Cut # 892 (out of 1,000)
Well, never let it be said that I'm surprised at the Minnesota radical left wing controlled Senate. These radical socialists (is there any other kind to liberty loving Americans?) who have unlimited access to money taken by force from others (BTW, called plunder or thievery: Webster- "to take away by force or unjust means" ) seem to think that now they know best (ha!) as how to make sure that people are covered by health insurace. They now have a proposal to force certain size companies to pay for things they may not wish to.Tough, according to the Senate Socialists. Yup, good ol' Becky "I LOVE KARL MARX" says (from the article) "The measure's sponsor, Sen. Becky Lourey, DFL-Kerrick, said large corporations that fail to provide adequate health care to their employees force taxpayers and other "responsible" companies to pick up the tab."What I'm trying to do is stop the cost shifting to the public programs," Lourey testified. "And why is there ANY concern about shifting "responsibilities" ? Well, because the Senate certainly knows best in ALL situations. Especially medical insurance. After all, aren't all the left wing socialist Senators experts in insurance and certainly economics? Of course they are. What was I thinking? But, if they are SO wise, well, how did we get into this mess with medical insurance in the first place? I'm confused. Did the wisest and smartest people in all the world who warm chairs in the Minnesota Senate Chambers perhaps, maybe miss a certain something?
I also notice the compelling phrase "their fair share".
And buried in the article is this little something "While 94 percent of companies with 500 or more workers provide health care coverage, only 43 percent of companies with 50 or fewer workers provide health care. The bill may actually encourage some businesses not to expand for fear of being included in the 10,000 worker category, they said." Uh, it doesn't even work that way. It works much, much lower. I lived across from a great neighbor who owned a very small manufacturing company. He was committed to never having more than 13 employees. Why? He said that when and if he got to 15 employees there was a number of state regulations that would fall on him to enforce and comply with. So, he made a decision not to expand. Another friend of mine started a small telecomm company perhaps 15 years ago. He had 22 employees and agonized over whether or not he was going to hire 4 more employees as there were a whole slew of new state and Federal regulations that were going to hit his company when he went to 25 employees. And from these two companies there are many, many more that chose not to be big or bigger. Forget 10,000 workers. Those are NOT the companies that make and drive the American economic engine.
Oh, and one more case: the wife of a friend wanted to start a small house cleaning company. A true American entrepreneur. Being dutiful, she asked the Feds and state what she would need. She received a box 2 inches high from the state filled with all the forms and regulations she'd need for a house cleaning company. She got another box 6 inches deep from the Feds. And a couple of weeks later she got a box a foot and a half deep from the EPA with all the warnings documents, postings, haz mat needed, banned chemicals, employees procedures that needed to met for all chemicals listed, and so on and so forth, etc,etc,etc...
She looked at her husband and said "I'm now a Republican".
As if that would help.
Only 108 cuts left.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home