bpwallace49 Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 As health care costs continue to increase, more and more small businesses will not be able to provide health insurance to their employees. + 1,000,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 One need not digest the whole to reap nutrition from a good meal - ya still gotta poop some stuff out. I think of Rand's writing as dealing with those things "rendered unto Ceasar." I.e. "I think Rand is brilliant when she agrees with me and just disregard when she doesn't" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I.e. "I think Rand is brilliant when she agrees with me and just disregard when she doesn't" Though I can see your point it isn't quite like that. There are things you can legitimately force on people (thought very few, IMO) and things you can't. Religion is one you can't, so it should be left to each individual to decide. To follow Rand blindly would be to put her up as God anyway. So who do you follow blindly no matter what, Chavez? My point has always been that Christ left us alone to choose - why can't the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Though I can see your point it isn't quite like that. There are things you can legitimately force on people (thought very few, IMO) and things you can't. Religion is one you can't... What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 What? I'm sick as a freakin' dog today. Am I not making any sense? I'm saying for gov't, there are things (like a level of taxes for courts, defense, etc) you can force on people. As far as the gov't goes I follow dictates much like Rands. Make more sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I'm sick as a freakin' dog today. Am I not making any sense? I'm saying for gov't, there are things (like a level of taxes for courts, defense, etc) you can force on people. As far as the gov't goes I follow dictates much like Rands. Make more sense? You seemed to be saying government couldn't force religion on people. Is that what you were saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 You seemed to be saying government couldn't force religion on people. Is that what you were saying? I'm saying I don't think it's a legitimate use of governmental force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 27, 2009 Author Share Posted August 27, 2009 atomic apparently has never heard of the word "legitimately" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x5/tsr2...nsult_obama.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I.e. "I think Rand is brilliant when she agrees with me and just disregard when she doesn't" You're suggesting a writer or philosopher is only of value if we agree with them 100%? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 So who do you follow blindly no matter what, Chavez? Probably Michael Lewis and Cold Hard Football Facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I.e. "I think Rand is brilliant when she agrees with me and just disregard when she doesn't" You're suggesting a writer or philosopher is only of value if we agree with them 100%? Really? These two statements don't seem to be related. Or is it just me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I haven't read much any of this thread, but I thought this was kind of funny. Not that anybody cares about my opinion, but I don't care if the government really runs/overhauls insurance. I'd be happy with just getting it separated from employers. I don't think it's healthy for business and I don't like having limited choices because you work in a certain field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 I'd be happy with just getting it separated from employers. I don't think it's healthy for business and I don't like having limited choices because you work in a certain field. That should be job 1 for everyone's benefit, including employers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 That should be job 1 for everyone's benefit, including employers. I'd love to see insurance be more portable, but is has nothing to do with business. As a business owner I don't care if the link between insurance and employers is cut or not, because insurance is just part of the total compensation package I pay my employees. The overall cost to me as an employer for my employees would be the same if I provided insurance or didn't. If I didn't provide insurance I'd just end up providing additional compensation in another area. So, trying to say it would be better for employers simply isn't true. In fact, if the house bill is passed it could be very bad for some employers, as they would be forced to provide insurance or to pay an additional 8% payroll tax. Which is stupid by the way. Again back to the total compensation package. If they are having to pay 8% more in payroll taxes to fund Obama care, they will find it cheaper to work their people over time and cut the number of employees. Also back to the total compensation pool theory, that 8% would mean that employees wouldn't be getting cost of living raises for a few years, and may actually see pay cuts, and in a high unemployment environment, businesses can probably get away with cutting wages. They should fund this with a sales tax, not a payroll tax. By funding it with a payroll tax, they are just going to make the average Joe get paid less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 The overall cost to me as an employer for my employees would be the same if I provided insurance or didn't. If I didn't provide insurance I'd just end up providing additional compensation in another area. So, trying to say it would be better for employers simply isn't true. I think the bolded would make you an exception among employers; I don't see many (most?) employers going "oh, the gov't gives you health insurance now, so I'll take what I was paying you in that area and just dump it into the 401(k) match." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Why wouldn't they find them? Will Obama have killed them all off as part of his grand anti-pollution plan? I You're just messin, right? I expect this outta buttpiratewallace, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts