k for insurance, I would bet that salaries are higher. I could be wrong, of course. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott June 1, 2010, 04:04:49 PM EDT Yes, that's exactly what I think. Of course. :-/ Collapse All History
Post #327,201 by beepster 6/1/10 5:43:44 PM Reply	Are you talking about insurance rate,,, or the docs income? Docs income is 100k in the example given. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #327,204 by Another Scott 6/1/10 6:20:02 PM Reply	I made an assumption. My comment was about insurance. The excerpt said some doctors pay $100k for insurance. You asked whether $100k was too high. I assumed you were talking about insurance. You weren't? You really need to use more words in your posts.... ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #327,206 by drook 6/1/10 7:03:27 PM Reply	What's the opposite of "benefit of the doubt"? You were responding to his comment, "Of course, Congress is never going to cut doctor's salaries that much in one fell swoop." That was a response to the article he quoted, which discussed the possible impact of proposed Medicare changes on one doctor's net profits. For your question to be meaningful, you had to assume that Scott's goal was to reduce doctor salaries. You then had to conclude that his comment was not a statement of fact, but stating a problem. When you assume the worst of intentions, and use those assumptions to turn analysis into argument, you make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion. Challenging your opponent on every statement of fact may be a good rhetorical device, but it doesn't lead to common ground. It's a sign that winning the argument is more important than understanding each other. -- Drew
Post #327,214 by Ashton 6/2/10 12:53:43 AM Reply	When you state it that clearly you violate the Human EventsÂ Rulez !111!! (once summarized by one Newt Gingrich: his little working notes somehow found their way into the meeja -- they were All about How To Do [do just what you are suggesting is most often the Beep n'Bill Game.] This is quite beyond stupid rhetorical badinage -- it is about making actual discourse, to some fucking Purpose [Any fucking Purpose]: impossible. Which, as with WOPR's [machine] comment in That Movie: "The only way to win this [War] Game is Not to play.." er, qed? I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #327,217 by beepster 6/2/10 7:31:25 AM Reply	ok dad;=) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #327,219 by drook 6/2/10 9:00:44 AM Reply	Damn whippersnapper -- Drew
Post #327,220 by beepster 6/2/10 9:03:54 AM Reply	Well HE started it! (we have had a dr income discussion before, HONEST) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.

Welcome to IWETHEY!