Well, if these people without healthcare are reasonably healthy and aren't dying left and right, then why is it so vital that we change our healthcare system?

Thanks for the vote of confidence Julian, but we probably don’t know much about what goes on behind the scenes in Europe either. Our education system today is far from perfect, and my parents (even though they left school at a much earlier age than I did) are still easily more intelligent that I am. Also, there was a program on TV a while ago here, which had 100 "GCSE" exam students (that’s 16 year olds, end of school final exams) go back to a 60's equivalent style "O' Level" education. Only a few of the students even passed the exams, which back then, were considered "ordinary" hence the "O". The emphasis on education now, is to get 50% of students accepted to university. I would rather have been taught the essentials (particularly more about business) while at school.

Also, Superbaby... You are being totally hypocritical. If the public health system works, why do you, and so many others feel the need for health insurance? Why are you defending the system!!? Ha ha... Its funny. I find it very strange to think that anyone would not want the right to "free" healthcare for all. What happens if you default on your insurance, and then you get stomach cancer? Are you treated with the same care and attention as you would be if you still had that insurance? If so, why doesnt everyone in America just stop paying their insurance today!?

Also, I have been to America many times. As I mentioned, I have a lot of American family (who always moan about their health insurance payments!). I completely understand the logistics problem, but I was just pointing out the fact that Americans - on the whole, dont do as much as they could to conserve fuel. Eurpoeans are not much better, but the main difference is that we do have smaller engined cars (well, a lot of us do anyway).

Another point, and this is the fault of your ancestors really, but when you think about it, is a real problem.... Many people live in hot (almost tropical) states, they have air-con in their houses, air-con in their cars, air-con in their offices. They travel 30 or 40 miles to get to work, sometimes more (which is the same for many people in the UK by the way) with just one person in their over-powered SUV. I know... Its a massive generalisation, but when you think of all the fuel which is required for that on a daily basis for everyone in America, thats a lot of barrels of oil, and shit-loads of pollution!! Thought provoking, surely?... But then.... Nah... I like the drive to work on my own...

"You also misread what I was getting at with the newsmedia thing. It's not that the corporations are working for the government, it's that the right wing is in the pockets of the megacorporations"

It's actually both parties these days. I think in the last election the dems got 53% of the business contributions and as of now in this one the reps have gotten a few percentage points more. For all intensive purposes both parties are equally cowtowin to big business these days.

The 37% figure was reported on CNN tonight.

Well, unless things have changed more dramatically than any other year, that figure can't be right.  I trust the census data more than a CNN report (what is the group they are talking about?)  People seem to try to make it look like we have a bigger "healthcare" problem than we do.  They also don't mention how many of those people *could* get healthcare but don't.  Michigan has a healthcare program for children in poverty.  It costs something like $10 a month for all you children.  They almost had to cancel it because there weren't enough enrolling.  But, there are still kids in Michigan that don't have health coverage.  I have a sneaking suspicion that the parents of those children would only take them to the Dr. if there was only some *major* illness even if they did have healthcare.

I find it very strange to think that anyone would not want the right to "free" healthcare for all

Because it's not really *free*.  No matter what way you look at it, Healthcare has to be paid for.  It can either stay in the hands of private industry (where I feel it belongs) or it could become a mismanaged mess by the federal government which will end up costing us all more in the end.

Yes, you will get treated if you don't have health insurance, you just have to pay for it out of pocket.

But, the whole healthcare thing is bringing this thread totally off topic.  What good will more programs like healthcare be if the economy becomes so bad that the programs go broke?  It's not like Medicaid has been handled well.  Just think of the problems that we will run into with a bigger program. 

Raise those taxes and you're literally sucking capital out of small businesses at a time when job creation should be a priority. And that is why John Kerry's tax increase plan would hurt the economy. And potentially it would even increase the deficit as those people who lose their jobs are no longer paying taxes.

If people lost jobs, who will pay for the social programs?  Why not just keep taxing more until there is basically Bill Gates supporting the whole country?  Maybe you would then get software stamps instead of food stamps

I guess it all depends on how one looks at. Let's say a small business owner gets say a tax break of 30k. They are not going to take on a new employee with that 30k unless they see that doing so will bring in more than 30k in net profit. Doing otherwise is simply bad business. It depends on whether the product or service is something that there is currently increased demand for. One way or another that money gets back into the system however. Either by being consumed or invested. In the current business environment most have not created jobs and most of the tax cut money has not been invested in ways that create jobs. The investment environment, basically consumer and business sentiment, is simply not condusive enough to stir the amount job creation that people would like to see. Most of this is due to the current perceived level of terror threat (and to some degree the percepion of how the last round of corporate criminals are dealt with). When this changes, job creation should increase to the levels people want to see. The fact is the tax cut has very little to do with overall job increases. Lower interest rates would have turned things around by themselves in the absence increased terror threat and corporate scandals. Most people agree a tax cut in 2000 was proper, but now we are faced with the costs of a terror situation that not only needs to be dealt with from a security standpoint but reducing the percieved level of threat will overall change consumer and business sentiment back to a level more condusive to investment. So we are looking at a situation of do we keep growing the deficit at the current rate or not? Nobody truly knows when the events needed to promote investment sentiment will occur so it is a crapshoot at this point as to the degree to which we need to start dealing with the growing deficit.

