Funny email from a crazy liberal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

If a company can not afford to pay into some form of healthcare for all its workers then in my opinion that company does not deserve the rights the gov gives under articles of incorporation. Go out of business if you don't do business in the interests of the public.

---

You're on a roll today.. Here you say companies should be forced to buy a service for their employees. I'll bet you think this whether the company can afford it or not.

But, once again, the people shouldn't have to pay for it themselves..oh, no, that would be crazy...hee hee, people paying for their own shit...what a dumb idea...it's other's responsibility to buy them stuff like health insurance (sarcasm of course).

In another thread you say companies should pay higher taxes ("not get tax breaks" you said. Same thing I say). You really hate businesses don't you...

Quote:

---

My position is right in line with all the founders of this nation.

---

You may want to check on this again. Pretty sure the founders hated high taxes and the government forcing them to do shit like buy something for someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

You're on a roll today.. Here you say companies should be forced to buy a service for their employees. I'll bet you think this whether the company can afford it or not.

But, once again, the people shouldn't have to pay for it themselves..oh, no, that would be crazy...hee hee, people paying for their own shit...what a dumb idea...it's other's responsibility to buy them stuff like health insurance (sarcasm of course).

In another thread you say companies should pay higher taxes ("not get tax breaks" you said. Same thing I say). You really hate businesses don't you...



You may want to check on this again. Pretty sure the founders hated high taxes and the government forcing them to do shit like buy something for someone else.

---

All business should play by the same base rules. Rules gov and we the people create. If they can't do business within those rules then they don't deserve the rights of incorporation. Man (Gov) created the articles of incorporation not God. Man can take them away for any reason that is a breach of law. Law is determined by the gov we the people elect. Check and balance...

Did I say people should not pay for it themselves? Their labor at the job pays for that. This just ensures that all companies play by the same base rules. It distorts the market by allowing some companies to not pay when others must. This is what Germany does all companies pay regardless. So the base cost is the same for all.

Also the founders of this nation did not fight to lower taxes. They fought to gain a form of gov that would reflect the will of the people. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against gov tax breaks for the British East India Trading Company. The corrupt gov on England was trying to rig the market by making the smaller corporations pay taxes that the British East company did not have to pay. This was putting mom and pop businesses out of work. The same thing happens today when we give tax breaks to companies to setup shop in your neighborhood but make others pay the correct non taxbreak rates. Its not the free market any more. Those taxbreaks became market manipulators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

You're on a roll today.. Here you say companies should be forced to buy a service for their employees. I'll bet you think this whether the company can afford it or not.

But, once again, the people shouldn't have to pay for it themselves..oh, no, that would be crazy...hee hee, people paying for their own shit...what a dumb idea...it's other's responsibility to buy them stuff like health insurance (sarcasm of course).

In another thread you say companies should pay higher taxes ("not get tax breaks" you said. Same thing I say). You really hate businesses don't you...



You may want to check on this again. Pretty sure the founders hated high taxes and the government forcing them to do shit like buy something for someone else.

---

This.
Do you like paying for some thug in the ghetto to buy a new stereo he doesn't need for his car? Or rims that serve no purpose to help improve his life? That's what welfare is doing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

All business should play by the same base rules. Rules gov and we the people create. If they can't do business within those rules then they don't deserve the rights of incorporation. Man (Gov) created the articles of incorporation not God. Man can take them away for any reason that is a breach of law. Law is determined by the gov we the people elect. Check and balance...

Did I say people should not pay for it themselves? Their labor at the job pays for that. This just ensures that all companies play by the same base rules.

---

There is currently no law that requires companies to pay for healthcare for their employees. The company I work at is an Inc. and I don't get healthcare through the company. So should my employer (who happens to be my father) be shut down and go to jail for that? He sees it as his employees get paid better rather than health benefits and can go pick the healthcare plan they choose rather than getting what he provides. It's a free economy we live in, but I feel I'm already paying for other people too much, and that kind of goes against my beliefs that there are no free handouts for me, so why should the lazy people get free stuff? I understand things like Unemployment, as I've had to use that to keep my bills paid and keep gas in my car so I could seek out work. I understand the premise behind welfare and food stamps, but they're meant to be temporary fixes until people get back on their feet, not something people rely and live off of long term. And there is where we have abuse. Healthcare would be abused by those who don't do anything to pay into it. I could see the whole system being lopsided very easily. People like Obama would claim that under a unified healthcare reform, those who make more money pay more money. Those who can't afford to pay in would still get it regardless and the rest of us would be paying. So much for survival of the fittest. Our modern "for the greater good" has stamped out laws of nature. If you can't provide for your family you shouldn't have had kids. Why should it be my responsibility to make sure your family is fed when I'm trying to provide for mine at the same time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

This.
Do you like paying for some thug in the ghetto to buy a new stereo he doesn't need for his car? Or rims that serve no purpose to help improve his life? That's what welfare is doing!



