Opponents Of National Health Care Explain Why

Those of you that defend the current health care system in the US...

Defend this


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by InSpiteOf


Well to be honest, I almost never comment on what is normally termed "Corporate Welfare" as those that use that terminology have little true comprehension of the business world...

Kind of like people using the term "NeoCon" shows little knowledge of politics..

The facts are simple...

Corporate America employs America. Simple and succinct. Those "Loopholes" and "Tax Breaks" are one of the factors that enables the economy to flourish.

It is a truism that the less money the Government requires Corporate America and it's citizens to pay into the coffers, the larger those coffers become. This has been proven time and time again, of course to the frustration of the Liberals.

Economics in our system is not really complicated. The more the economy grows and flourishes, the more money the Government makes, even with corporate tax breaks.

What stimulates the economy? Tax cuts to those that bear the brunt of the load. Who is that? Corporate America.

Do you have any idea how much of the tax base comes from corporations as compared to individual taxes? ENORMOUS...

And the Income tax is even more disproportionate..

An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:

* The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
* The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.

# Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.

Income Tax Burden

Corporate taxes are even more lopsided, yes even with the loopholes.. See here...

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]

Exxon Tax Base

Now that is just ONE company, granted the largest one, but still only one in how many thousand that pay into the coffers...

And some people have a problem with them getting a tax break!!!!!

GIVE ME A BREAK... I am convinced it is jealousy over people being more successful, but that is completely a postulation and not factual...

Ask yourself this: What is better for the country than a solid successful business base? That business will employ Americans at a fair and competitive wage and rapidly put money back into the economy, thus "feeding" more and more corporate growth.

Now before anyone gets their hackles in the air, you have to get past personal prejudice. What prejudice you ask?

The one where you have a problem with CEO's making the money they do. So people are successful, so what? As long as their company is helping the economy and creating jobs, how is it a bad thing?

The age old argument of "Well they make too much money", sounds ridiculous even to the uninitiated. Who decides what amount is too much?
When we start deciding how much a person can make, we have already entered the realm of Socialism.

We live in a free market society, that is a fact. Now we have tempered that with social programs that I also believe are very necessary in order for us to remain civilized. Yet we must forever be vigilant that those same social programs do not supplant the system that has taken us to the pinnacle we now enjoy.

One also has to ignore the horror stories and doom sayers that are forever saying we are being taken over by the Chinese, India or Reptiles. They have been soothsaying that same message for centuries and.. well we are still here.

So as far as Corporate welfare goes, why argue with someone that uses that term as they are demonstrating ignorance of the capitalistic system that propelled the United States to such prominence.... Also they are like the OP in that they tend to ignore facts even when repeated to them time and again.

Semper

reply to post by whaaa


So you think we should revamp an entire system all do to the mishandling of a single incident, in a single state by a single insurance company?

To quote a previous poster...

"Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water"

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by whaaa

 

So you think we should revamp an entire system all do to the mishandling of a single incident, in a single state by a single insurance company?

To quote a previous poster...

"Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water"

Semper

Yes Semper, I do. To me this California debacle is indicative of the whole corrupt, misguided, inept system that has placed profits ahead of
healthcare and the patient.

If we can fight wars, maintain a military; how much more difficult can universal healthcare be? Personally I would much rather pay taxes to an
imperfect system, than enrich already rich CEOs with huge bonuses thru my premiums; Especially when my health care is second rate anyway.
I know that you resent deadbeats that abuse the system; I resent corporate welfare thru high priced lawyers and accountants that abuse the system by not paying their fair share and placing the burden on us small businessmen.

I can use the term corporate welfare because I am part of the capitalist system and I understand it fairly well having been in business for over 25 years and never ever gotten a tax break I didn't deserve.



[edit on 13-2-2008 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa

If we can fight wars, maintain a military; how much more difficult can universal healthcare be?

If, Semp, I may be so bold...his argument is that Universal Health Care is nothing but a handout...welfare...so it is anathema in and of itself. See? I do listen, even if I chose to disagree.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Johnny,

You are a VERY reasonable person and a joy to debate and yes, even to disagree with...

Semper

reply to post by whaaa

tax break I didn't deserve.

Don't you figure the other businesses think they deserve the breaks they got as well?

Why was your break any more deserved than say... Exxons?

Amount?


Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


How does using the term "NeoCon" show little understanding of politics?

Conservatism as I understand it means smaller Federal Government, resulting in less expenditures for taxpayers, and fundamentals/ethics which are in line with Christianity. The Neo part means "New," right? So NeoCon means "New Conservative."

