Obamacare
- Thread starter BillyWayne
- Start date
Didnt expect to hear anything from you so soon BW, Thought you'd be burning the midnight offshore oil after your boss weighed in with his normal rhetoric and figgering out the next fight.
"This is a dark day for the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law. This is a dark day for American liberty."
The Kook
So who mirrored whom or whats the difference?
"This is a very dark day in the history of our nation."
Senate candidate who lost in primary from PrWm County
So will we start seeing billboards soon - "Impeach John Roberts," reflective of those "Impeach Earl Warren" boards that graced sside Va and into the south during the 60s and into the early 70s.
I dont know if this fixes the healthcare mess we currently have. I have yet to see someone offer anything else. On my homefront we're being dinged for a 'pre-existing' condition for a simple follow up treatment and are merely changing plans within the same company. And this is just one example from me, so from personal experience, something aint right.
Thought it was interesting the result was termed under tax. Knew this would be a spark for your peoples. But after thinking more, yes it is a tax for services used. The medical profession should be pleased, they'll get paid. Those of use who pay our own premiums should be pleased. Our premiums should not include the factor of the uninsured nor should our payment to the professionals include a factor to cover the uninsured. The insurance companies should be pleased as theyll receive more premiums. The increase in the number of people making use of the HSAs had to bother the ins companies as healthy folks opting out of cadillac policies affects their pools.
The GOP knew this was coming. They stopped Bill in '92 and had since that time to come up with an alternative, but they didnt want to. They must have been busy,
"This is a dark day for the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law. This is a dark day for American liberty."
The Kook
So who mirrored whom or whats the difference?
"This is a very dark day in the history of our nation."
Senate candidate who lost in primary from PrWm County
So will we start seeing billboards soon - "Impeach John Roberts," reflective of those "Impeach Earl Warren" boards that graced sside Va and into the south during the 60s and into the early 70s.
I dont know if this fixes the healthcare mess we currently have. I have yet to see someone offer anything else. On my homefront we're being dinged for a 'pre-existing' condition for a simple follow up treatment and are merely changing plans within the same company. And this is just one example from me, so from personal experience, something aint right.
Thought it was interesting the result was termed under tax. Knew this would be a spark for your peoples. But after thinking more, yes it is a tax for services used. The medical profession should be pleased, they'll get paid. Those of use who pay our own premiums should be pleased. Our premiums should not include the factor of the uninsured nor should our payment to the professionals include a factor to cover the uninsured. The insurance companies should be pleased as theyll receive more premiums. The increase in the number of people making use of the HSAs had to bother the ins companies as healthy folks opting out of cadillac policies affects their pools.
The GOP knew this was coming. They stopped Bill in '92 and had since that time to come up with an alternative, but they didnt want to. They must have been busy,
I was shocked and impressed. Not because I think that "Obamacare" is the perfect plan(I don't), but because I had some time ago dispaired that our justices were locked into the politics of this thing, rather than the legal aspects . John Roberts won my admiration for voting acdording to what he saw the law to be, not on a political basis. Now, it is time for members of Congress to put aside politics and appoint a bi partisan committee to look over the current legislation (Obamacare) and see if it can be molded into an improved model. I don't expect this to happen because I am overcome with cynicism regarding our
Congress...both parties. There is too much extremeism, too much rigidity on both sides of the aisle.
Congress...both parties. There is too much extremeism, too much rigidity on both sides of the aisle.
I like parts of Obamacare but I hate being told what to do by the government. This sets a scary precedent in my opinion.
Actually there is choice, and you aren't being told what to do. If you don't want health insurance, you will need to indicate that on your tax returns. Your refund will be reduced. If you aren't receiving a refund, there is no penalty. There will be no criminal penalties and the IRS does not have the power to institute any tax liens. If you have health insurance, you will be asked to write something in like your provider or policy number, but those details will be sorted out by 2014. I assume the death of our republic, the burning of the constitution and the end to liberty and freedom as we know it will immediately follow.