What no one has mentioned is that Kerry does not propose to raise taxes(which he only plans to do by eliminating the highly controversial Bush tax cut) without already having a thoroughly thought-out plan to create jobs. Kerry's team has put together a detailed plan which they say will create ten-million jobs in the next four years. It doesn't sound to me that anyone could be terribly hurt by the creation of that many jobs, compared to the three million or so that Bush has lost..
KarmaGirl, the reason we have a healthcare problem is that the rest of the industrialized world has sorted this out already and we're still trying to figure ou ift we want to end people's worries about whether or not they can afford to go to the doctor. Perhaps our system is alright compared to a hundred years ago, but we deserve better i.e. what the rest of the modern world has. There is also no reason why we should accept second best in something as important as healthcare when we make good and sure that Jack and Jill millionaire can afford the gas on their Lear jet. As to your assertion that we would "run into a mess" if we tried to implement a total healthcare system, I ask why you would think that when numerous other nations have had no trouble with it. Are we somehow more inept at governance than they are? I doubt it. The only thing that stands in the way is the fear of the big pharmaceuticals that they may lose out on a whopper of a handout, like the one Bush just gave them with his "drug plan"(a plan for the drug COMPANIES, maybe, but not for the drug purchaser).
Smooth seas, what you say about the parties being equally guilty of being supported by big business is only true if you look at the NUMBER of contributions the parties receive. For example, the Democrats may get 53 of 100 contributions while the Republicans get 47, but the Republican contributors are the really big fish and therefore the Republicans make out with a MUCH bigger contribution in terms of dollars. How else can one account for the fact that Bush has managed to raise $100 million more than Kerry, to create THE largest warchest in Presidential history? Believe me, it doesn't come from small businesses or people like you and me.
The single biggest fault in logic of all the right wing posts on this blog is that, for some reason, you all act as if Kerry will just raise taxes without a plan to nullify any ill affect from such a raise. Do you really allow yourselves to think that the Republicans are more interested in creating jobs than the Democrats? Or, if yo do, that Kerry just figure "the hell with all those people out there, I'll just raise taxes so I can give away money to the "lazy". The Democratic party is the party of the worker. It is abd always has been. The Republicans used to present an alternative, but now that they have totally lost touch with everyone but the wealthiest(and those who's goal it is to emulate them), they really don't. They manage to hold onto the popular votes that they have by convincing people that they have cornered the market on Religion and Family values. As if Democrats don't have families and are a group of devil-worshipping hedonists bent on dragging the country into moral corruption. Come on! I, personally, don't think it very religious for a President to affectively use God as a political weapon by making sure everyone knows how religious he is(which his actions don't back up). It would be a real error to enter into a discussion with a Republican and accept, as if it were handed down from on high, that Bush wants to lower taxes and create jobs and Kerry wants to raise taxes and destroy the job market. That's kindergarten logic and it just doesn't hold with the facts.
OT: before I do it here and raise anyone's ire, is there any place to send a very small suggestion concerning a Stardock product where it might get looked at? Although we may disagree politically, I do love the hell out of Mr. Wardell's products. They blow me away every day with their thoughtful design and attention to detail. That's probably something we can all agree on!

Ack, some of these comments are giving me a headache.

Where to start..

1) Sam: 37 million Americans don't have health insurance. Not PERCENT. There are roughly 300 million Americans.

2) Julian/Sam: Regardless of how you wish the system worked, the reality of the situation is that John Kerry's tax increase would MOSTLY affect small businesses. So if Kerry gets elected and manages to raise those taxes, I am sure you will be first in line to pay a small but fair fee to use JoeUser.com right? Since it was the tax cut that paid for the salary of one of our new people here at the company.

3) I don't think I could explain LLCs or S-corporations any more simply than I did in this article. LLCs/S-corpts are designed to limit the liability on individuals running companies. The company's revenue is treated as part of their personal income. The owner's salary is totally irrelevant to how much or how little they get taxed because the company's revenue is treated as income for that individual. Most small businesses make more than $200,000 per year and therefore would be most affected by a tax increase.  Therefore they would either have to find a way to make up those costs or cut expenses.

