Aielyn said:
Oh, I agree - it's absurd that Americans have to pay for private health insurance rather than having a public option. Here in Australia, everyone is covered by public health care, and then you can buy private health care to extend coverage to optional things, to get reduction in costs when going to private hospitals (public hospitals are covered by public health care), etc. It is absurd that companies have to pay for health care... but until you Americans grow up and realise that public health care is actually cheaper for the government than private health care (don't believe me? Look at per capita health care spending by government in America and Australia), and that public health care is not socialism or communism, you're stuck with it. In the meantime, you're speaking as though the corporation is like the government in the analogy. It's NOT. The corporation is the equivalent of the person, the health insurance company is the equivalent of the government and the individual is the equivalent of the public. Corporations have to pay for things they don't support all the time, just like individuals do. As it has been so perfectly pointed out before, corporations seem to be getting all of the perks of personhood, with none of the responsibilities. Being a citizen means that you have to pay for things the government does that you don't support. Being a corporation means that you have to pay for things your employees do that you don't support. Not all things, of course, but certain specific things that you are legally required to pay for. And privately-owned companies are the equivalent of private citizens (as opposed to public figures) - are you suggesting that only famous people should be bound by laws? If not, then you've missed the point of the analogy entirely. |
But Corporations aren't people hadn't you heard. On top of that, your long equation of corporations paying taxes just like an individual is as flawed as flawed can be. FIrst of all we are talking about a tax here we are talking about forcing a private entity (the employer) paying another private entity (the insurer) to provide another private entity (the employee) with something, outside their obligation to pay them a wage for their services as an employee, that violates the employers religious views. In no way is there taxation happening there.
I'd argue against any government encroachment on running health care anyways but that is a whole other thread we'd have started because I simply do not agree that being a citizen means "that you have to pay for things the government does that you don't support." That's just something progs who are happy to plunder others' life energy to pay for their own stuff say IMHO.