Cannot say I understand enough to know what kinds of problems/fixes will really happen. What I do know is the rise in teh cost of health care is unsustainable. Most people don't know what insurance, or healthcare, costs because they are not provided the true figure, trust me it is outrageous. Like Noid says if you are unfortunate enough to have a member of the family that has an issue -- good luck! We currently have uninsured in our society, they're not denied medical tratment, nor should they be, it's not free though. Taxpayers are paying now, or the volunteer providers simply add more to their normal charge to make their desired salary in less time, so one way or another society pays. Will the cost of healthcare go down to the taxpayer and up the the insured, go up in both areas (note I don't even ask if it will go down in both areas)? I don't know, prognosticators have an opinion and it usually is directly related to their support or opposition of Obamacare. I don't trust what they say. Those that I feel are most neutral seem to say it depends. But what really triggered my comment here was to ask NYNJ if he can explain, (if I understand your post) perhaps you know more than I do about Obamacare. My understanding was eventually if you choose not to have insurance, that's fine. But you will have to pay a penalty that is essentially a tax (that's why Roberts voted for the plan, because Congress has the power to tax, he did not have to rely upon the Commerce Clause). The penalty will only be charged to those that "can afford" to pay for insurance but choose not to. If you don't pay the penalty you can be punished just like not paying a tax bill. Therefore more people will at least be paying "something", Obama says thereby driving the average cost down, others disagree. That is my basic understanding of the concept -- am I mistaken?
Yes, if you are able, but unwilling to pay for health insurance (and you don't lie on your taxes) , in 2014 you will receive a letter from from the IRS saying you owe a penalty. The penalty will be waived for people with very low incomes who don't have to file tax returns, those who are members of certain religious groups, and/or people who face insurance premiums that would exceed 8% of family income even after including employer contributions and federal subsidies.
It is resonable to assume that if you are able but unwilling to purchase Health Insurance, you consider yourself healthy (or you are very wealthy) . Removing healthy individuals from the insurance pool, only drives up costs for those who have insurance.
Kaiser Flow Chart
It is resonable to assume that if you are able but unwilling to purchase Health Insurance, you consider yourself healthy (or you are very wealthy) . Removing healthy individuals from the insurance pool, only drives up costs for those who have insurance.
Kaiser Flow Chart
Ny, this may come across as ignorant, but what stops the government from mandating other things, such as "Blue shirt Monday?" Sure, you don't HAVE to comply, but if you don't, you have to pay a $50 tax?
Comparing mandated "Blue shirt Mondays" to Health Insurance is a false analogy. Its reasonable to expect that someone can forgo blue shirts on Monday... for the rest of their natural life. Its unreasonable to expect that someone can forgo health care for the rest for their natural life. Chances are, you will require some form of medical attention in future.
I sincerely doubt Government officials wouldn't fight something like "Blue Shirts", when they have been so successful convincing people to vote against their own self interests on important issues like Health Care.
I sincerely doubt Government officials wouldn't fight something like "Blue Shirts", when they have been so successful convincing people to vote against their own self interests on important issues like Health Care.
The HSAs are pulling the healthy from the insurance pools, hence higher premiums for those that remain in plans. Years ago when I had employees, I felt it was my obligation to offer and pay my employees premiums. I wouldnt do that anymore, its just too expensive. Why did premiums go through the roof? What changed?
"I hate being told what to do by the government. This sets a scary precedent in my opinion.I hate being told what to do by the government. This sets a scary precedent in my opinion.
Yes, before you know it the gvmt will tell you to pay taxes, have a valid driver's license and insurance, to wear a seat belt and to go through security to get on an airplane, among other things.
Yes, before you know it the gvmt will tell you to pay taxes, have a valid driver's license and insurance, to wear a seat belt and to go through security to get on an airplane, among other things.
Beav, taxes are ok per the constitution (this is being labeled as a tax, but let's be honest, it's a mandate.
Having a license and insurance to drive gives me the option of driving and is for the protection of others on the road. Same with security at the airport. I can make the choice not to drive or fly.
Wearing a seatbelt should be my choice. If I want to be a moron and not wear one, then I'm hurting myself. I don't need the government to protect me from hurting myself. If others choose not to, then so be it. They're not hurting me any.
Having a license and insurance to drive gives me the option of driving and is for the protection of others on the road. Same with security at the airport. I can make the choice not to drive or fly.
Wearing a seatbelt should be my choice. If I want to be a moron and not wear one, then I'm hurting myself. I don't need the government to protect me from hurting myself. If others choose not to, then so be it. They're not hurting me any.
