Prev: Photo of dying marine: was it right for AP to publish?
Next: The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
From: Neil Harrington on 20 Sep 2009 11:54
"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Interestingly, in all these polical threads, I don't recall a single post
> from someone living in a country with state-regulated health
> insurance/care complaining about it.
> Many, including myself, posted that it works quite well and costs a
> fraction of the U.S. system.
Canadian doctors say their health care system is "imploding" -- the
president of the Canadian Medical Association says the country's health care
system is sick and needs to be cured.
That doesn't sound as if "it works quite well."
> But no real user posted anything against.
> Hmmmm.... Maybe because all the posters living in those countries were
> afraid of being arrested by the "socialist thought police" if they
> Goes to show that the extreme-right cultists are too blind to even look at
> a best practices comparison.
Canadian doctors and the president of their asssociation are "extreme-right
From: DRS on 20 Sep 2009 12:29
"Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message
> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Interestingly, in all these polical threads, I don't recall a single
>> post from someone living in a country with state-regulated health
>> insurance/care complaining about it.
>> Many, including myself, posted that it works quite well and costs a
>> fraction of the U.S. system.
> Canadian doctors say their health care system is "imploding" -- the
> president of the Canadian Medical Association says the country's
> health care system is sick and needs to be cured.
> That doesn't sound as if "it works quite well."
"Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has
passed us by," that it�s possible to make wait lists disappear while
maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not
In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private
health-care delivery within the public system."
It sounds suspiciously like what Obama is proposing.
From: Walter Banks on 20 Sep 2009 13:56
Bill Graham wrote:
> One of the chief, "loopholes" is to simply register your business in some
> other country, and I haven't got the faintest idea what the hell the US
> government can do about that. Any more than they can keep people like
> Elizabeth Taylor from living in Ireland, where artists income taxes are
> zero. There are always people who will figure out some way to cheat the
> system, especially if you make them mad enough.....The California state
> government made me mad, and I really got back at them for about ten years
> before I retired.....
Business registered in other countries are not American companies.
Companies are like people they are born their birth certificate are letters
patent in some country and the company lives under the rules of that country.
Anyone who lives in the US or earns money in the US cannot avoid the
American obligations by having obligations somewhere else. US citizens
must file tax returns no matter their country of residence or income.
Most so called tax loopholes are actually tax incentives, it is a very different
argument about whether they are good or bad.
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Sep 2009 14:58
mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE TO
>>>> PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book.
>>> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts.
>>> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes.
>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>>> income is not always in the form of salaries.
>> Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most regressive
>> because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their income on
>> taxable goods than rich people.
>Then *all* taxes are regressive as the lower income group has less in their
>pocket after the taxes then the higher income group.
You're being stupid again. It's not how much you HAVE, it's how much
you PAY as a proportion of your income/wealth.
Learn to read.
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Sep 2009 14:59
Miles Bader <miles(a)gnu.org> wrote:
>rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>> income is not always in the form of salaries.
>Ah.. that must be why the repubs are forever trying to get rid of
>capital gains taxes...
And inheritence taxes. The very taxes that most affect the idle rich.