4) Deficits do not indicate the need for tax increases. They can just as easily point to a need to cut expenses. This is how it works in the real world. If my household is spending more money than it is earning, I can't just wave a magic wand and have more money come in. I would have to cut my costs.

5) Please don't pollute my article with diatribes on Kyoto. Write your own article on that and then it can be discussed.

Brad it truly depends on who is looking at it. Since other factors are what will truly effect overall net job creation or loss, if you are a sole proprietor making less than 200k than the effect may be that somebody else is paying down that portion of the debt for which it covers. The point is you see a negative effect for a tax hike which may target you but many of the 98% that don't make 200k+ may considers this a positive effect.

There are a hell of a lot of sole proprietorships, which I'm sure their owners consider to be small businesses, that do not make more than 200k. And others that would make 199K if Kerry gets elected and gets this type of plan through. And if someone is providing their employees healthcare, maybe what gets proposed on this aspect of things, will benefit small businesses that are a bit above 200k. In any case it's too early in the process to see who would and who wouldn't benefit.

The point being don't expect others to not point out how single minded politics can be. I suspect many would be just as happy to visit a new blog site called JoeSmo set up by some liberal business owner who happens to a get a break from the employee health care incentives that are also being proposed in the Kerry plan.

Certainly deficits don't by themselves indicate the need for a tax hike. And I suspect we will need to run a big one when the baby boomers retire en masse just to satisfy demand for bonds. We are picking away at the budget which is a good effect of the cut. But our government has waved their magic wand and spent more than they had so I can't think of a better group of people to pay for the expenses than those who voted them in and can afford it most.

Julian the corporate contribution figures were dollar percentile. The dems got more during the last election. A lot from tech companies. You also have to include house and senate seats that are up for grabs.
In any case a good example is cabletv regulation. It has gone from regulation to deregulation several times and the cable companies were donating millions to which ever party or politician looked the most promising at the time. They are currently being looked into again because of all the consolidation and unfair business practices. It's been kind of interesting to watch. These companies, in particular the networks, are definately screwing the consumer.

Brad it truly depends on who is looking at it. Since other factors are what will truly effect overall net job creation or loss, if you are a sole proprietor making less than 200k than the effect may be that somebody else is paying down that portion of the debt for which it covers. The point is you see a negative effect for a tax hike which may target you but many of the 98% that don't make 200k+ may considers this a positive effect.

What possible positive effect would people see if taxes are raised? Because the deficit might be (slightly) lower? How does that benefit the average person?

What we DO know, for sure, is that higher taxes on people making $200k or more is not going to help them. And there's no evidence it will help those who make less than $200k. And I can tell you for a fact right now that such a tax increase will harm us.

You have to first demonstrate that anyone woudl plausible benefit from Kerry's propsed tax increase. I think I've provided ample evidence of the harm it will do.

suspect many would be just as happy to visit a new blog site called JoeSmo set up by some liberal business owner who happens to a get a break from the employee health care incentives that are also being proposed in the Kerry plan.

Most companies provide employee health care. We do. And have for years. Do you really think most small businesses don't provide their employees health care?

I can't think of a better group of people to pay for the expenses than those who voted them in and can afford it most.

That's my point - the rich won't suffer one iota. Small business won't suffer in the way you're imaginging. The ones who will suffer are the people who get laid off.

I hate to bring bitter reality in this but the typical small business making say $5 million per year that is an S-corp that sees their taxes go up and is now running at a loss is going to do what most businesses do - they'er going to cut expenses and that means lay someone off.

That is kind of what I'm getting at - the ones who will suffer aren't rich people. It's working people who get laid off because the company's cash flow got squashed.  That's not a theory, that's a fact.

I just read news that Kerry plans to decrease local businesses tax by 5% and get rid of tax loopholes for businesses that export jobs out of USA.

