Thread: Oregons retro Tax ?

Whats up with the state of Oregon and this retro TAX on gross sales?

Best

Ron

Similar Threads:

• Retro fit windows

Ah the wonderful state of Oregon. I love it here, but there are too many tax loving hippies.

As of tonight, measures 66 and 67 passed. So now, if you make over $250k if pay more taxes, and Oregon corporations now pay more income tax as well.

They spun the argument that Oregon corporations only pay $10 in corporate tax, when any sensible person would know that's a huge crock of crap.

So from this we get Oregon's largest tax increase ever. We hurt 60% of small business', Lose private sector jobs, gain 5 new tax brackets, 3 permanent tax hikes, 2 billion in taxes and fees, 4.7 billion increase in state spending and 8 months of retro-active taxes.

I'm happy right now, can you tell?

Cheers

Originally Posted by Seth Dickinson

Ah the wonderful state of Oregon. I love it here, but there are too many tax loving hippies.

As of tonight, measures 66 and 67 passed. So now, if you make over $250k if pay more taxes, and Oregon corporations now pay more income tax as well.

They spun the argument that Oregon corporations only pay $10 in corporate tax, when any sensible person would know that's a huge crock of crap.

So from this we get Oregon's largest tax increase ever. We hurt 60% of small business', Lose private sector jobs, gain 5 new tax brackets, 3 permanent tax hikes, 2 billion in taxes and fees, 4.7 billion increase in state spending and 8 months of retro-active taxes.

I'm happy right now, can you tell?

Cheers

Dang You guys need to have a TEA Party. and fast. KICK THE WACK JOBS OUT OF OFFICE... Once they that be in power in other states see that Oregon's elected tax loving hippies got extra taxes with no voice from the people they will try the same...

Best

Ron

Hey it's easy to make up reasons to spend other peoples money. It's all fun and games until the money runs out and the business' leave. See what happens when liberals make all the decisions. HAVE FUN

Yeah, the majority of Oregon's most populated tri-county area are liberal Democrats. Not that there's anything wrong with that, to each his own, but this tri-county area out weighs the rest of state which is Republican. So being a small business in Portland can pose problems at times.

We'll see how this goes in 2010.

Cheers

Blah blah blah.

I dare say no one on this board has enough income for the tax increase to make a huge deal one way or the other. I have a friend with a small business in Portland. The tax increase will cost her $147. That's less than her latté budget.

But I agree with you in principle that this socialist administration has gone too far! I for one am working to have our socialist fire and police departments disbanded, and from now on I'll only drive on private, toll roads and will purify my own potable water and treat my own sewage. I also don't want those bureaucrats in Washington telling my neighbor she can't spray chlordane in and around her home uphill from mine. If you agree with me, and all god-fearing apple-pie loving patriotic americans will, you'll sign my petition to completely disband the unelected federal bureaucracies (think EPA, FAA, FCC, DoE, NSA, HSA, etc) including the defense department. There's something in the constitution about not having standing armies (at least I think there is, haven't read it myself) and I'm having none of it. I'll also be foregoing social security and medicare when I'm eligible - don't want to be considered a hypocrite receiving welfare services you know.

Blah blah blah,
I have an idea. Instead of creating new taxes for additional spending why not reduce spending and tighten the purse strings. Ahhh that's a crazy idea, makes too much sense for gov't.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Blah blah blah. I dare say no one on this board has enough income for the tax increase to make a huge deal one way or the other. I have a friend with a small business in Portland. The tax increase will cost her $147. That's less than her latté budget..

Your not thinking correctly today...

Any tax on any one will make its way down the line. So you remove some latte's from the local coffee shop. some one that was working there no longer has a job...

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

So you remove some latte's from the local coffee shop. some one that was working there no longer has a job...

....and the owner no longer has customers so he has to shut down.

The owner of the strip mall now has 1 less tenant, but look at the bright side now he is not making enough money to be affected by the new taxes.

And just like that the Oregon government has put another one of the rich, capitalist pig SOB's in there place.

Rich people make too much money and work too hard for it. I hate them and want some of their money but don't want to work hard for it. Can I just have it?

The people of Oregon are so gullible it makes me want to puke...

The entire ad campaign was based around the $10 corporate minimum tax. It's totally taken out of context... it's basically a filing fee. I write the check out every year and send it in.... along with my thousands of dollars of other taxes to the state.

And I'm sure the money will go to good use.... probably put in some more bike lanes on the major roads. It's actually a good thing since most of the state is out riding their bikes all day since they have no job to go to.

And it doesn't stop there. Included in the measures is also a provision to eliminate the taxes on unemployment benefits. Yep, even less incentive to work.

I just can't believe in today's climate of our government throwing around 800 billion dollars at a time that the knuckleheads around me are willing to give them more.

First, the idea that increasing taxes destroys jobs is the flip-side of the bankrupt trickle-down economic theory that has been demonstrated not to work. And yet this old canard is trotted out as if its veracity was self-evident, its proponents in a perpetual state of suspended disbelief as they cling to an ideology they don't understand and is in fact opposed to their own self-interest.

Second, unlike profits that accumulate in the bank accounts of wealthy individuals, taxes are actually spent directly on services for the population. Now it may be that you don't agree that some of those services should be provided (I'm all for privatizing fire stations - who's with me?), but that's not the argument you're making. Just as cutting the latté budget impacts the coffee shop owner (although there's no way my friend is giving up her Stumptown), cutting government provided services also impacts small business owners who do work for the state. In a recession the state has an incentive to continue spending money while the wealthy have an incentive to hold on to their gains until more favorable economic returns appear.

Finally, you appear to be ignorant of the structural inequalities that leads to the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. Even more startling is that you're unaware of the implications of this imbalance for our national stability and economic output. You've bought into the myth of the self-made man, swallowing wholesale the narrative that wealth is accumulated through hard work, perseverance, and perhaps a small amount of luck in the form of good timing. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. A simple arithmetic exercise will give the lie to the idea that industriousness pays off in the end while the poor are victims of their own lack of ambition and reticence to work. It's not only not true, it's insulting to the millions of hard working americans who through no fault of their own find themselves on the wrong end of a pink slip struggling to make ends meet while searching futilely for any type of employment, having given up long ago on something "gainful." It's akin to the willful distortion of reality that has bankers claiming that in not providing obscene compensation (that you and I as shareholders, due to anemic corporate regulation, have no say in I might add) to "the best and the brightest" they risk losing them, all the while carefully ignoring that it was the very same "best and brightest" that got us into this mess in the first place.

But of course you're not arguing against that, because you're not arguing anything at all. Instead you are parroting the talking points that conform to a myopic world view because you either lack the intelligence or the initiative to form an independent thought of your own. Ignorance isn't attractive, and yet the ignorant hold it up as if it were a virtue and dare us to challenge their conceit with bellicosity and baleful displays of agression. Somehow elite became a dirty word rather than the paragon we should all aspire to. It is the "elite" athlete that wins the marathon run or championship ring. Which of us would prefer the surgeon who ranked at the bottom of his class to the "elite" doctor known for her brilliance and skill? When faced with a criminal complaint, do you choose the defender whose degree was from correspondence coursework or the magna cum laude graduate of a prestigious law school? And yet the very same credentials we seek in nearly every other profession are the ones we deride in our public officials. It is a reflection of our own pathetic ignorance that we would seek to cast our politicians in the same mold as we find in the mirror each morning.

So you come hear and display your ignorance for others to see and admire, as if there is something affirming in the collective nodding of heads. It would have been better had your ideology progressed out of its adolescence and been forced to deal with reality, but instead you surround yourself with people who know even less than you. Ignorance can not be avoided, but willful - boastful even - ignorance deserves nothing less than our utmost contempt.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

First, the idea that increasing taxes destroys jobs is the flip-side of the bankrupt trickle-down economic theory that has been demonstrated not to work. And yet this old canard is trotted out as if its veracity was self-evident, its proponents in a perpetual state of suspended disbelief as they cling to an ideology they don't understand and is in fact opposed to their own self-interest.

Second, unlike profits that accumulate in the bank accounts of wealthy individuals, taxes are actually spent directly on services for the population. Now it may be that you don't agree that some of those services should be provided (I'm all for privatizing fire stations - who's with me?), but that's not the argument you're making. Just as cutting the latté budget impacts the coffee shop owner (although there's no way my friend is giving up her Stumptown), cutting government provided services also impacts small business owners who do work for the state. In a recession the state has an incentive to continue spending money while the wealthy have an incentive to hold on to their gains until more favorable economic returns appear.

Finally, you appear to be ignorant of the structural inequalities that leads to the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. Even more startling is that you're unaware of the implications of this imbalance for our national stability and economic output. You've bought into the myth of the self-made man, swallowing wholesale the narrative that wealth is accumulated through hard work, perseverance, and perhaps a small amount of luck in the form of good timing. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. A simple arithmetic exercise will give the lie to the idea that industriousness pays off in the end while the poor are victims of their own lack of ambition and reticence to work. It's not only not true, it's insulting to the millions of hard working americans who through no fault of their own find themselves on the wrong end of a pink slip struggling to make ends meet while searching futilely for any type of employment, having given up long ago on something "gainful." It's akin to the willful distortion of reality that has bankers claiming that in not providing obscene compensation (that you and I as shareholders, due to anemic corporate regulation, have no say in I might add) to "the best and the brightest" they risk losing them, all the while carefully ignoring that it was the very same "best and brightest" that got us into this mess in the first place.

But of course you're not arguing against that, because you're not arguing anything at all. Instead you are parroting the talking points that conform to a myopic world view because you either lack the intelligence or the initiative to form an independent thought of your own. Ignorance isn't attractive, and yet the ignorant hold it up as if it were a virtue and dare us to challenge their conceit with bellicosity and baleful displays of agression. Somehow elite became a dirty word rather than the paragon we should all aspire to. It is the "elite" athlete that wins the marathon run or championship ring. Which of us would prefer the surgeon who ranked at the bottom of his class to the "elite" doctor known for her brilliance and skill? When faced with a criminal complaint, do you choose the defender whose degree was from correspondence coursework or the magna cum laude graduate of a prestigious law school? And yet the very same credentials we seek in nearly every other profession are the ones we deride in our public officials. It is a reflection of our own pathetic ignorance that we would seek to cast our politicians in the same mold as we find in the mirror each morning.

So you come hear and display your ignorance for others to see and admire, as if there is something affirming in the collective nodding of heads. It would have been better had your ideology progressed out of its adolescence and been forced to deal with reality, but instead you surround yourself with people who know even less than you. Ignorance can not be avoided, but willful - boastful even - ignorance deserves nothing less than our utmost contempt.

Not sure if you're talking to me since you didn't quote anyone but I'm going to assume so.

I actually grew up in a very liberal house and have historically voted on the left side of things most of my life.

Your post is the exact type of babble that makes me move further and further to the right pretty much daily. When faced with facts you result to name calling and mudslinging.

Ignorant/Ignorance (used about a dozen times in you rant) - definition is uninformed - funny coming from a guy across the country trying to tell me how my state is run.

Talking points - why is this always used like it's a bad thing? It's usually thrown out by someone (right or left) who doesn't like the truth in front of them.

"you're unaware of the implications of this imbalance for our national stability and economic output" - In a word you're preacing SOCIALISM. Don't get me wrong... it's got it's good points. Unfortunately it's not the basis out society was built upon which is exactly why it will be the downfall of our system if we allow it to continue. Capitalism and socialism cannot coexist (for long).

You've bought into the myth of the self-made man, swallowing wholesale the narrative that wealth is accumulated through hard work, perseverance - Exactly! Why should anyone work hard to get ahead when they can just sit on their butt and have everyone else take care of them? Wow! Do you really believe this crap?

"who through no fault of their own find themselves on the wrong end of a pink slip" - This is the problem and the obvious fundemental difference between you and I, Corn. I don't expect the country to take care of me and my family. Sure, when I watch the nature channel I feel bad for the slow buffalo at the back of the pack that gets eaten but it's a little thing called nature. You don't see the other buffalo running back to help it do you? If they do, they'll get eaten too. The lesson here is to not be that slow buffalo... and more importantly, raise your children to not be that slow buffalo and expect a free ride each time the world is nipping at their back end.

In closing, I find it funny that you constantly equate my "side" to the rich bankers. Wasn't it "Mr. Change" that handed over the largest sum of money EVER to the bankers on wall street?

Excellent... Matt. 2 thumbs up

Best

Ron

P.S. If you would just look at the amount of money that has been collected every time trickle-down economic was used one would see that it works.

Its the spending that was the cause of the problems each time. Kennedy used it and the Liberal congress spent it, Regan used it and Tip Oneal and the liberal congress spent it. Bush used it and a bunch of liberal republican along with the liberals spent it...

The truth is trickle-down economics works... Just get the liberals to stop spending...

And now for some name calling...... WACK JOBS

Pointing out ignorance (and I wasn't referring to any one specific individual) is NOT an ad hominem, it's an assertion of your knowledge about a subject. That you don't know the difference only further betrays your own ignorance of language and rhetorical composition. And how it is celebrated, as if not knowing something was some sort of virtue to be commended.

So I don't know what the word ignorant means? Are you toying with me or do you think the word was somehow misused? If so, where?

Oooh, you trotted out the scary SOCIALISM word. I doubt you even know what socialism is (yes, that means I'm saying I believe you're IGNORANT of the meaning of the term socialism). You'd be better served not using words whose meaning you're not too sure about.

Knowing talking points is not knowledge. It's one thing if you understood the ideas implicated by the sound bites, but when the sound bites substitute for the ideas themselves, you've got nothing but a set of platitudes that incite an emotional reaction in you but you haven't the faintest idea why.

Barry Switzer had a saying about the self-made man, "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." While it's true that there are some rags to riches stories out there, the reality is that less than 1/3 of the richest individuals are in that class. The rest started with significant advantage, some having inherited fortunes. That aside, explain to me exactly how the concentration of capital is an efficient and effective means of ensuring the welfare of the state? Compare and contrast to monarchies where capital was concentrated among the potentate and the noble classes.

And in another example of your ignorance, you trot out a poorly chosen example of the slow buffalo being left behind by the pack. Is it possible that you're not aware of this counterexample? In fact, the very definition of a social group is that the members work together as a group to advance the good of the society. If you really want to rid these blessed lands of socialism then let's start by ridding it of the socialist police force and make it every man for himself.

And for the record, no it was NOT Obama who handed over the largest sums of money to the rich bankers. As an example of the incredibly short attention span and even shorter memories of the "average american" it was actually Treasury Secretary Paulsen's plan. And to jog your memory a bit, the fundamental difference between his plan as originally formed and as implemented by congress is that his original plan called for NO congressional oversight into the spending.

But hey, why am I bothering to waste time on people who are willfully ignorant? (I know - sleep deprivation makes me cranky) Come back when you've learned something - I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong but you'll need facts and reason to back it up.

Originally Posted by fritzkelly

I think someone's a little bitter about the way things are going in Mass. Maybe thinking of moving to Oregon?

I've got my socialized health care. Scott Brown, moving from the state house to the senate, is in even less of a position to change that. But I do love the milder winters and public transportation in Portland and could spend hours every day at Powell's.

I'm cynical perhaps but not bitter. What feeds my cynicism is the pervasive glorification of rampant ignorance in this country. Many point to the socialist countries in europe as examples of failing states that we'd best avoid. There are ZERO socialist states in europe - all of them are capitalist. They have nationalized some industries (e.g. health insurance) but leave capital in the hands of the individual. When individuals control the means of production rather than government it's called capitalism, not socialism.

The question then is which industries work best in private control, and which work better with government control. We as a society have agreed that we like socialized police, fire protection, and national defense. We provide for socialized education through grade 12. Our roads are nearly completely socialized, and our airspace is controlled by the socialist bureaucracy at the FAA. It's all about security and efficiency. Some simply want to feel as secure about their health and well being as they are about crime or a fire.

Conservatives are concerned with fraud in the welfare state, so much so in fact that they'd rather the 95 go without than let 5 game the system. It's a perverse ethos and one I confess is so foreign to my way of thinking that I can not begin to comprehend the rationale behind it. But the hypocrisy is that they don't want to pay for *your* social services (e.g. health care, unemployment insurance) but they have no problem with you paying for theirs. It's dishonest and repugnant.

And the argument is not about cost. Nationalizing health insurance will save money. It will reduce the size of the deficit while providing access to millions of individuals who would otherwise be priced out of the market. But as the conservatives have shown time and again, it's not really about sticking to principles of fiscal responsibility - it's about saying f*** you to the other party and regaining power by any means necessary, even if it means sabotaging the future for your and my children. It means hewing to a bankrupt ideology at any cost - and shows a willingness to lose just to ensure the other guy doesn't win. And then they have the temerity to call themselves Christians even.

In case you're open to learning something, you might look into the welfare state of Denmark. Denmark has the highest tax rate in europe and the most generous social services. They have every incentive NOT to work, as conservatives say will happen if you give people a "free ride." Unemployment benefits extend for 4 years! and they have nationalized health care and post-secondary education. I would expect them to have a huge unemployment rate but, well, I'll let you do your own research.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

In case you're open to learning something, you might look into the welfare state of Denmark. Denmark has the highest tax rate in europe and the most generous social services. They have every incentive NOT to work, as conservatives say will happen if you give people a "free ride." Unemployment benefits extend for 4 years! and they have nationalized health care and post-secondary education. I would expect them to have a huge unemployment rate but, well, I'll let you do your own research.

You should move to Denmark

Best

Ron

I can't even believe I took the time to look this up. But, as I suspected, Denmark is no different than any other country. True, the last 5 years they've experienced a very low unemployement rate.

However, prior to that it was worse than it is in the US currently.

From 1981 to 1996 (As in for 15 YEARS) the rate hovered between 8 and 12% !!!!!!!! It looks they've got one hell of a great system over there

Great example....


Denmark Unemployment rate - Economy

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

I can't even believe I took the time to look this up. But, as I suspected, Denmark is no different than any other country.

That's exactly my point! The conservative argument is that the welfare state causes antipathy and lethargy - creating a "freeloading" class. Denmark has one of the most liberal social welfare programs in the world and the opposite is true.

True, the last 5 years they've experienced a very low unemployement rate.

However, prior to that it was worse than it is in the US currently.

From 1981 to 1996 (As in for 15 YEARS) the rate hovered between 8 and 12% !!!!!!!! It looks they've got one hell of a great system over there

Yes, they do. The system they have today is in REACTION to the system they had an the economy it produced.

You need to do two things if you're going to look at historical data. First, compare Denmark's performance against the developed world in general and Europe in particular, remembering that prior to 1989 the sociopolitical makeup of Europe was vastly different than today (note also that unemployment in the US peaked near 11% in 1982/1983 and stayed around 7% during much the same period - later declining to about 5.2%).

Second, look at when Denmark made changes to its social programs and track that against unemployment and GDP measures. Denmark is constantly tinkering with its economy to correct past problems and anticipate new ones.

No, they're not perfect, that isn't the point. The point is that the things conservatives say will happen if we do X are just speculation, and when you actually look at the countries that have done X quite often the opposite is true. The conservatives have nothing to back up their arguments - it's all just ideology.

Let's take the healthcare debate. Set aside for the moment that doing NOTHING will ensure that health care will continue to consume an even greater proportion of our GDP.

There are several different ways you can socialize health care. You can socialize payment (the model many countries use) or you can socialize the entire system (the British model). When people think of long waits to get care, they're thinking of the British experience. The French or Danish or Canadian experience is quite different, and it's because they have a different model than the Brits.

I haven't heard a single call from even the most liberal of liberal democrats for a system like the one the British have. Even Ted Kennedy, as liberal and identified with this issue as any, called for a "single payer" system, not a "single provider" system.

Many of us here are in the same boat - we're sole proprietors or small business owners. Health insurance is a large part of my company's budget. We're too small to negotiate discounts so we're subject to individual underwriting. Over the past decade I've lived here I've seen our costs go up 10-15% every year even as we dropped to lower plans. Had we stayed with the same plan, our costs would have increased 20-25% each year. I don't know about you, but my profits haven't been rising by that much each year.

I would dare say most people here don't even know why we have the insurance system we do. I mean, how is it we came to tie health care access to employment (and not just employment, but the right type of employment) as opposed to other countries that have tied it to citizenship?

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

I would dare say most people here don't even know why we have the insurance system we do. I mean, how is it we came to tie health care access to employment (and not just employment, but the right type of employment) as opposed to other countries that have tied it to citizenship?

I think you will find that the health benefit tied to employment came about as a way to lure employees when the government mandated wage freeze was in place.

Do you think that health care costs would be reduced if people had "skin in the game" rather than the current system where everything is billed to the insurance companies?
I know I am very conscious of prices and in fact get discounts even without asking when purchasing my health care when I tell them I don't have insurance and will be paying cash. (I do have insurance but have a high deductible ($5000) in order to keep the price down.)

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

That's exactly my point! The conservative argument is that the welfare state causes antipathy and lethargy - creating a "freeloading" class. Denmark has one of the most liberal social welfare programs in the world and the opposite is true.



Yes, they do. The system they have today is in REACTION to the system they had an the economy it produced.

You need to do two things if you're going to look at historical data. First, compare Denmark's performance against the developed world in general and Europe in particular, remembering that prior to 1989 the sociopolitical makeup of Europe was vastly different than today (note also that unemployment in the US peaked near 11% in 1982/1983 and stayed around 7% during much the same period - later declining to about 5.2%).

Second, look at when Denmark made changes to its social programs and track that against unemployment and GDP measures. Denmark is constantly tinkering with its economy to correct past problems and anticipate new ones.

No, they're not perfect, that isn't the point. The point is that the things conservatives say will happen if we do X are just speculation, and when you actually look at the countries that have done X quite often the opposite is true. The conservatives have nothing to back up their arguments - it's all just ideology.

Let's take the healthcare debate. Set aside for the moment that doing NOTHING will ensure that health care will continue to consume an even greater proportion of our GDP.

There are several different ways you can socialize health care. You can socialize payment (the model many countries use) or you can socialize the entire system (the British model). When people think of long waits to get care, they're thinking of the British experience. The French or Danish or Canadian experience is quite different, and it's because they have a different model than the Brits.

I haven't heard a single call from even the most liberal of liberal democrats for a system like the one the British have. Even Ted Kennedy, as liberal and identified with this issue as any, called for a "single payer" system, not a "single provider" system.