Its interesting that people believe in personal responsibility that much that they would (in theory) sacrifice their life to demonstrate that individuals must suffer for their bad decisions. Fact of the mater is that if someone collapsed right outside my door (god forbid) , it may not be up to them if they receive care. It might not be up to them if they get billed or if their family gets billed or if society gets billed, someone will get billed.
My wife is a Doctor, and she does not check for people's insurance cards before she treats him. They receive care, regardless of if they can pay. Rest assumed, someone ultimately does pay that bill
Moving quickly to less availability of medical care for those over 65 without private insurance because the doctors that will accept Medicare will decrease because it is not financially feasible for their medical practice. Already a squeeze play with short term fixes. The kicking the can down the road mentality is catching up quickly (or has already passed) to Social Security and Medicare as the law of supply and demand is never repealed. Belt tightening can be tough whether one eats or spends too much. Obamacare accelerates the process.
all I know is that it will be more expensive for me to have the exact same thing I have now and I don't trust the government to run anything efficiently. I have a completely different view of who is responsible for my life and its outcome than this president and I don't trust him at all.
05 your general premise makes sense but the problem is your choice, either a seat belt or insurance, impacts others. In most cases if you do not choose to have to use one of those the cost of your non choice impacts the costs to others. 99.99% of the time if you are in a car crash without a seat belt your injuries are magnified than if you would have had one on. Assuming you did not die, 911, emergency crews, medical costs, and rehab costs are then significantly more than if you had worn a seat belt. Since most of those costs are not directly paid for (either taxes or medical insurance) other people absorb those costs into their payments to the system.
That is similar to insurance, at least in theory. The insured pay higher premiums to cover the costs of the unisured. The best example I can come up with is the person that from 18-55 does not visit a doctor's office and does not have insurance and then decides to visit the doctor one day and realize they have a laundry list of things that are wrong when 75% of those items could have been prevented with annual physicals. Also the insurance company has not built up a stockpile of cash reserves for this person from 18-55 and now has a huge bill to pay that is larger than the actuarial return of future payments from this person. They have to recover that cash from somewhere and that becomes other people in the insurance system.
With all that said I am not sure this Act fixes some of the biggest issues:
1) Shortage of labor (doctors and nurses especially in select fields) simple supply demand issues here
2) Tort reform. Insurance costs kill medical practices and we need to figure out a better method.
3) Education. Most people are simply not educated enough on how the "system" works. The best example I can illustrate is how we increased the copay on ER visits and educated our personnel on those costs and saw a significant decline in ER usage to save costs at the company. If I were a medical insurance provider I would offer discounts for certain levels of employee education on the "system".
4) Regulatory waste, this act might increase this cost but the system is full of regulatory waste made "necessary" by many groups including the gov't, medical insurance, item 2 above, etc.
That is similar to insurance, at least in theory. The insured pay higher premiums to cover the costs of the unisured. The best example I can come up with is the person that from 18-55 does not visit a doctor's office and does not have insurance and then decides to visit the doctor one day and realize they have a laundry list of things that are wrong when 75% of those items could have been prevented with annual physicals. Also the insurance company has not built up a stockpile of cash reserves for this person from 18-55 and now has a huge bill to pay that is larger than the actuarial return of future payments from this person. They have to recover that cash from somewhere and that becomes other people in the insurance system.
With all that said I am not sure this Act fixes some of the biggest issues:
1) Shortage of labor (doctors and nurses especially in select fields) simple supply demand issues here
2) Tort reform. Insurance costs kill medical practices and we need to figure out a better method.
3) Education. Most people are simply not educated enough on how the "system" works. The best example I can illustrate is how we increased the copay on ER visits and educated our personnel on those costs and saw a significant decline in ER usage to save costs at the company. If I were a medical insurance provider I would offer discounts for certain levels of employee education on the "system".
4) Regulatory waste, this act might increase this cost but the system is full of regulatory waste made "necessary" by many groups including the gov't, medical insurance, item 2 above, etc.
97, I see and understand the counterpoint you presented.
Anyone else curious as to how quickly chain restaurants are going to roll out their nutritional information, as required by Obamacare? Seeing nutritional information on menus will definitely change ordering habits.
