E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLost in the debate over whether the money that uninsured people will be required to pay the federal government starting in 2015 is or isn't a tax, are a few significant facts that will influence not only the struggle over taxes from now until Election Day but also the future of tax policy:
Jim Watson / AFP - Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks during a campaign event at Wolcott House Museum Complex in Maumee, Ohio, on July 5, 2012.
- The money (or penalty or tax or whatever you want to call it) that the uninsured will pay is relatively small, so small that one wonders whether it will have the effect of nudging people into buying insurance and whether a future Democratic Congress would need to increase the tax in order for it to have the desired nudging effect. By 2016, the Affordable Care Act requires most Americans who don’t buy insurance to pay a penalty of $695 for each uninsured adult in the household, or a percentage of household income, (2.5 percent of the amount of income over the tax filing threshold). That’s less than the average cost of buying insurance. “The individual mandate is too weak,” said Avik Roy, a critic of the law who is at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Roy, who is also an advisor to the Mitt Romney campaign, predicted that people will go without insurance, pay the tax, and then purchase insurance only after they get seriously ill or end up in a hospital emergency room. “This will massively drive up the cost of health insurance in the private market, effectively destroying private health insurance, unless significant reform takes place,” he said.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and Politico's Jonathan Martin break down the war of words over what to call the health care insurance mandate in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling.
- Despite the raucous debate since last week’s Supreme Court decision, the revenue generated by the tax on the uninsured will be quite small: only $4 billion per year. By comparison, the federal government collects more than $6 billion every day in tax revenues. By 2019, the Affordable Care Act’s new Medicare tax on people with incomes more than $200,000 will be raising ten times as much revenue as the tax on the uninsured. And unlike the tax on the uninsured which starts in 2015, the Medicare tax will begin having its impact only five months from now: it takes effect on Jan. 1 and will collect $20 billion in new revenues next year, increasing to nearly $40 billion a year by 2019.
Recommended - First Thoughts: Romney's fatal flaw
Watch: Pelosi says Health care decision a 'victory for the American people'
- Aware of the fact that this new tax on the uninsured will inevitably raise taxes on some middle-class people – a tax increase which President Obama vowed to not to impose, Sen. Ron Wyden, D- Ore., is renewing his push for his idea of a waiver. Under a provision Wyden put in the ACA, states who don’t want to go along with the individual mandate and the tax for being uninsured have the option of setting up their own alternative systems for covering the uninsured – just as long as the alternative state plan gives individuals insurance coverage that’s at least as comprehensive as provided under federal law and as long as the state plan covers as many people as the federal plan would cover.
Obama has endorsed Wyden’s idea of moving up the date the state waiver becomes available from 2017 to 2014. Especially in light of the court’s decision last week which framed the penalty as a tax, Wyden said, a state waiver “will be increasingly attractive” to states which don’t want to go along with the tax increase or have their own version of health care reform they want to attempt. He said his waiver “is an opportunity for states to take approaches that are philosophically in tune with their views.” In some states that might be a single-payer government system; in others, it might be a market-oriented plan.
It remains to be seen whether any states will take Wyden up on his offer. But Wyden’s effort shows that some Democrats see the tax increase on the middle class as a political liability.
- The tax debate since last week’s decision has overshadowed the issue of cost. When a family pays a tax, it ends up of course with less money to spend or invest. But when it pays higher prices for health care, it also ends up with less money. A 2011 analysis by the RAND Corporation found that if health care costs had kept pace with the overall inflation rate - instead of exceeding it - over the prior decade, a median-income family of four would have an extra $5,400 left in their bank account at the end of each year. The success or failure of Obama’s massive overhaul will rest as much on its ability to control future cost increases as it will on the taxes that people will pay.
Leave a Comment:
There has been nothing to stop state sponsored programs. It is not like they wanted them and were denied the right. The problem is that real wages have not gone up in about 30 years for a variety of reasons. Everything else has. Insurance cannot make a profit from people with pre-existing conditions and the elderly. That is why medicare was invented. Also, if you don't fall into either category you will be dropped immediately if the cost is high. Doctors now have to charge an arm and a leg in order to pay off their student loans. Catastrophic care will eventually be nationalized because no one can make a profit off of it except doctors and hospitals. Until then we are just in for a dog fight primarily between the lobbyists who buy both sides of our government and provide them with the arguments for their side. Additionally, as more and more companies demand co-payments or drop their coverage the percentages will change.
