health care
in [Golf]
|
From: John B. on 22 Feb 2010 09:03 On Feb 21, 9:47 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > On 21-Feb-2010, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > >>What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes. > > >>That way even the slackers have to participate. > > > >There are a lot of good reasons to replace income tax with sales tax. > > > Name them. > > If you want less of something, tax it. Taxing income, taxes productive > activity. > > -- > bill-o Are you suggesting we should want less consumer spending? That is what a national sales tax would cause.
From: John B. on 22 Feb 2010 09:05 On Feb 21, 10:31 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:18:59 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >A tax cannot be progressive for some taxpayers and regressive for > >others. > > Why not? > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison Because it's mathematically impossible. It's a non sequitur.
From: John B. on 22 Feb 2010 09:11 On Feb 22, 1:33 am, Jim Lovejoy <nos...(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote innews:28c504ae-1d6d-4f71-ac8a-2d4a36dcfada(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 3:45 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> On Feb 20, 10:39 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > >> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:03:44 -0500, BAR wrote: > >> > > In article <hvCfn.818$BD2....(a)newsfe14.iad>, dontwr...(a)gmail.com > >> > > says... > > >> > >> Oh yeah ... and I suppose "manifest destiny" was an excuse for > >> > >> imperialism. I'm sure the Mexicans weren't bothered at all by > >> > >> the theft of Texas, and how much other land? > > >> > > War or the threat of war has determined the political and > >> > > national boundaries of kingdoms and countries. > > >> > > One of the penalties of losing armed conflict is that your > >> > > military will may be destroyed and you may lose some or all of > >> > > your territory. > > >> > Ok, here's a possible future scenario. The US dollar continues to > >> > decline until it becomes nearly worthless in international trade. > >> > Cut off from world markets, the economy collapses. Unemployment > >> > skyrockets. There is widespread civil unrest. Foreign interests > >> > come in with their stronger currencies and buy up everything worth > >> > having. At that point the country will have been effectively taken > >> > over by foreign interests. > > >> > Say this actually happens. Will you still be sharing your smug > >> > little stories about the survival of the fittest? What if you're > >> > the one on th > > e > >> > losing end? > > >> This will happen at some point, as it did the the UK in the early to > >> mid 20th century. If Americans continue to spend so excessively, it > >> will happen a lot sooner. As China, India, Brazil and others continue > >> to grow, they will have more and more fiscal power. As we fall into > >> the category of self absorbed, seal entitled deadbeats we will > >> decline. There is no free health care, no free housing and no free > >> lunch. FWIW, IMHO western Europe is totally done, but they don't know > >> it yet. They have no capacity to recover from this crisis. They > >> consume much and produce next to nothing. > > > If that is so, then why does the U.S. have a $60.5 billion trade > > deficit with the EU? > > Because companies in the EU aren't paying thousands a year per employee on > health insurance. > > One of the reasons that the US healthcare system needs to be reformed is > that its destroying our competitiveness. > > Maybe for some things we can't compete with the low wage countries like > China, India, and Indonesia. But there's no reason we can't compete with > Europe, Canada and Japan, except for a disfunctional healthcare system that > ads thousands a year, now approaching a thousand a month to each employee's > labor cost. > > And bad as it is for the competitiveness of large business, what it does to > small business is far worse. A lot of would be entrepreneurs with pre- > existing conditions, don't dare leave the safety of their corporate > healthcare. And others are either taking the risk illness wiping them out, > or starting out with an anchor on their business. > > And what we need is the tinkering type reform we've seen proposed, but a > Canada-like system, paid for with some version of a value-added tax, a tax > that is paid on foreign imports as well as US output. > > Until we radically reform our healthcare, we are going to lose in > competition to countries with healthcare that's not primarily the > employer's expense.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I agree completely, but Dino's statement was that Euopeans don't produce anything, which is absurd. Cars, pharmaceuticals, medical technology, consumer technology, etc.
From: John B. on 22 Feb 2010 09:13 On Feb 22, 7:39 am, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:33:45 -0600, Jim Lovejoy <nos...(a)devnull.spam> > wrote: > > >And bad as it is for the competitiveness of large business, what it does to > >small business is far worse. A lot of would be entrepreneurs with pre- > >existing conditions, don't dare leave the safety of their corporate > >healthcare. And others are either taking the risk illness wiping them out, > >or starting out with an anchor on their business. > > That's a huge reason. I believe that the strength of our country is > much more due to small businesses than for large businesses. But > small business can't buy the clout in Congress. > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison The hell they can't. The small business community has one of the most powerful lobbying operations in Washington.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 09:35
On Feb 21, 3:54 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:29:39 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> If universal healthcare provided healthcare for less total cost than > >> private healthcare plus taxes, would it still be a bad thing? > > >Cost is not the important issue. Accessibility is more important. Why > >should I have my health care reduced to some common denominator to > >satisfy the govts desire to give free healthcare to deadbeats? > > You already do. There isn't a public debate between providing such > care or eliminating such care. There are some arguments about how > cost effective it is to have healthy job seekers, similar to questions > about public education. But since removing such health care is not > an option on the table, why are so many people bringing it up? > The objection centers around loss of freedom. There is no way a govt delivered system can provide the options a private system can. |