[sharona97]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

So viking wanna guess how many people and how much was paid when the income tax was first adopted in this country? History is not on your side with this pie in the sky everything covered medical scheme of the left; with less money out of everyones pockets. You blame Wal-Mart for taking advantage of Minnesota care, but wal-mart just plays by the rules enacted by your precious government. The same government that refused to let Wal-Mart sell generic drugs for $4. Wal-Mart does more positive things for this country in one day than liberals can accomplish in a lifetime.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n19125748

Walmart does sell pharmaceuticals for $4. Where have you been? The Liberals did a pretty good job in the 90's, creating incentives to work, small businesses to hire with insurance. Not all places of business are under-the table retailer's. There are plenty of honest working people, people who pay for coverage, need coverage, and the longer the rats get to play their game it will continue, but as of now our country is not run by the evil Liberals. If you want to look into the past, then please look at the whole picture and compare the whole picture with today's America.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by sharona97

Walmart does sell pharmaceuticals for $4. Where have you been? The Liberals did a pretty good job in the 90's, creating incentives to work, small businesses to hire with insurance. Not all places of business are under-the table retailer's. There are plenty of honest working people, people who pay for coverage, need coverage, and the longer the rats get to play their game it will continue, but as of now our country is not run by the evil Liberals. If you want to look into the past, then please look at the whole picture and compare the whole picture with today's America.

I believe that the State of MN has dis-allowed the practice of retailers selling prescriptions below cost. I seem to remember reading an article discussing Target's practice of meeting Wal-Mart's discounted prescriptions costs in every state other than its home of Minnesota.

Also, I believe that CRNA2007's reference to income tax is to make the point that at its inception, income tax amounted to a much smaller percentage of income than is now taxed, same with Social Security and Medicare. I agree with the point that if national healthcare is initially funded by a "modest" tax of 6-8% of one's income, it will quickly balloon to a much higher percentage.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

PS The reason behind MN not selling below cost laws were derived from the very reasonable desire to protect small businesses from being driven out of business through predatory pricing practices. It is quite Jeffersonian in its goal. You know America being a land of Small farmers and shopkeepers......

Price controls are not the answer. How does it benefit the people of Minnesota to have to pay more than necessary for prescription medications? It doesn't.

I know how difficult it can be for Mom and Pop businesses to compete with the "big guys". But it can be done, and to the benefit of the community. Our family did it for years by offering unique goods and services to our customers, leading to a loyal customer base. Had competition not come to town, Dad probably would not have made some of the changes in his business that ended up being good for his customers. It is not easy, but my father would never have supported government intrusion setting his competitors' prices. What finally caused Mom and Dad to close their doors was not competition from "Big Retail". It was over-reaching government regulation. How ironic!

[CRNA2007]

Your government health care will be no different than progressive income taxes. You say now it will be 10% then it will be 15%, then 20%. this is always how government works in incrementalism, not to mention that a portion of the money will be diverted into other pet projects of Congressman and Senators. Wal-Mart doesn't have a fair share of any burden. No one is forcing anyone to work at Wal-Mart and I love the fact that they stick it to states like Minnesota and other progressive havens for their health care. You decry wal-mart for not paying their fair share, but Joe Bum who is perfectly capable of working and would rather live off the tax payer you revere. Talk about misplaced priorities. I sincerely hope my retirement accounts own a lot of Wal-Mart, Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and other corporations that make this the greatest country in the world bar none.

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I have no idea what the income tax has to do with this discussion. My central point was and remains that responsible employers have provided health care benefits to their employees while Walmart has not borne its fair share of the burden. I was pointing out that Walmart very deliberately uses medicaid and other public programs to augment employee incomes instead of paying a living wage. I have no problem with Walmart encouraging the use of Medicaid and Schip programs for its employees. I just think that they should be honest about it and pay into the health care system. Frankly, I have been in favor of allowing corporations to purchase their health benefits for their employees through Minnesota Care etc. Note that the word is purchase from the public not get it for free as a corporate subsidy.

Walmart is the epitome of corporate welfare capitalism. Every 200 jobs brought into a community costs around 400,000 dollars in public subsidies and resources.

I think that this graph shows that this is a rather mainstream position amongst the public.



PS The reason behind MN not selling below cost laws were derived from the very reasonable desire to protect small businesses from being driven out of business through predatory pricing practices. It is quite Jeffersonian in its goal. You know America being a land of Small farmers and shopkeepers......

[sharona97]

Originally Posted by Jolie

Price controls are not the answer. How does it benefit the people of Minnesota to have to pay more than necessary for prescription medications? It doesn't.