Many of us here are in the same boat - we're sole proprietors or small business owners. Health insurance is a large part of my company's budget. We're too small to negotiate discounts so we're subject to individual underwriting. Over the past decade I've lived here I've seen our costs go up 10-15% every year even as we dropped to lower plans. Had we stayed with the same plan, our costs would have increased 20-25% each year. I don't know about you, but my profits haven't been rising by that much each year.

I would dare say most people here don't even know why we have the insurance system we do. I mean, how is it we came to tie health care access to employment (and not just employment, but the right type of employment) as opposed to other countries that have tied it to citizenship?

I Love this... All of this puts a bad taste in my mouth... whats happening to our Freedom? Ya Ya they get up out of bed and go to work. and yes they are free in there own way. but thats not the same thing. Freedom is every man on his own fending for his own and providing for his own. the US has been going back wards from the very start. Liberals / socialist / what ever name you put on it... it all comes out the same one can not judges these books by there cover alone... Lipstick on a pig... Each time we let the government take or we just give just 1 penny one more the we give up our pennies worth of our freedom... Money in one hand and a gun in my other... these are the 2 things that keep our country and its people free. and thats freedom on the inside. freedom from Liberals and socialist. Why do you think these 2 ideals are in our Constitution...This is whats at the heart of the issues our times... People say its just a penny... look what they say we will get in return. free health care. free this free that... they want to control everything and every person only a blind person can not see this slow train comming. or has not look at owner country down the ugly past of history... the wicked things men have done to other men because they had all the pennies...

Its just one penny...

We all understand the we need roads and schools and law for the land but part of that law is my 12 gages shot gun for when the wicked come knocking on my door i can keep them in check. or if I want to start over in another part of the country I can... because I have some cash in my hand...

We need less goverment not more... we need to keep every penny in our own hand... Come April 15 we all get just a little up set and then they force us back in our little box and say be good now... just shut up and we will run thing for you. Free health care its comming like it or not. Cap and trade like it or not...

Its just 1 penny more...

Dude move to Denmark...

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

I think you will find that the health benefit tied to employment came about as a way to lure employees when the government mandated wage freeze was in place.

Our system is the result of an interesting intersection of WWII wage freezes and an IRS ruling on the taxation of health insurance payments. On the other side of that is how health insurance was sold to those companies. Prior to around 1920 hospitals weren't the major medical centers they are today. As a way of increasing revenue and making it more predicable, some enterprising hospitals began selling medical "insurance" directly to companies as a way of combatting the productivity-killing illnesses. By guaranteeing available treatment, companies would be assured that workers would quickly return to health and productivity.

Do you think that health care costs would be reduced if people had "skin in the game" rather than the current system where everything is billed to the insurance companies?
I know I am very conscious of prices and in fact get discounts even without asking when purchasing my health care when I tell them I don't have insurance and will be paying cash. (I do have insurance but have a high deductible ($5000) in order to keep the price down.)

Absolutely. In fact, I think the whole "health insurance" system has gotten perverted. We should focus more on catastrophic care (illness and injury) and less on recurring expenses like contact lenses. We also need to move towards only covering evidence-based medicine (I don't want my insurance paying for quackery) and clinical trials. The pharmaceutical industry is making a killing on new, patented drugs that are no more effective than the cheaper generic drugs they replace. There's no one thing that will reduce costs, but certainly having some transparency in the system would be a big improvement.

There's a perverse reimbursement system in place for doctors, however, that prevent many from offering a cash discount. Many insurance contracts reimburse doctors at a contracted rate or at 70-80% of the doctor's prevailing rate, whichever is lower. If the doctor were found to be offering a 30% cash discount, the insurer might reduce payments accordingly.

Your freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. But aside from that, freedom is not absolute, never has been and never will be.

You'd think with all the charges of "they're stealing our freedom" people would be libertarians rather than conservatives but no, they want the freedom to keep every cent in their pocket and also the freedom to tell you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your bedroom.

You'd do well to actually read the constitution before commenting on it.