Michigan Votes Forum

 Save money( Go to part time legislator)this will save a bundle of our moneyand you wouldent need to tax our drinks.

Rep. Haines, under Rule 31, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I did not vote on Roll Call No. 490 because of a possible conflict of interest.”

Rep. Hildenbrand, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to these bills that raise taxes on the residents of Michigan.

The message from Michigan businesses and families is loud and clear, people across Michigan are calling on us to pass a balanced budget without raising taxes; to adopt meaningful reforms to avoid future annual budget crisis; and to reform and reduce Michigan’s business tax to jump-start our struggling economy.

With 15% unemployment it is obvious that our tax rates are not too low or that we don’t have enough taxes in place: The problem is we don’t have enough people paying taxes. People are moving out of state, are out of work, have lost wages and are not participating in our economy. The result: our tax revenues are down over 20%.

The last thing we need to do is raise taxes in this time of economic crisis. We can not tax ourselves into prosperity. This Legislature and the Governor should have learned their lesson 2 years ago when they raised $1.4 billion in new tax revenue. The result - today we have $2.8 billion in less revenue for state government - almost twice the loss of revenue in just 2 short years.

Let’s not punish our businesses and families while they are down. But let’s implement the agreement between the House and Senate to balance this budget with no new revenue and get serious about the reforms needed to make state government work.

Let’s focus on creating a strong and robust economy to put Michigan back to work instead of nickeling and diming the people of this state in order to feed state government.”

Rep. Opsommer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“As I have mentioned, if we are to consider revenue we must consider reforms. Where are the program reforms? Where are the reforms on junk lawsuits? Programs need to be justified on their own merits, and simply passing a tax increase to be in a better position to attract federal dollars is not enough to warrant the passage of this bill. As you are aware, Michigan received more revenue from the federal government this year than from any other funding source, despite the fact that we are a ‘donor’ state in most categories. In our rush to get our ‘fair share’ I do not think we reflect to consider whether this race to the bottom for federal dollars and big government is what the founding fathers had in mind for this United States of America that was to be so very different from the other failed political structures of that day. Instead we worry about not getting enough money from the federal government so we pass virtually any law that they attach funding to, never debating whether this fiscal control and coercion is positive for Michigan or if we have simply forgotten our role and have reduced ourselves to blindly carrying out the wishes of bureaucrats in Washington. The ‘carrot’ of federal dollars has instead become a stick, and when the carrot is pulled away as it invariably will be when the money runs out we will be left with an unsustainable system that is dependent on a Washington that can no longer provide for us and was assuming a role it was never intended to have in the first place. This bill needs more justification than this pursuit, and is but one option that should be on the table as we try to advance meaningful reforms.”

Ludicrous!  Taxing one segment of the population to make up a deficit created by our fine legislators in Michigan.  Why not tax our legislators 4% to make up the difference in the budget?  What about teachers to help the deficit in schools?  The lawyers definitely need to have some tax applied to their incomes to help with court costs and bogus lawsuits!  When will this taxation without representation stop?   Physicians already take care of those without insurance at discounted rates.  Michigan has slashed payments for medicaid patients.  Telling physicians that participate in medicaid that their payments will increase is patently untrue!  If a physician makes more money, they pay more taxes.  Once again, a typical political play on words.

Basically physicians will now pay 1. Income tax on their earnings, 2. small business tax and 3. Medicaid tax.  What's next?

This bill will, drive more physicians into retirement, force some to move and discourage young physicians, graduating from residencies, from staying in State.

 What is next with you people?  My grandchildrens' piggy banks??  I will oppose any Democrat in any future election as long as I live.

 What is with the "carbonated soft drink thing???"  This bill is about taxing physicians an extra 3% on their personal income.

As a physician  I am appalled of the proposal to put a 3% income tax on the gross income of physicians. Picking out a single profession for increased tax is discrimination! We are already taxed at for the income that we make. Why are we being singled out for more? As an academic physician with the University of Michigan, I expect that I would never personally see the increase in Medicaid that is being proposed because it would most likely go to the hospital. Even if I see it, I would be taxed twice on it by the state of Michigan--once for my general income tax and the other for this additional 3%.

I ask again, why are physicians being singled out? I am not for increased taxes, but to increase the tax of physicians is discrimination . If you were to tax according to profession, why not tax each banker extra to help the "bank loan crisis," the auto worker to help pay for the bailout, the grocery store worker to help pay for the food of the homeless, and of course the individuals in Michigan Government who helped to put us into this predicament in the first place.

This increase tax on physicians will drive physicians away to other states that are more physician friendly. If this happens, the state of Michigan will lose more revenue from physicians because there will be less of them here. I myself have licenses in several other states and could leave if need be. We have 4 medical schools in this state. When you start taxing these new physicians, especially at the lower paid resident level, why would they want to stay here?