Not a tax? Obamacare is reducing tax deductibility of employer paid group health coverage. What does that mean? The businesses who provide it or even partially provide it have less deductions and more taxable income. More taxable income means MORE TAX, where it wasn't a tax before. OF COURSE IT IS A TAX!
More tax, means less growth of SMALL businesses (I'm talking about owners earning less than $250,000 of taxable income folks) means less employees. What small business, after losing deductibility, and having to pay more taxes (as in less left over) is going to rush out to hire employees they are mandated to provide coverage for, where they can't even deduct the health premiums as a cost of doing business?
But not to worry, Obamacare will create jobs. Right.... And Obama is not going to raise taxes for those making less than $250K one thin dime.
Open your eyes folks. A major train wreck coming your way soon!
Actually the percentage of the cost of the premiums your employer pays that they can get a tax credit for will increase under ACA from 35-50%. They are going to have less tax liability than before. try getting your information from someplace other than faux news.
Genenut: there you go disrupting Michaels detailed destruction of this law by providing true facts as opposed to Micheal facts.
Look at it this way everyone in congress dose not work for the people they work for those who pay for the election and who have money. get used to things being what they are because this system is self proved in the news and laws passed.
its very plane to see.
CT, the proof in your statement is all too true. Back in 1990 the government seized the Mustand Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion, as requiredby law, and tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are entrusting the governing of our country, the recovery of our economy, our banking system, auto industry, and health plans to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money runing a whore house and selling whiskey.
“The individual mandate is too weak,” said Avik Roy, a critic of the law who is at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.
So wait a second. So some conservatives are angry about a conservative idea because it was done by a Democratic President. Then we have other conservatives angry that the conservative idea isn't conservative enough?
I know this is tough for a Democrat to understand... but we'll give it a rip.
“The individual mandate is too weak,” said Avik Roy, a critic of the law who is at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.
What that statement means is that it is obvious that the mandate isn't strong enough to push people into buying health insurance. Instead, they will pay the weak TAX and wait until they need insurance to pay for it (remember, they can't be denied for ANY reason, nor can there be a waiting period or exclusion on benefits). So, the result is that many people will DROP their insurance and only sponge off of the system when it is to their benefit.
Again, for the slow people in the room, that means that insurance companies will see a REDUCTION in policies, followed by an increase in costs. So, they will have to charge more. And when they charge more, more people will drop their policies... and wait until they have issues to get another policy.
The end result is that insurance companies will be unable to do business. And the federal government will come in to save the system from the very problem they created. With single payer.
Of course, the next problem is that Obama's plan does not, in ANY way, address the cost of care, only the cost of insurance to some groups. And there won't be any change in that with single payer... it doesn't do anything about procedural costs.
There are only two ways to lower costs. Increase supply or limit demand. Adding 30,000,000 people to the system, and then telling them that everything is going to be subsidized to them if they can't afford it, will INCREASE demand. That will put MORE upward pressure on prices. At the same time, fewer students are going into medicine because they can see that it isn't the ticket to success that it was in the past. That is decreasing supplies.
Just as in the "other civilized countries" mentioned throughout this comment stream, the only final solution is to limit the availability of care.
So, the result is that many people will DROP their insurance and only sponge off of the system when it is to their benefit.
The vast majority of Americans don't buy their insurance out of pocket. But hey, let's conveniently forget that because it makes your argument more plausible.
Ah, FactoftheMatter - most people do buy their insurance out of pocket. It might be through their employer, but the still pay premiums with their own money...unlike Democrats who are all about using other people's money for their own interests...
It might be through their employer
There's no 'mights' about it, it is through their employer.
Now if we wanted to have an honest debate about healthcare, let's talk about what should have been done. The biggest employers in this country like the idea of the mandate, but what they really wanted was market driven setting of the premiums.
There are several ways to accomplish this. Obamacare attempts to by creating a pseudo free market with these so called exchanges. The problem is that these are limited in choice (government regulated choices), and hence the premiums are not really market driven. Romney favors the notion of individual market, where basically you get a tax break to buy your own insurance. The problem here is that as an individual you do not have the competitive leverage as say a company (like your employer).
Really there was no option but to have the individual mandate, but let's pretend that we could have accomplished driving the costs of health insurance down without one.
But hey, I'm just a 'stupid Democrat who likes to spend other people's money' what do I know?
Taxes/fees/penalties are never raised right? MSNBC must have writers 24x7 on meth pumping out the Obama is not so bad or Obama is great fluff. Or the Romney is evil crap.
If Iran nuked Israel would that be reported or would Obama's latest give away be reported?
"...quite small: only $4 billion per year". The liberal indoctrination continues. I feel better already knowing my taxes are that 'small'. Unbelievably bias from MSNBC.