Anyone else curious as to how quickly chain restaurants are going to roll out their nutritional information, as required by Obamacare? Seeing nutritional information on menus will definitely change ordering habits.
'05, wearing a seatbelt is obviously the wise choice. I've seen enough automobile accident cases to make that a certainty in my mind. A very high percentage of the fatalities in our area have been folks not wearing a seat belt. I'll go on record as saying that you have a much better chance to survive an accident if you are wearing your seatbelt.That being said, if you choose to ignore the rule and get caught, the penalty is only a $25.00 civil penalty. No bad driving points and no court costs.
the choice is having the govt run healthcare, and make no mistake, there are bureaucrats salivating to micromanage every aspect of our personal lives or get rid of insurance completely and let the docs and hospitals, all providers, have to work with their customers on how much to charge and how they can pay it off. all of these providers are guaranteed payments by both insurance companies and govt programs, they take in huge amounts, guaranteed amounts. take that away and have it work the way it does in all other aspects of our lives, you negotiate prices. docs will not have pre-existing conditions or anything else, they will treat and folks will pay them different amounts on what they can afford and pay when they can, no more automatic payments in the bank for them. my roomie at UR, when health insurance was in its infancy, told me his dad, an MD, took apple butter and other products as payment. you would see the cost of our healthcare go down very quickly that way. the problem is not healthcare, we have the best, it is paying for it and i feel door #2 is preferable to having the most inefficient entity out there running it and telling us what we can and cannot do in our personal lives and if you are too naive to see this, then feel sorry for you.
And Gen'l back then there was "major medical" for big things and everything else out of your pocket or pantry (Adm-kind of like the widow and two mites, right). At this point of the bottom line, Obama cares and the GOP doesnt. I'm going to really look at HSAs. The only family I know who has this is quite pleased. Also been thinking that perhaps with all the medical and diagnostic information on the net, that perhaps the doctors are no longer 'god'; held in the esteem of previous-they are now viewed as commodities/enablers by he the insurance companies.
Maybe the proponents have the wrong target in their sites. Maybe its the insurance companies that need to be looked at but this wont happen without the docs support.
And in honor of the day, as it only took one piece of paper to declare a whole country's independence, I offer the next amendment to the constitution-no bill passed by any governmental body shall exceed one page in length.
Happy Fourth Spiders!
Maybe the proponents have the wrong target in their sites. Maybe its the insurance companies that need to be looked at but this wont happen without the docs support.
And in honor of the day, as it only took one piece of paper to declare a whole country's independence, I offer the next amendment to the constitution-no bill passed by any governmental body shall exceed one page in length.
Happy Fourth Spiders!
Can any of you liberals see that there is too much government involved in just about everything now? Have any of you ever tried to run a business and run up against regulation after regulation after regulation? Can you not see how government has grown to the point that it is grinding life as we knew it to a halt? What if they decide that eating at McDonalds is a health risk (please pay the extra tax for that Big Mac, Sir)? What if they say now that for the enviorment we must all drive electric cars (or pay a tax)? When is it ever going to end? Now that the door is open, healtcare is only the beginning.
Most of this crap won't affect the people on this board, just our children. I have a twenty-two year-old, and 2 twenty-year-olds, who are struggling just to survive in this lousy economy. They can't afford healthcare right now, fortunately they are all healthy. Now, on top of not being able to afford healthcare, they will have to pay a tax. They work too hard, and are too proud, to take government handouts. I find it almost beyond belief that anyone intelligent enough to graduate from our fine school cannot see the Titanic going down.
Most of this crap won't affect the people on this board, just our children. I have a twenty-two year-old, and 2 twenty-year-olds, who are struggling just to survive in this lousy economy. They can't afford healthcare right now, fortunately they are all healthy. Now, on top of not being able to afford healthcare, they will have to pay a tax. They work too hard, and are too proud, to take government handouts. I find it almost beyond belief that anyone intelligent enough to graduate from our fine school cannot see the Titanic going down.
Then tell the govt to stop bailing out banks, businesses and supporting bloated health insurance companies; oh and starting wars and send the corporate pigs who run these companies in the ground for their own profit, to jail. And I havent even started on foreign aid. And Rick, I have three in your age group, two grads.