I know how difficult it can be for Mom and Pop businesses to compete with the "big guys". But it can be done, and to the benefit of the community. Our family did it for years by offering unique goods and services to our customers, leading to a loyal customer base. Had competition not come to town, Dad probably would not have made some of the changes in his business that ended up being good for his customers. It is not easy, but my father would never have supported government intrusion setting his competitors' prices. What finally caused Mom and Dad to close their doors was not competition from "Big Retail". It was over-reaching government regulation. How ironic!

Walmart in my hometown in MN sells RX's for $4.
I thought you're parents lost their business due to soil problems? Retail Too? As far as Target goes, they stay competitive and there is nothig wrong with that. Target is one of my husband's largest account. They build at least 100 stores a year. Walmart on the other hand has different prices on their items depending on which side of town you live in and if it's rural or urban, Or a Northern State vs a Southern state. That's a Walmart decision not a govertment one.

[sharona97]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

Your government health care will be no different than progressive income taxes. You say now it will be 10% then it will be 15%, then 20%. this is always how government works in incrementalism, not to mention that a portion of the money will be diverted into other pet projects of Congressman and Senators. Wal-Mart doesn't have a fair share of any burden. No one is forcing anyone to work at Wal-Mart and I love the fact that they stick it to states like Minnesota and other progressive havens for their health care. You decry wal-mart for not paying their fair share, but Joe Bum who is perfectly capable of working and would rather live off the tax payer you revere. Talk about misplaced priorities. I sincerely hope my retirement accounts own a lot of Wal-Mart, Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and other corporations that make this the greatest country in the world bar none.

Well IMO opinion you're wish is out the window. WalMart sticks it too any employee they can get away with. And if you want irresponsible companies packing in money for you, good luck. And by the way is our country still in the greatest standing today with all the corruption from the corporations you love so much?

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

Your government health care will be no different than progressive income taxes. You say now it will be 10% then it will be 15%, then 20%. this is always how government works in incrementalism, not to mention that a portion of the money will be diverted into other pet projects of Congressman and Senators. Wal-Mart doesn't have a fair share of any burden. No one is forcing anyone to work at Wal-Mart and I love the fact that they stick it to states like Minnesota and other progressive havens for their health care. You decry wal-mart for not paying their fair share, but Joe Bum who is perfectly capable of working and would rather live off the tax payer you revere. Talk about misplaced priorities. I sincerely hope my retirement accounts own a lot of Wal-Mart, Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and other corporations that make this the greatest country in the world bar none.

Very short sighted post. I think that you have shown your true colors by describing members of the working poor as "Joe Bum." Calling for responsible capitalism is hardly anti-corporate or anticapitalism. Corporate welfare is corporate welfare. Since corporations have the status of personhood in the eyes of the law it is not unreasonable to expect responsible corporate citizenship which in this case means effective participation in funding health insurance for their employees. You revile taxation yet you praise a corporation for in effect stealing your tax dollars.




I think that you have misrepresented progressivism in a derogatory fashion. To try and bring this thread back on topic it is to address the issue of increasing unaffordability for health care for Americans. Ultimately we are all in the boat together. We need to work together and rise above our petty bickering in order to solve the single greatest threat to our economic future.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by sharona97

I thought you're parents lost their business due to soil problems? Retail Too?

I think you missed my point. My parents' small business faced competition from "Big Retail", yet thrived because my dad learned to compete on points other than price. I am vehemently opposed to price controls (as was my dad). Viking seems to support them in the name of helping Mom and Pop busineses. But that isn't what price controls do. Price controls result in unnecessarily high costs to the members of the community. That benefits no-one. Mom and Pop businesses can compete with "Big Retail" and succeed without artificial price controls. What Mom and Pop can't withstand is overly-intrusive government regulation.

[sharona97]

Originally Posted by Jolie

I think you missed my point. My parents' small business faced competition from "Big Retail", yet thrived because my dad learned to compete on points other than price. I am vehemently opposed to price controls (as was my dad). Viking seems to support them in the name of helping Mom and Pop busineses. But that isn't what price controls do. Price controls result in unnecessarily high costs to the members of the community. That benefits no-one. Mom and Pop businesses can compete with "Big Retail" and succeed without artificial price controls. What Mom and Pop can't withstand is overly-intrusive government regulation.

Well I'll just help you out and have you reference to your post #11 in the Which Presidential Candidate is best for business written in November.

"Environmental laws" were the cause for my parents business to close, leaving many workers unemployed. "EPA involvement" proved their was nothing in the "soil" to prohibit my family from keeping the business.

Have I really misunderstood your post(s)? Or are you IMO confused as to what you are referencing too?

My apologies if your posts were written in error and therfore taken as truth.

[sharona97]

HM2viking,

I agree, let's carry on with the op's thread. Sorry for the hijacking.