There is currently no law that requires companies to pay for healthcare for their employees. The company I work at is an Inc. and I don't get healthcare through the company. So should my employer (who happens to be my father) be shut down and go to jail for that? He sees it as his employees get paid better rather than health benefits and can go pick the healthcare plan they choose rather than getting what he provides. It's a free economy we live in, but I feel I'm already paying for other people too much, and that kind of goes against my beliefs that there are no free handouts for me, so why should the lazy people get free stuff? I understand things like Unemployment, as I've had to use that to keep my bills paid and keep gas in my car so I could seek out work. I understand the premise behind welfare and food stamps, but they're meant to be temporary fixes until people get back on their feet, not something people rely and live off of long term. And there is where we have abuse. Healthcare would be abused by those who don't do anything to pay into it. I could see the whole system being lopsided very easily. People like Obama would claim that under a unified healthcare reform, those who make more money pay more money. Those who can't afford to pay in would still get it regardless and the rest of us would be paying. So much for survival of the fittest. Our modern "for the greater good" has stamped out laws of nature. If you can't provide for your family you shouldn't have had kids. Why should it be my responsibility to make sure your family is fed when I'm trying to provide for mine at the same time?

---

Welfare stimulates demand and there are studies that show that the money multiplier from that pays for itself. I don't advocate for a welfare system for life.

As for your father. Society can chose to make a law that mandates he help pay for healthcare as part of the privileged he enjoys under the various articles of incorporation. Notice..... I have said nothing about sole proprietorship or companies who do not incorporate. Those do not enjoy the privileged of immunity and other things that articles of incorporation in various forms provide. Now if your father has to compete with everyone else who has to work under the same rules, then the market will equal out. He would not go out of business, either his profits would diminish or he will raises prices or cut employee pay. That is up to him and other market forces. Free market at work again....

I also don't believe in a society based on survival of the fittest alone. Sorry.... but I don't want America to emulate the dark ages. I have higher standards for my nation and I think a society based on that alone has no honor.

As to those who have more paying more, Yes I believe in a progressive tax system. It was Republican Teddy Roosevelt who first created that and I think it has served this nation well. What broke down is today we have the opposite. If you are a billion dollar investor, like a hedge fund manager, you pay less taxes than a middle class worker. This is part of the reason why we have such a large deficit. So your fears of the rich paying more are unfounded due to them bribing our gov to corruptly create tax structures just for them alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

All business should play by the same base rules. Rules gov and we the people create. If they can't do business within those rules then they don't deserve the rights of incorporation. Man (Gov) created the articles of incorporation not God. Man can take them away for any reason that is a breach of law. Law is determined by the gov we the people elect. Check and balance...

Did I say people should not pay for it themselves? Their labor at the job pays for that. This just ensures that all companies play by the same base rules. It does not distort the market by allowing some companies to not pay. This is what Germany does.

---

You said the company should pay for employee health care. To me that means employees not paying for it, yes. As for their labor paying for it, I would say their labor paid for their PAYCHECK. They can use their paycheck to buy health insurance or care, that's up to them. If the company is forced to buy it, they may, but they're just going to take it out of the employees salary anyway...they WILL NOT increase the salary rate of a job to include health insurance. If a particular job is worth $50k/year and the company is forced to buy $10k worth of insurance for the employee then you can bet the company is not going to spend $60k on that employee, they're still going to pay $50k ($40k to the employee and $10k to insurance).

Adding that enormous burden to companies if they couldn't take it out of the employees pay would most certainly hurt the company...especially small ones.

Quote:

---

Also the founders of this nation did not fight to lower taxes. They fought to gain a form of gov that would reflect the will of the people. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against gov tax breaks for the British East India Trading Company. The corrupt gov on England was trying to rig the market by making the smaller corporations pay taxes that the British East company did not have to pay. This was putting mom and pop businesses out of work.

