From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:10:42 GMT

In <1992Aug13.215159.11725@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:


>Have you ever thought about starting a business?  Have you thought about
>what would happen if your business would fail, and you would be left with
>no health insurance?  What if you developed an expensive medical condition
>while you were trying a new business, and no employer would let you onto
>their health plan?


>What I was saying was that the current health care system makes
>entrepreneurship even more risky, and that small businesses and
>individuals pay more for health insurance because the big companies
>get deals.  National health insurance would help level *this* field.

	A Federal health insurance program would have to get its funding 
from somewhere.  The Clinton plan is "pay or play"-- that is, it forces
businesses to fund health care one way or another.  This would mean that
entrepreneurs under Clinton, while no longer having to worry about whether
or not they will be able to afford health care, will have to worry about
insuring the health of all of their employees, from the part-time dishwasher
to the financial officers.  This is no bargain for the entrepreneur, who 
is taxed far too much already.  The primary beneficiary of a national 
health care system, as with other welfare programs, would be big business,
since it would shift the tax burden from them onto the small businessman.
Welfare programs in general help big business because they absolve the 
captain of industry of the moral responsibilities that accompany his
wealth and power.  
	Big companies get deals, and they get the best deals of all from
the federal government.  The sheer lobbying power of the three major
car manufacturers alone is astounding.  Roger Stempel flicks his little
finger, and tariffs appear.  Despite such organizations as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, small businessmen have no comparable ability to
effect policies favorable to them.  Small business as an aggregate
comprises the bulk of our GDP, yet the economics of scale, not to mention
the fact that not all small businessmen have the same interests, mean 
that big business has a clear advantage over small business in wheedling
the federal government into laws or regulatory oversight that is favorable
to big business. 
	A set of laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act is a good
example.  While its goals are laudable, and while it has been praised by 
many conservatives, it has the effect of "crowding out" small business
through fines for not meeting its "guidelines."  Such devices that allow
wheelchair accessibility have a surcharge:  that is, a single elevator may
cost X.  But additional units may cost not X, but, say, (3/4)X.  Don't forget
that the chances are that a large business already has elevators, and has
long ago installed ramps, etc.  Small businessmen are behind the curve,  
because their profit margins are smaller, and because it is likely that 
they have never employed a disabled person.  When the small businessman
is forced to toe the line,  his business is wounded far worse that would
be a large business.  
	A national health care plan would harm business in the same
uneven way: it would hurt the small businessman-- the family business-- 
far worse than the large business.  A large business could more likely
afford a private scheme that would be less costly that the government 
surcharge.  But the small businessman would be unable to afford a private
scheme because he has fewer employees.  He would be forced to go the way
of a government program, which means a another tax will be placed atop his
already onerous burden.  
	A national health care plan, further, will drive up costs.  The 
seven per cent tax will, within ten years, be a twenty per cent tax.  Big
business will still be able to use the cheaper private schemes, and the
small businessman will be stuck with higher taxes.  I would like someday 
to own my own business, but unless the middle class can rid itself of
its addiction to government largesse, I do not see how I could survive
the taxes.


Andrew Aiken	

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,misc.test,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh