do you think the government will FORCE small businesses?

Question

to take tax credits for offering health care to their employees, and FORCE poor individuals to cash their subsidy checks to pay for their health coverage, thereby making it socialism?

how many farmers a year does the government FORCE to take their subsidies?

Answer 1

Republican answer: Ok, so the tax code can be structured to give some relief to small businesses and the poor struggling farmer. Big deal. The government is still stealing my hard-earned money. If a few people can't afford health insurance, too bad. That's no reason to turn this great country into a socialist state that hands out free medical care to the lazy at my expense!

Logical conservative answer: One in five working Americans don't have health insurance! How did that happen? Maybe we can reverse some of the factors that caused this. At any rate something has to be done. This may be the rare case where government has to step in when private business will not. We should explore all the options intelligently and make only those changes that are absolutely necessary. For a long time our health care system worked well, and it's still working for four out of five working Americans, so let's figure out how to change a few things and not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Comment: It is amazing how well a propaganda based movement such as Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform can work. And how effective the Republican bogeyman of "socialism" is. I really think that without the groundwork of such groups, we would be coming up with workable solutions to our problems, and that the conservatives' ideas would balance out the liberals'.

Answer 2

This whole issue is a non-issue to begin with.

Hillary care would be the worse thing to happen to this country since Bill and Hillary put the needs of Wal-Mart before our own by pushing agendas that put small business out of business and forced manufacturers overseas. Now, her health care proposal threatens to have the same raw effect upon independent health care providers. AND her 'care' isn't truly needed to begin with.

"Hillary's plan requires mandatory participation by everyone in a government system that goes under the euphemism of an "individual mandate."

This "mandate" is nothing more than a law forcing people to acquire insurance either through the government or private sector. The program would require massive federal outlays. Sen. Clinton claims it would cost $110 billion per year, although that number would surely skyrocket. It would be financed through higher taxes.

Sen. Clinton also would require all employers to offer health insurance to their employees or contribute to a government-run insurance pool. Small businesses would receive subsidies. And people would have the option of enrolling in a government-operated plan if they did not want private insurance.

America spends more on health care than other countries, but that's why the U.S. system works without waiting lists and rationing. We receive the best treatments available, which is why our survival rates for most life-threatening diseases including the four most common types of cancer are the highest in the world.

In America now, the poor are already insured by Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Nevertheless, Sen. Clinton claims that we need a government takeover of the health care system because 47 million Americans remain uninsured. But that's a grossly misleading figure.

The Census Bureau's estimate of 47 million "uninsured" is based on a survey question that asks the respondents if they "were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year."

In other words, if you're uninsured for a single day of the year, the government considers you "uninsured."

Second, the Census Bureau includes 10.2 million non-citizens in its estimate. Does Sen. Clinton intend to admit non-citizens into her plan?

Finally, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 19 percent of those without health insurance earn more than triple the federal poverty level but choose to forego coverage. Kaiser also estimates that 25 percent of those without health coverage are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but have not signed up.

With scarce government resources, does it make sense to lavish subsidies on folks who make thousands more than the average U.S. family?

When all is said and done, only about 15 million Americans or 5 percent of the population are truly unable to obtain health insurance. And that doesn't mean they must do without medical care when they need it.

It hardly makes sense to jump to a government remedy in order to meet the exceptional needs of just 5 percent of the population when our current system delivers top-notch care to the other 95 percent and some significant level of protection to those who are uninsured.

The vast majority of Americans have coverage that gives them reasonably affordable access to the best health care system in the world. As the debate on Sen. Clinton's plan unfolds, voters should resist the imposition on America of a system that has already failed throughout the world."

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Politics/Q_22862552.html

"I can't worry about every under capitalized business" -- Hillary Clinton, testifying before congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/clinton.php

My question is, why doesn't Hillary respect the rights of the small businessman to maintain their livelihood and why does she push agendas that pool our nation's wealth among a very few?

Answer 3

Probably not if a Republican president is in office. :)