Rules, roles, & codes to live by

I hear what you are saying about your industry & that is unfortunate. It is a rather arbitrary industry however. It is a 3rd party industry that can be judged as to how well it is performing its function to control costs. If it isn't there to control costs then why do we need the 3rd party payor?

IThis administration is very, very pro small & very small business.

Some see them as being anti business when they take away incentives that have been in place for big business but that is necessary to level those playing fields. Every attempt to adjust the system toward the individual in the business world is met with hostility. That is a large goal of many that may be considered progressive. The system incentivises indirect payment for labor through employers as opposed to direct payment to individuals for labor. That is not something that I can support.

Also, separating employers from healthcare was a goal of this President that was not allowed to take place. That would be enormous for small business.

This administration is very, very pro small & very small business.

Some see them as being anti business when they take away incentives that have been in place for big business but that is necessary to level those playing fields. Every attempt to adjust the system toward the individual in the business world is met with hostility. That is a large goal of many that may be considered progressive. The system incentivises indirect payment for labor through employers as opposed to direct payment to individuals for labor. That is not something that I can support.

The administration says they are pro small business yet they produce poorly written laws that are going to kill small business. I honestly don't know if they just don't care or they are so busy making sure all the special intersts get their payoffs but they can't write a bill and understand what it will actually do to save their souls. I am going to act like they have souls for the sake of that last statement.

When you take away from big business you are taking away jobs. You don't seem to like big business yet you ignore one of the worst things about big business. Bottom line will never suffer. You cut into the profits of big business and their lowest workers, the ones who need the jobs the most, are the first to go. If they cannot shift the cost into the product they cut labor. Shifting the cost into the product means we pay more for the product. Again who is paying for this?

Then administration knows darn well big business will not suffer for their actions the people will. This is why big business continued to support the administration up until a couple weeks ago. The government loves this because it makes them look like they are doing something. So long as your local news doesn't tell you why the cost of a product goes up the people will blame big business not the new fee or regulation that was passed onto them.

If the administration was really trying to remove the 3rd party payor all that was needed was to remove the exemption from gross income for health coverage. So simple, ask yourself why they didn't? That change would make the only tax advantage left the use of the HSA account an exemption that is allowed regardless of who makes the contribution. The cost of health care would be back in the face of the consumers and costs would fall into line.

I am curious ... How has this administration helped small business? Interest rates may be low, but as a result requirements for loans have sky-rocketed ... Net result being that even if you could afford a higher rate, you still may not qualify for the loan ... I am trying to think of any real benefits that have down the tubes ... I guess one could call the tax credit for health insurance a benefit ... But when the average wage of employees (minus owners) has to be less than 25k to qualify, that puts a damper on things ...

Small business owners are worried about what laws may be changing requiring them to pay for insurance they can't afford ... Net result being that a lot of companies move to a 1099 basis (referring to very small businesses) ...

Now, if how they are helping small businesses is by removing benefits or adding on taxes to larger businesses, there might be some argument there ... But big business can afford to hire tax attorneys to work to make up for the difference ... Joe's Donuts has trouble hiring a team of tax attorneys to try save an extra 10k a year ...

That is absolutely why I would like to see a shift toward the individual in the job market.

Personally, I don't need anyone else for a job. I should not be at a disadvantage systemically.

People will adjust to selling their skills on their own if that adjustment is allowed.

Why does someone say that there are no jobs? Because our system is set up for individuals to be dependent.

Our system ensures that dependency.

Here, father doesn't know best
The Globe and Mail,
Wednesday, July 4, 2001

by: Michael Adams

... Nearly 20 years ago, my colleagues at Environics in Toronto and CROP in Montreal began a study of Canadian social values. In our first survey of Canadian values in 1983, we asked Canadians if they strongly or somewhat agreed or disagreed that: "The father of the family must be the master in his own house." ...

The "father must be master" question has become legendary at Environics. We love it because it measures a traditional, patriarchal attitude to authority in our most cherished institution: the family. ...

That first time {1983}, a total of 42 per cent of Canadians agreed that the father should be master ...

... Nineteen ninety-two was the first year we began conducting social-values research in the United States, the world capital of individualism and egalitarianism, of civil rights movements and affirmative action (remember, an American was the first to deflower the feminine mystique). We speculated that the United States would be ahead of Canada and France on this trend.

We found to our surprise that 42 per cent of Americans told us the father should be master, while 57 per cent disagreed and 1 per cent had no opinion.

{between 1992 and 2000, the percentage of people agreeing with the statement in all other countries surveyed declined -- e.g. in France: from 61% in 1975 to 30% in 2000.}

Meanwhile, we found that where 42 per cent of Americans believed the father should be master in 1992, the number increased to 44 per cent in 1996. We wondered if this was a statistical anomaly. We went back into the field in 2000 ... This time, 48 per cent of Americans said the father of the family must be master in his own home; 51 per cent disagreed and 1 per cent had no opinion. We were stunned.

The details were even more stunning: Forty-three per cent of American women agreed with the statement -- up nine points from 1992. And among baby boomers aged 35 to 44, 48 per cent said dad should be boss, up 12 points over 1992. This was the biggest increase of any age cohort. (Only 15 per cent of younger Canadian boomers take this position -- meaning that the gap between younger Canadian boomers and Americans in this cohort is an astounding 33 points.)

I don't care if someone lives by a code or even why they do so.

It seems that they may view others actions from that frame of reference though.

It also seems that in many cases some may prefer that type of structure in an economic system or a familial system. Those types of structures fly in the face of freedom in the view of many. Structure, by definition, is restrictive.