---

^Agreed, but my point is that gov regulations that force companies to buy their employees health insurance is the very type of tyrannical government control they fought against.

I didn't mean to get you on to taxes here so I will stay with health care...

As it is now, small companies aren't forced to buy insurance for their employees...and although big companies technically aren't either (they are playing by the same rules), in theory they are forced to buy insurance because that's what employees of big companies expect...controlled by the people you might say.

If all were to "play by the same rules" the other way so that all companies had to buy insurance, then that would hurt the mom and pop shops more than it would the big companies...I would say that's government regulations that hurt small businesses...much like the example you mentioned from history.

EDIT: BTW nynco, I appreciate the discussion and you have single-handily reduced the amount of work I got done today...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

He would not go out of business, either his profits would diminish or he will raises prices or cut employee pay. That is up to him and other market forces. Free market at work again....

---

So in essence, he's got a choice to either pay for his employees' healthcare out of profits that previously would have been used to either grow the business, or as discretionary spending, or he can force the employee to pay for it by cutting wages and redirecting the money to health care. Meanwhile, those that don't contribute to the system continue to reap the benefits of others' labor...

A fallacy that most people don't seem to understand is that the market sets the rates of pay. How are you missing that.... an employer knows that he can get someone to do a job for 50k regardless of taxes or other factors he can only get someone to do that job for that pay. Taxes could be at 90% (theoretical point) and unless the employer found a way to pay that person 50K no one would work that job for that pay level. Now this can become distorted when there are too many people for too few jobs. (illegals are destroying the pay rates in trades this way). Now if the employer is making 300grand off that worker do you think he will give a raise out of the goodness of his heart or in his interest to keep a worker of that caliber working? If the worker is happy will he just give money away to him? What employer ever gives away profits for no good reason? They will not stay in business long if they do. Now, if the worker is unhappy and leaves then the employer just found out that 50K was not enough to keep that job filled. Free market at work again...

Taxes... Now taxes for a short period of time. Roughly 2 years will impact the workers pay. But after that 2 years period things will equal out. Either the employer figures out the worker will work for less or the guy quits and finds another job that will pay him 50K in take home pay. Free market at work and taxes when applied the same over each economic earning level make no real impact. This is why Europeans who do have a higher tax system still have a better standard of living than we do in some instances. Free market at work again...

So this correlates to healthcare the same as taxes have. If everyone is playing by the same rules then the market forces are equal.

Now....... here is what I see as the only constitutionally LEGAL way to do this. Medicare for all.... thats the base level paid for by taxes. All health insurance is nonprofit and your are free to buy as much supplemental care as you want. The freemarket is still maintained, but there is just a base floor of greater than zero now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

So in essence, he's got a choice to either pay for his employees' healthcare out of profits that previously would have been used to either grow the business, or as discretionary spending, or he can force the employee to pay for it by cutting wages and redirecting the money to health care. Meanwhile, those that don't contribute to the system continue to reap the benefits of others' labor...

---

In short yes.... but the best form of getting people off welfare is a job that will pay a living wage. Don't mix the two issues here. As much as they seem related, I am referring to workers alone. Will all Americans be covered regardless of income? Yes But diminishing the amount of people without a job is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

So this correlates to healthcare the same as taxes have. If everyone is playing by the same rules then the market forces are equal.

---

Except for the unemployed. Under the system you propose, they get a free ride as far as healthcare goes. Only those that are productive will pay into the system, and they will pay disproportionately. The inequities in the system would likely create an incentive to find more "cheats" in the system, for example, barter and under the table cash transactions, similar to what some people do to evade income taxes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Except for the unemployed. Under the system you propose, they get a free ride as far as healthcare goes. Only those that are productive will pay into the system, and they will pay disproportionately. The inequities in the system would likely create an incentive to find more "cheats" in the system, for example, barter and under the table cash transactions, similar to what some people do to evade income taxes...

---

As I said the two issues are not to be mixed. You seem to be still stuck on this. As I laid out before, it costs society more when we don't treat that TB case than it would if we did. We are saving money by treating everyone. As much as you don't like that idea, it costs you less money in the end. So it is in your own selfish best interest for everyone to have healthcare.