After 12-15 of schooling and training with making minimal money, I see no reason why the physician should be singled out to give more. WE SAVE LIVES ON A DAILY BASIS. This does not amount to much of a thanks from Michigan.

This proposed physician tax is a recipe for disaster. I am asking the Michigan Senate to please vote against it and do your best to convince your colleagues to do the same.

This discriminatory 3% tax on physicians for taking care of people is far worse than an income tax - it's a gross revenue tax on physician practices. For primary care physicians (e.g. pediatricians, internists, family practioners) who often have practice overheads of over 65%, this tax represents a drop in income of over 10%; and a practice with 90% overhead will hit the physician with a 30% reduction in income. Ironic that the physicians our Medicaid population needs the most, get impacted the worst by HB 5386.

Given that our medical graduates are over $200,000 in student debt, dedicate at least 11 years of their lives in training, (4 years college, 4 years medical school, 3+ years residency), and typically start their careers at age 30, why would they want to stay in Michigan to be penalized like this ??

The argument that docs would "make back" the tax if they see more Medicaid patients is laughable, since Medicaid reimbursement would only rise to the level of Medicare rates, which are already low and promise to get lower with Obamacare. The physician would see fewer patients from other payor mixes to make appointments available for Medicaid, but will still see poor reimbursment plus the onerous 3% revenue tax.

Our state already has a physician shortage. This physician tax will only make it worse.

The idiots that voted for a tax on doctors know darn well that the cost will be passed on to the patients. 

 You said this so well.  I tried to say something similar to legislators and Sen Bishop.    Sen Bishop's office said they were getting "100s" of calls saying this.  But, if I heard right , and the bill did pass, it didn't help.  

from Child'sDoctor:

 "I ask again, why are physicians being singled out?"

Isn't it obvious? Cuz you got deep pockets, Daddy-o. But hey, that doesn't stop the Democrats from trying to take more taxes from the tips of waitresses and bus boys, etc. Wherever there's a potential revenue stream, the unscrupulous Dems will attempt to exploit it. Constitution be damned... that ol' rag is over 200 years old.  Obviously the founding fathers never intended it to apply to Democrats... what heresy!

 "I am not for increased taxes, but to increase the tax of physicians is discrimination ."

Um, you don't seem to understand. It's not discrimination when Democrats and jelly-spined RINOs do it... in such a case we classify it as "an imperfect bill for the public good." Stand down, citizen, and accept the scraps you're thrown with reverence and humility. You should be happy to make such sacrifices for Big Brother. Now say your ten "Hail Granholms" and be off with you.

 Six and out!!!  If they fail to perform, they must go.  No more "careeer politicians"!!

[What is this "Impose tax on carbonated soft drinks"??]

If I read this right, the extra tax on doctors FAILED.  Yessssss!!

Why don't we do one that imposes an extra tax on lawyers, and use THAT money to get extra Medicaid dollars.  Doctors are already losing when they treat Medicaid and Medicare patients.  It would seem quite unfair if they were further punished by an extra 3% tax.  And why?  Apparently, "because."

Lawyers, on the other hand, make big, big bucks suing doctors.  It's only fair if they pay an extra tax which would then be used for extra Medicaid dollars.  Maybe, with the extra Medicaid dollars, the doctors could receive increased fees for treating their Medicaid and Medicare patients.

Now, who would like to propose this?

Because the federal match dollars are not for matching lawyer changes, they are for matching medical changes. And seriously, how often have you heard of anyone in Michigan suing a doctor. I know it's got to happen sometime, but I don't know of one single person. I haven't heard of a bunch of press on a bunch of law suits, etc. Also, most of the winning judgement payments would come from INSURANCE that the doctor carries- I don't see them paying claims out of pocket!  Should we not tax cars because of people that sue for bad driving? She we not tax automakers because people sue them when the vehicles blow up? That thinking makes no sense.

However, in this case, if they tax the docotors, the feds will give them extra money. Besides, they only wanted to tax it at 3%, So if they were charging $100 for a 15 minute office visit, it would only cost them $3. Give me a break. That's not ridiculous, it's only fair. Businesses should pay taxes- plain and simple. If the state of michigan is to keep running, it needs more revenue. Taxes have to come from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. Besides, with medicaid/medicare getting more funding, the doctor's may be able to see more patients (more people qualifying or higher benefit levels) and thus would actually make more money in the long road.

 Only 4 Senators voted for this and what a surprise, my Senator, Mickey Switalski, was one of them. What an embarassment. This guy never met a tax he didn't like.  Hey Mickey, you're not going to win any prizes for being the Senator with the most votes to increase taxes. Ron White was right ya just can't fix stupid!   

Senator Cherry, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the motion to order the previous question for Senate Bill No. 5386.

Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:

I voted “no” on the previous question vote because this is another political game, and I am so sick of political games. This bill was not a good bill; yet I did vote for it because we need to do something. We sat in a committee meeting for four hours last week and came up with some suggestions, some things that we needed to work through. My colleague from the 10th District very diplomatically talked about what those changes were, and yet we refuse to even deal with any of it.

I am so tired of this body playing political games and not solving the budget problem, so I voted “no.”

Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows:

This is, of course, the famous QAAP bill that would be a physician tax on physicians in our state. We just had about a four-hour hearing on this last week, and we had standing room only. There is significant opposition to the bill, but the problems that have been brought forward with the bill, I believe, can be fixed. I believe we owe it to the Medicaid recipients in this state and the doctors who service them to try to improve the system.

The path we are going down right now is to cut Medicaid 8 percent and with continuing budget problems. I think we have a significant deficit projected and General Fund for next year. We would have to continue down that path of continued cuts. The QAAP provides an alternative, and certainly, it is an alternative replete with problems that it would have to undergo significant changes. But as part of that process, last week and the hearing that we had, we asked the doctors and the physician groups and interested parties, “Would you be willing to sit down and work on this bill and make improvements and fix the problems with it?” With probably one exception everyone said, “Yes, we are willing to sit down and make improvements and changes to this bill, but in its current form, we don’t support it.”

Well, what we have in front of us now is the bill in its current form as it came over from the House. Certainly, it needs significant changes, but with the thing discharged to the floor without warning, it is not possible to make those significant changes. We discussed those at length during that four-hour hearing, and I think what the doctors were looking for were things like a provision that said any money that we raised through this QAAP would stay in the DCH budget and be used for health purposes; that we would guarantee the higher Medicare rate rather than the low and continually dropping Medicaid rate that is causing us to lose access per patients and convince doctors not to participate.

So if we could do something like that, it would improve the bill. If we could have a one-year sunset on the bill, they could see whether it worked or not, and if it wasn’t working, we could get rid of it. If we had language in there to address timely payments and provisions that if the federal reimbursement changed, the tax would go away. All these things would make this bill a lot better, but we really don’t have a chance to have those conversations and make those changes if we bring it up for a vote right now.

There were other problems. There were physicians who have a large amount of overhead who maybe are giving out expensive cancer treatments, cancer drugs, or inoculations that they just pass on the costs to their customers. They really don’t’ make money on it, but under the definition of “gross receipts” in this bill, they would be paying a tax on that. We talked about redefining the definition of “gross receipts” so that we could exclude some of those. We talked about the size of the state’s gain share and adjustments we could make for that. We talked about the tendency of the Legislature to raise money and devote resources to something and then take money—General Fund support—away with the other hand. We talked about maybe there is a maintenance of effort section we could put in to make that impossible for the Legislature to do that. We talked about promise with the Federal Qualified Health Centers, that currently get a higher rate than Medicare, and they would be losers in this if they had to just pay in and are not able to get a higher reimbursement.

So we talked about all these problems, and we expressed a willingness to sit down at the table and figure out if it is possible to change the bill and address those. You know, it was certainly a major undertaking, but I think anybody who sees the path that we are going down and sees the continued rise in Medicaid patients and the decline and physicians willing to take them because of the poor reimbursement rates, we have to find a way to change that trend. So it was worth talking about, and I still think it is worth talking about. If you are going to put this up and make me vote on a bill that I think is flawed but can be fixed, I have no choice. I have to vote for it and hope that we could make changes in it, but you are not making it easy on me. You are not allowing the discussion to take place. You are not allowing the changes in the bill to be offered to try to fix its problems.

So I think this is not a very good evaluation of the QAAP’s merit because you are putting up something that I, myself, am an advocate of it, admit is fundamentally flawed. But I think it can be fixed, and you are not giving us a chance to try to fix it. I am disappointed you have discharged this to the floor, not giving the Legislature a chance to make improvements to it. But I am going to vote for it because I want to say that I don’t want to continue going down the path we are going down. I think there is a better way to. We ought to make one little change in it. We should throw a comma in there, I think, so that we have a difference between this and the House bill, and we could then go to a conference and spend some time. It might take a lot of time. It might take a lot of thought. It might take bringing in a lot of other issues like medical malpractice, like reimbursement to other entities, and it might take a lot of uncomfortable votes and uncomfortable negotiations, but it is something we should try and see if we can make the thing better.

So thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. President, and I hope members will keep the process alive to keep something that is flawed but can be fixed from dying a premature death.

 Here we go again another (BRAIN DEAD) senator wanting to raise taxes on doctor.You senator and congressmen should wake up and smell the coffee,If any of you Moron had enough sence you would look at (PART TIME LEGISLATOR) instead of increasing taxes all the time other state have part time ligislator.And the state would save million.