-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com) Wed Mar 14 08:25:14 2007 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Gerald P.Rodriguez: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" Previous message: DoctorJoe@aol.com: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" In reply to: GIN11153@aol.com: "Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" Next in thread: Dr. John Provatopoulos B.Sc. M.D.C.M. F.R.S.C.: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" Reply: Dr. John Provatopoulos B.Sc. M.D.C.M. F.R.S.C.: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" Reply: Raymond Stephen: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" The folks they should be taxing are the MCO's which profit mightily from denying care to CT citizens. Besides, they have more money than the docs. Art At Wed, 14 Mar 2007, GIN11153@aol.com wrote: > >Connecticut state lawmakers are considering a 3% tax on physicians' revenues >to help pay for a statewide $900 million universal healthcare plan, according >to the Hartford Courant. >In addition to taxing healthcare providers, lawmakers are seeking to raise >taxes on cigarettes and initiating a new vanity tax on elective cosmetic >surgery to fund the proposal. Proponents say the tax on doctors' revenues will >generate $600 million for the state and will be offset by an anticipated $300 >million in federal reimbursement. In an attempt to soften the blow, the plan >also calls for increasing Medicaid reimbursements to physicians by 30%, at a >cost to the state of $500 million. >More than a dozen healthcare providers traveled to the capitol to oppose the >proposal in March. Physicians told lawmakers that the tax would likely drive >physicians out of the Medicaid system and reduce patient access to >healthcare. >Read the rest here: >_http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ctdoctax0307.artmar07,0,1237386.story >?coll=hc-headlines-politics-state_ >(http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ctdoctax0307.artmar07,0,1237386.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics-state) >Gail > >http://www.aol.com. -- art fougner, md "May The Wings of Liberty Never Lose a Feather." - Jack Burton Next message: Gerald P.Rodriguez: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" Previous message: DoctorJoe@aol.com: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" In reply to: GIN11153@aol.com: "Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" Next in thread: Dr. John Provatopoulos B.Sc. M.D.C.M. F.R.S.C.: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" Reply: Dr. John Provatopoulos B.Sc. M.D.C.M. F.R.S.C.: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue" Reply: Raymond Stephen: "Re: Connecticut considers 3% tax on physician revenue"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Thu Oct 2 04:56:03 2008

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.