No, the "issue at hand" was a comment about raising tax rates and raising revenues. There was nothing about removing loopholes.
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the company or about the rich people behind it: they're inextricably tied together, and moving portions of the company takes even more paperwork than moving the people. Either way, eliminating the loopholes in tax law is the topic at hand, because that method both "cut[s] costs and increase revenue" -- just as the poster you replied to was talking about. And of course the rich move from time to time; look up the study I mentioned before, and note that an increase in taxes had no appreciable effect on high-income relocation.
You have, of course, conveniently ignored the second option I mentioned -- reducing income by using the tax laws.
Did you somehow miss the entire discussion about loopholes? Oh, wait, you just said loopholes were irrelevant
Yep, that's a good summary of what I said.
You're really not good at this whole reading comprehension thing, seeing as you specifically argued against healthcare companies having any responsibility for the current prices, and then said this was solely because of malpractice lawsuits. I didn't summarize you, I ridiculed your gratuitous simplification of a complex subject.
The rest of your post is a lot of scare quotes and very little sense. I never talked about raising rates, you throw "socialism" into the discussion as if the word itself should be somehow denigrating, and completely fail to address the real question: why a system that currently works for dozens of countries would somehow not work here.