On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:05:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400, hk
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,

actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very
low.

and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where
doctors earn minimum wage?

and the middle class can hardly prepare for their futures when the
rich refuse to even provide them a living wage

you really DO believe the right wing fairy tales, don't you?

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:15:57 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/10/10 5:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:54:44 -0400, wrote:

The dems are supposed to be spending on the working class. No wonder
they lost all the flyover states.

ever hear of universal healthcare? the dems got it for us.

Universal, as long as you can afford it, What changed?
I bet you a hundred bucks (that a poor working class guy like me can
barely afford to lose) that this year's open season will have record
insurance price increases.

What is
needed in the next step...price controls...and then the beginnings of a
single payer system that eventually pushed the insurers out of the biz.


That is certainly the next step that the left has in mind in spite of
all the rosy "you can keep your plan" rhetoric..

ROFLMAO!! the last guy to try that was richard nixon...hardly a
liberal

On 4/10/10 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400,
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400, hk
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:05:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400, hk
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,

actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very
low.

and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where
doctors earn minimum wage?

and the middle class can hardly prepare for their futures when the
rich refuse to even provide them a living wage

you really DO believe the right wing fairy tales, don't you?



I believe tort is responsible for a few percentage points of the overall
cost.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:15:57 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/10/10 5:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:54:44 -0400, wrote:

The dems are supposed to be spending on the working class. No wonder
they lost all the flyover states.

ever hear of universal healthcare? the dems got it for us.

Universal, as long as you can afford it, What changed?
I bet you a hundred bucks (that a poor working class guy like me can
barely afford to lose) that this year's open season will have record
insurance price increases.

What is
needed in the next step...price controls...and then the beginnings of a
single payer system that eventually pushed the insurers out of the biz.


That is certainly the next step that the left has in mind in spite of
all the rosy "you can keep your plan" rhetoric..

ROFLMAO!! the last guy to try that was richard nixon...hardly a
liberal



You're too fast... I was about to type the same thing...

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


wrote in message
...



On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:




Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.



You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax
status.
Two different things.



So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to
separate
one
from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair"
share.


Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when they
take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed when
they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the
corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone,
including the government. You are talking about double taxation.



There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is
sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes.



Not legally.


Sorry, but you'll need to be a bit more convincing before I accept your
legal advise.



Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong
though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.




Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time.


?? What??? What do capital expenditures and depreciation have to do with
being a responsible corporate citizen?



If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the
"expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of
living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax them.



A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax
is
regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking
about
the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people.








How else do you grow your business? Growth almost always requires new
capital expenditures. New employee? New desk and computer. Get it?


What are you going on about. You're going to complain about fair taxation?
If you're going to make a point, try and make it a bit more obvious for me.
I only have a graduate business degree, and I just don't understand.


You might want to go back to school.

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


wrote in message
...



nom=de=plume wrote:



wrote in message
news



On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote:





Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax
for
a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53




Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be
doing.




There is a basic problem with how corporations are treated as
individuals.
They're not people.





That's an S-corp. Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded C-corp.



Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.




Really? XOM is a sole proprietorship now? I missed that.


Corporations, as they relate to campaign financing. Both sides of the
isle
aren't sure about the implications.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=122805666



Did you mean aisle? I'm here to help.

When did this discussion deviate from taxes? Evidently you chose to put
up this smoke screen.

Read your own words before you write. You said XOM was not a corporation.
Now you are trying to avoid your mistake and change the discussion to
campaign financing? Nice try.


Yeah, the island. The one we're on. I'm on the other side with the rational
people.

I never said XOM was not a corp. I said that legally they're treated as an
individual. Try again bozo.


Read it again. I'm not going to do it for you.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...tcy_study.html

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe
they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the
groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the
local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop,
the
local mechanic.

spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was
just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners.

the middle class is expendable.


I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers.

there are no unions in the US.

the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them,
preferring to be protected by wall street.



The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a
long rep as a union buster.




So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare
insurance.