Brad, do you think that no one benefitted when Clinton managed to completely eliminate the deficit during his administration? During that time, we had great unemployment rates and an economic boom. What you claim to be not a theory, but a fact, has major problems with it. First of all, what you are doing here amounts to short-term thinking with blinders on. These tax cuts are a quick fix that ignore fundamental issues in both economics and ethics. There is much more to sound economic theory than just the quick and temporary creation of jobs by giving companies a tax break. The deficit, along with many other long term factors MUST be taken into consideration. If you fail to do so, the country, including it's children, will pay in the long run. I am not pulling this out of thin air. The well-respected economists from this nation's leading universities whom I mentioned in my other posts have all been saying that we won't see the devastating effects of the Bush tax cuts on the nation's economy until at least twelve years from now. But that is the Republican strategy. To get into office and enact legislation that will criple the government's ability to do what it was intended to do, so that down the road when it flounders, they can say "oh, you see, big government is bad, we better privatize it all" when they were responsible for the problem in the first place. The fact that SOME people might derive SOME positive benefits from giving companies a large tax break while the average citizen gets next to nothing is only a fact because the current legislation is completely skewed towards business. It is not a natural law, it is only relevant because our system, which is in severe need of fixing, promotes this situation.
As to these miraculous benefits in the employment rates that we're supposed to see from all this. You yourself said that your company was only able to hire ONE additional person because of the tax cut. I would say that Stardock is definitely larger than the average small business, so how many people do you think the smaller businesses will be able to hire? At that rate, it would take more than three million small businesses to hire people just to undo the damage Bush has caused while he's been in office! What's the next step, that we completely eliminate all taxation on businesses and the wealthy so they can hire more people? There are many other ways to create jobs than by doing everything big businesses' way. If we can't think of any other way to stimulate job growth than this, our minds must truly be in a state of poverty. I'm all for businesses thriving and us being competitive in the world market, but the problem is, the Republicans make it the ONLY focus. Business is not all of life, and no matter what positive effects it may create, it also creates numerous bad ones, and it's concerns should not be given the kind of rediculously unbalanced prority that they have been receiving in past years. If we keep up like this, we may have a few good years in the immediate future, but in the long term, we will all suffer greatly.. And though you may disagree with this now, I can guarantee that when you're 70 years old and soaking up the sun on the back porch, if we haven't turned this around, you will realize that long-term and holistic thinking is what represents the true facts, not theories cooked up by special interests whose main concern is their immediate benefit. That's just not how the real world works.

"What possible positive effect would people see if taxes are raised? Because the deficit might be (slightly) lower? How does that benefit the average person?"

What do you expect miracles? We have to pay for the war. It's that simple. Ask Bush Sr. Ask any good objective economist. Visit the Feds website and read the truth instead of the lies on the partisan sites and you will realize that even if Bush gets reelected he will have to raise taxes. No need to read any lips this time. History repeats itself quickly sometimes.


"Most companies provide employee health care. We do. And have for years. Do you really think most small businesses don't provide their employees health care?"
Basically all above 50 employees provide coverage. But there are a lot of small businesses that don't. Mostly those with say 10 or fewer employees. So its a fair number of businesses but not a large percentage of the working population. Many of the small businesses around here get the large group rates by going through the Chamber of Commerce which is basically the same thing that he is talking about. As big businesses send jobs overseas we need to make sure the new smaller businesses taking their place provide health insurance because we simply can't afford a government run health care system.

"That's my point - the rich won't suffer one iota. Small business won't suffer in the way you're imagining.
I never said small business or the rich would suffer. You are putting words in others mouths as you often do here.

Mr. Wardell, would you be willing, if Kerry is elected, to keep us posted(in whatever level of detail you would be willing, of course) on how his presidency is affecting your business? I think that would be interesting. OT: how come my points went to -29 and my rank from in the 300's to 3,482, especially when there only seems top be 2,000 users listed in the rankings? Did I do something wrong? If so, please tell me what it is so that I can refrain from repeating my mistake.

From johnkerry.com:

Small businesses owners that create jobs would pay lower taxes and provide health care to their workers would pay lower taxes
under Kerry than under Bush. Here are four examples of small businesses and how they fare under the tax plans of Kerry and Bush:

95% of small business owner making $200,000 (AGI) even if they do not create any jobs.
Under Kerry Plan: No tax change
Under Bush Plan: No tax change

A small business owner making $100,000 who hires 1 additional worker making $30,000
Under Kerry Plan: $2,295 tax cut
Under Bush Plan: No tax cut
A small business owner making $250,000 who hires 2 additional workers making $30,000:
Under Kerry Plan: $2,739 tax cut
Under Bush Plan: No tax cut

A small business owner making $500,000 who hires 4 additional workers making $50,000
Under Kerry Plan: $2,969 tax cut
Under Bush Plan: No tax cut

*Kerry Net Tax Cut including effects of repeal of the Bush tax cuts for families making over $200,000 and the new jobs tax credit.

Note: This table does not include the impact of Kerry's proposal to provide a tax credit for small businesses that buy health insurance for their workers.

-rob

Hey, Rob, great job. Looks like you really did your homework here. I wonder if those who posted on the Bush side of this forum would vote for Kerry if it was absolutely certain that they would benefit from it, or if they're so diehard that they'll vote Republican even if it is guaranteed to hurt their interests. To me, that does'nt seem like smart business!