NeoCon, as I understand the term, means war against terra, PNAC, JINSA, present a common enemy so the American people will back our actions, destroy the middle class, and pass executive orders which support the base: the haves and the have mores. And Bohemian Grove sexipades. The term 'Neoconservative' was ORIGINALLY used as a criticism against liberals that had politically 'moved to the right'. But we know what it means now.

Please explain how using the term NeoCon is a display of ignorance. Or does the term just offend you, becuase you consider yourself a Conservative without the "Neo" part? The current administration is FAR FROM Conservative.

If you consider yourself a Republican, and are proud of the fact that you consider yourself as such, then your only true choice for a candidate is Ron Paul. And thinking otherwise is just kidding yourself.

Always Brave, I say Infinitus est numerus stultorum.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Don't you figure the other businesses think they deserve the breaks they got as well?

Why was your break any more deserved than say... Exxons?

Subsidies are Corporate welfare

I don't get any. That's why

www.ucsusa.org...

Oh, yeah, and just so I can't be accused of thread "derailment," socialized healthcare means, in simpler terms, that we'll provide every American the health care they deserve, at everyone's shared expense, so that the people that support me will make their money and look like the "good guy" doing it. Drug Company and Healthcare profits are what it's about. Kinda like putting Drug and Healthcare corporations on retainer. I personally think that healthcare could be made affordable by limiting profits on neccesities like medicine. I could go in to detail about my family's medical history, and situations which I've witnessed first hand at Drug Stores and hospitals where people break down saying they can't afford this medicine or that operation.

If people were less greedy, and did things for what matters, like helping people, and actually being compasionate, a great number of the posts here on ATS wouldn't exist. Corporatism WILL BE the downfall of America. When you operate solely with the greatest profit in mind, you ultimately kill the source of your profits.

She (Hillary) tried this as "First Lady." And it failed. Is she gonna try to put the "Frist Man" on it?

Just like, on a personal level, if you spend your life satisfying hungers, you ultimately end up starving for what would have mattered in life.

reply to post by cryingindian


Please feel free to create a thread with this topic.

Send me the link and I will respond.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


You said it...You start the thread. Feel "Free?"

You're wrong.

Here's a general question I have, which points to one of the reasons our current health care is an expensive system.

There is a certain prescription of medicine that I regulary take. Depending upon where I have the prescription filled, the costs varies widely. Here are the costs for the same medication at different pharmacies:

Wal-Mart $8.38
CVS $14.88
Walgreen $29.99

Now why should there be such a wide discrepancy in cost between these 3 pharmacies for the same medicine? Is this an effect of the free-market system?

Would some effort to standardize these costs be considered price control or regulation, and thus be undesirable?

Originally posted by cryingindian
reply to post by semperfortis

 

You said it...You start the thread. Feel "Free?"

You're wrong.

Oh fer chrissakes. Semper, you want to start the thread? If not, I will. Sounds exhilirating!

reply to post by jsobecky


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Naw,

I can't see any future in arguing with him...

Now I'll jump on there with you if you want.

Semper

It would be like preaching to the choir, eh bro? So what's the point.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It would be like preaching to the choir, eh bro? So what's the point.

Perhaps to prove that you aren't skeered of another viewpoint and you might actually prescribe to the "Deny Ignorance" theme.

I've learned a lot from you guys!

Your prescription prices are different because the companies control them. They decide hey, we want to make more money, we'll charge more. And they love that you pay but the government also gives them billions of tax payer dollars.

Yet UHC is too expensive. No problem giving that money to insurance companies and drug companies but use that same money to help the citizens pay for that? EVIL!!

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by jsobecky
It would be like preaching to the choir, eh bro? So what's the point.

Perhaps to prove that you aren't skeered of another viewpoint and you might actually prescribe to the "Deny Ignorance" theme.

I've learned a lot from you guys!

There comes a point where you understand another person well enough that you agree with them on most points. Not all, most. That comes from many discussions while keeping one's mind open, and from respect for them. Semper has earned that respect from me. If we disagree it's because you can be sure I've given it some thought, and often he has changed my perspective on issues.

I don't subscribe to slogans just to belong to a group.

Originally posted by HHH Is King
Your prescription prices are different because the companies control them. They decide hey, we want to make more money, we'll charge more. And they love that you pay but the government also gives them billions of tax payer dollars.

Not sure I agree with that. It's the very same drug from the very same generic manufacturer. If the companies controlled them, pharmacies would all charge about the same price.