Sarah: Even with an American education deficient in math and logic, you ought to be able to see that $4 Billion per year is small compared to six billion a DAY. (That's $4,000,000,000 compared to $2,190,000,000,000 per year)
Most of this is crap. The country's most prosperous times were in the 1950's and the top tax rate was 90%. This fight is not about taxes. It is about what they are spent on. Conservatives don't like government programs and labor unions and liberals do, just like every other country in the world. Tragically, we cannot even be original anymore. We look to the east, see the sun rise and believe it has risen because we were looking over there. If we were in the dire straights people would have us believe then congress would hammer out a deal to pay the bills and cut their own pay as well. None of that has happened. So far they are just arguing about which one of us is going to be hurt. If low taxes and deregulation was so great then we would never have had the Great Depression because tax rates were considerably lower and there were no real regulations. Our problem is we have become so polarized we can't even talk to each other anymore and so poorly educated we have nothing to talk about.
Chief Justice john Marshall in his McCulloch versus Maryland decision warned us that "the Power to Tax Is the Power to Destroy". Somebody better figure out pretty quick how this penalty tax is going to be limited or it could increase to the point of onerously compelling compliance to a destructive burden, which come to think of it, probably is going to be the result of the mandate. Maybe this tax will be the one that proves that death and taxes are the only certainty by combining the two.
John Boener and Republican house have won a vote along party lines to change the inscription on the Statue of Liberty...
Old Version---Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
New Version- Tell your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore-to get the F@&% out of town before sundown or we will fill your a$$e$ with lead. I lift my 2nd Amendment right to target your brown backdoor.
Holy smokes! I'm sorry I don't collect a paycheck from MSNBC because right now, for me, a $695 tax/penalty is anything but "relatively small". Thanks for the subjective reasoning, but quite obviously one person's definition of "relatively small" might differ from others.
So you think that $695 is NOT small when the alternative is $600 per month for insurance? You gotta be a republican.
It's only about 35 cents an hour based on the 2080 hours worked per year. Take a gander at this PDF on the SSI increases over time.
Call it what you want. Healh care is expensive - and 500 billion is being taken from Medicaide. Don't think that will need to be replaced? And who is going to replace it? With the crummy paying jobs that are now the norm I would dare say this is one huge cluster and is setting up another house of cards.
SSI PDF
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2010/2a1-2a7.html#table2.a3
TH - That's the penality for NOT purchasing insurance. You must be a democrat - posted without thinking.
@T.H. Eagen - I don't like either alternative at all. But let's not pretend that the tax isn't a substantial one time hit for a lot of people. A lot. The government won't want it in installments and they are singularly displeased when you don't pay them.
It was passed when no one understood it. It has been described all over the place by both sides. Not even the people who wrote the bill have managed to keep to a single script for what it is meant to do. No one knows if it is a tax or a penalty or what either of those actually mean. The cost to pay have been all over the place, the benefits promised have been all over the place. In short this is a bad bill with far too many very dangerous consequences for our future and that sets a precedence that could be disastrous. After all more people will rely on the environment than on health care and now the Federal government has been give the power to create new taxes or penalties for people who don't buy the types of cars the government wants. But of course, we can trust the government.
Agreed. The bill was a rush job from the word-go, compromised and leveraged to the hilt, and the corrupted product of a corrupt process. Sadly, it is an improvement on what we've had, but it still falls far short of anything resembling progressive health care in a presumably intelligent and civilized society. I'm tired of swallowing pabulum about never allowing best to be the enemy of good. Instead of a national debate, town-hall meetings across the land, and perhaps a national referendum on the subject, we looked on while the technocrats and demagogues ruled the day. We deserve this debacle and it is an indictment of our intellectual, moral, and political failure as a nation.
The Supreme Court has declared the individual mandate penalty to be a tax so it is a tax. The President promised that he would not raise taxes on 95% of Americans in any way, not one dime. The individual mandate as well as other taxes in the health care law, raises taxes on some of the 95% of Americans, contrary to the President's promise. It does not matter how small the tax may be. Any such tax is a violation of the President's promise. To keep his promise the President needs to demand that the congress repeal the health care law immediately.
There seems to be some confusion about what is in the law. In essence the President promised to fix the problem. He promised to go over the health care bill, "line by line", with my congressman and every other lawmaker in Washington who requested it and that all proceedings regarding the health care bill would be broadcast on CSPAN. It is such a long bill, for the President to keep his promise to the American people and have a chance of going over the entire bill, "line by line", as promised, the broadcasts have to start immediately.
Will Haas: Where the heck do you get your "facts"? How can the individual mandate raise taxes on 95% of Americans? It only applies to those who do not get insurance and right now, there are about 35 million uninsured Americans (about 12%), the vast majority of whom pay little or no taxes b/c they are CHILDREN or poor. So what other taxes are you talking about that effect 95% of Americans? Are you talking about 95% of Americans or 95% of American taxpayers, or 95% of American adults? Come on, brother, you gotta do better at collecting facts and making statements than Limbaugh or MSNBC or MSN.
Will, the Obamacare tax won't apply to those making less than $250,000 a year per the Obama decree.
Here Are The New Taxes You're Going To Pay To Pay For Obamacare...
Henry Blodget | Jul. 2, 2012, 10:18 AM | 35,028 | 67
Well, Obamacare is now official, which means that a lot more people in the United States will have health insurance.
And it also means a lot more people will be paying more taxes.
(You didn't think Obamacare was free, did you?)
Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:
A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 18.8%--if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8%. (WSJ)
A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ)
Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org)
The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. Right now, any medical expenses over 7.5% of AGI are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be 10%. (ATR.org)
The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org)
A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)
A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)
A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org)
A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.)
A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)
So those are some of the new taxes you'll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-new-obamacare-taxes-2012-7#ixzz1zlqcRcaG
If any of these health care law taxes affect any taxpaying American making less than $250,000 per year than it is a violation of the President's promise to the American people and to keep his promise the President should demand that congress repeal the law. I am sure that we will understand the law better after the President has gone over the health care bill, "line by line", with my congressman on CSPAN as the President had promised.
When the government forces you to give it your money, does it really matter what they call it?
Here's the key point that people are missing:
It's and ILLEGAL AND DISCRIMINATORY TAX on the American public!
Nothing difficult to understand!
1. Certain groups are "exempt" from paying this tax..............discrimination against anyone not in one of the exempt groups.
2. A family of 12, 2 adults and 10 children, will only be required to pay $1,390.00 for the two adults instead of $8340.00 for the entire family...............discrimination against every american who remains childless or has fewer children.
4. Single Unemployed persons will have to give up more of their unemployment checks along with the taxes they already have to pay on that income.......................discrimination at least on adult in a married houshold will be working and their spouse can and usually does get coverage through their spouse when they become unemployed.
Uh, just where does it say that the government cannot "discriminate" among differing groups when assessing taxes? If your income is very high, you will pay a great deal more than if your income is low. If you have a mortgage, you can deduct the interest but if you rent, you cannot deduct any part of the rent even if you and the guy with a mortgage are identical in every other way.
Oops. Missed numbered.
4. was supposed to be 3.
4. should read: ILLEGAL........TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION........Obama has stated flat out that the money collected in fines/tax will NOT be used to for any type of medical assistance, but to pay down the national debt! Bullsh!t! Americans did NOT create this outrageous national debt.........washington did............let them pay it off out of THEIR paychecks!
TH does not even understand the difference between the insurance cost versus the penalty for not purchasing the insurance. Don't waste your time.
T.H.
That's one of the biggest problems with this country.............the government makes all kinds of "discrimination laws" for everyone but their favored groups and their pocketbooks.
Obamacare has twenty different taxes. " If you make less than 250K you will pay no extra taxes." Sell your home and pay a massive Obamo tax. Thanks Liberals!
Nazarite: just what tax are you assigning to Obama that occurs upon the sale of your house???
Next »
Obamacare Real Estate Tax: Final Nail in the RE Market Coffin?–Nope
Friday, September 17, 2010, 10:20 AM
Wesley J. Smith
What does Obamacare have to do with the depressed real estate market? Alas, a lot. Buried amidst other landmines in the nearly 3000 pages of text of Obamacare–to be followed by at least 100,000 pages of regulations–is a tax on personal real estate sales profits–this, in addition to capital gains. From an Orange County Register editorial:
How can it be a tax if the government has no power to collect. It's not a mandate. It's not a tax. It's a request.
Obama "Obamacare will save the average familty $2,500 a year on healthcare" Translation - Obamacare will cost the average family $2,500 a year "MORE" on healtcare.
Obama with his hands in the air! Is he surrendering? NO - He has much more damage to make US endure!
Obamacare is making me sick!
lol it might help you, if you'd stop ranting fake, scary things that aren't true. Just a suggestion lol
hey, its mo - wake up progressive and then go back to slumber. Thou lying liberal. You cannot save the Dark lord, barack insane obama.
I'd like to know what my new health insurance premiums will be as a result of this act.
Make it easy....current average wage of middle class with average insurance premium if provided by employer or on individual plan and compare that to the insurance premiums paid under the plan.
Can you show me it's going to save $$?
Then, let's figure that not every state is going to implement Medicaid expansion, which will cost each of us more...then let's figure that some deadbeats will not carry insurance when healthy but only apply when really sick, which also drives up our cost...then let's figure some won't do anything different so that plus the illegals seeking free health care will continue to drive up the cost. On top of that, let's talk about the $$ impact of all the exceptions Obama handed out like candy. Please tell me how this saves us money.
You might get a lot more people on board for the concept.
Avik Roy, a critic of the law who is at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, who is also an advisor to the Mitt Romney campaign, predicted that people will go without insurance, pay the tax, and then purchase insurance only after they get seriously ill or end up in a hospital emergency room. “This will massively drive up the cost of health insurance in the private market, effectively destroying private health insurance, unless significant reform takes place,” he said.
Roy, What you just said is what has been happening before ACA. The only difference is that in the past they cannot purhase health insurance due to pre-existing condition. Healthcare should not be a for-profit industry. In the past hospitals were mostly non-profit now they are in business to make a buck and screw the people. It is amazing that half the American people support the GOP in repealing ACA without really knowing what is in it for them.
Be careful what you wish for. Everyone against ACA is ignorant on what the benefits are for them. You might have a job with healthcare benefits, a healthy family and hopefully money in the bank. But nothing is permanent, here today gone tomorrow. Your job might be outsourced to China or the Third World because if you are making minimum wage or higher the GOP and their Corporate and U.S. Chamber of Commerce benefactors sees you as highly overpaid. Maybe your job will not get outsourced but you can get replaced by an Asian Indian on a H1-B visa. You or a family member can get gravely sick that might exhaust your savings and eventually lose your insurance due to benefits limit which is now on the average a million dollars. A million
dollars is nothing if you get hit with a catastrophic disease.
I know someone who adamantly supported Bush's ban on stem cell research. Guess what happened, he was diagnosed with MS and had to go to Costa Rica for a stem cell procedure which he later learned was a sham after spending 25K.
Get yourself informed by finding out what ACA is all about and compare it to what we had before. Don't listen to the conservative or liberal politicians and media. It is your responsibility to look after your own self-interest because no one else will. Your health should not be a political issue nor it needs a Constitutional mandate, it all boils down to common sense and dollars and cents.
Why should our health be a for profit venture? What value does healthcare insurer add to the health and well-being of the citizens? Healthcare, should only be a non-profit venture just like it was thirty or so
years ago.
NO ONE SHOULD PROFIT ON PEOPLE'S HEALTH.
AGAIN FAIR WARNING; BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
why should doctors be slaves to the state and prohibited from making a profit?
Larry - it is Obama's version of class warfare! In Cuba, doctors make less than a truck driver. China had a cultural revolution where the hated 1%(Doctors, Professors, the educated) were sent to work in the fields and crack rocks. This is what happens when Marxist run the country.
Those who oppose Obamacare seem to forget this. While the ACA does not do enough to control costs, at least it protects those who have insurance from being dropped and lessens their chances of incurring bankruptcy.
The government can draft you, send you into a war where you can die and make you pay taxes to pay for it at the same time (whether you believe in the war or not). Of course, they can tax, penalize and punish just like every other government in the world. People only want the government limited when they don't like what they are doing. When they do like it they can't get enough of it. And that is true and has been true on both sides of the isle.
If Obama is so proud of Obamacare, why did the Demorats wait until after the Nov 2012 election to implement the dastardly plan?
Nazi- Obamacare calls for the building and staffing of health clinics in urban areas and rural areas which have a shortage of doctors. See Romney in Mass. when he implemented his plan didnt do this and the newly insured flooded the emergency rooms where treatment costs more and ended up costing his stae millions in extra payments. The lovely teapugs in their wisdom of budget cuts hit this area and reduced the amount of about a third. Imagine, trying to provide better health care to those without doctors and the teapugs cut the program.
Little details as above take time to get implemented and get done correctly.
Paxil - we will have a shortage of doctors under Obamacare and a shortage of life, liberty and wealth.
You're right. If the Teapubs succeed in reducing spending on education we'll be short of doctors, engineers and all kinds of other smart people who are the hope of the future.
Nazi- why dont you honestly check anything before you open up your mouth. We already have a shortage of doctors you idiot.
can you even comprehend anything you do read or is it just rote memory- obama is bad .....