Obama cares alright, he cares about everyone being dependent on a bloated central government. That is the best way he can control you. If your food, housing, education, health care, autos, energy come through the grace of the federal government, then you will be slaves to it. "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson.
Why was bailing out the banks so bad but bailing out the auto industry wasn't? Why are we destroying our oil and coal industries with regulation while throwing away billions of dollars on green companies like Solyndra?
If Obama is so great why is unemployment still at 8.2% and monthly jobs reports are in the tank. Why is a 16 trillion deficit a good thing? Why hasn't the Senate produced a budget in three years? Why couldn't Obama's budget get a single vote?
I heard a liberal commentator say the other day that, they(liberals) have done all the wrong things for all the right reasons. I couldn't agree more. I am a conservative and to say we don't care about the poor, sickly, children, or any of our fellow men is insulting. Many of us believe the best thing to do is not to add them to the welfare roles but find them a job so they don't need welfare. People need to depend on themselves and not a federal government. Government should be a backstop and not a way of life.
While you are blaming the rich for the collapse of the economy why don't you read up on the Community Redevelopment Act that forced banks, under threat, to lend to people without the means to pay it back. This was a democratic program championed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. This has as to do with the failure of our economy as any single reason.
Why was bailing out the banks so bad but bailing out the auto industry wasn't? Why are we destroying our oil and coal industries with regulation while throwing away billions of dollars on green companies like Solyndra?
If Obama is so great why is unemployment still at 8.2% and monthly jobs reports are in the tank. Why is a 16 trillion deficit a good thing? Why hasn't the Senate produced a budget in three years? Why couldn't Obama's budget get a single vote?
I heard a liberal commentator say the other day that, they(liberals) have done all the wrong things for all the right reasons. I couldn't agree more. I am a conservative and to say we don't care about the poor, sickly, children, or any of our fellow men is insulting. Many of us believe the best thing to do is not to add them to the welfare roles but find them a job so they don't need welfare. People need to depend on themselves and not a federal government. Government should be a backstop and not a way of life.
While you are blaming the rich for the collapse of the economy why don't you read up on the Community Redevelopment Act that forced banks, under threat, to lend to people without the means to pay it back. This was a democratic program championed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. This has as to do with the failure of our economy as any single reason.
I was closing transactions back in the mid part of the first decade for homes in the $400k-$500K range-no money down teaser interest rate and interest only for first year and maybe more. The first time I did one of these I looked across the table at the re agent and eyes rolled. So it wasnt just Acorn. Obama was left with bushies mess.
And I included businesses as wrong for bail-outs. I did omit, unintentionally, Wall Street.
I'm for less govt. Its these minions to self that keep getting re-elected.
And I included businesses as wrong for bail-outs. I did omit, unintentionally, Wall Street.
I'm for less govt. Its these minions to self that keep getting re-elected.
You can't just drop it on Bush.There were many players in this mess. It happened to explode under Bush. He didn't help matters by keeping interest rates lower than necessary but he didn't do it by himself. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton, and anyone else, republican or democrat who promoted housing as a right and forced the banks to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back. This housing bubble took years to create.
BINGO!! this mess goes back to carter, clinton and those dems who thought all should own homes, no matter if they were financially able. had friends in the banking industry who went to DC and were threatened that they would make loans or else. they got freddie and fannie to back and guarantee all of this trash, the banks packaged as much of it as they could and sold it. watched a hearing in DC where a finacial regulator tried to tell the committee that fannie and freddie was going, going, gone and the representatives, who probably don't know a nickel from a quarter, were telling him he did not know what he was talking about. bush tried to end the freddie and fannie fiasco but congress would have none of it. that is where this all started, not with the banks but with our elected officials. they think as long as they are doing something that sounds, feels good then it is OK, they have no clue at all what they are doing, it is very frightening where we are right now, there are so many fingers in the dyke and nobody is actually going after the root cause.
This post was edited on 7/6 8:19 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 7/6 8:19 PM by WebSpinner
Barney Frank, just days before Fannie and Freddie went under, was on the news telling everyone they were solvent and were in no trouble. He was serving on the committee that oversaw them. He was as big a player in the housing bubble as anyone. I am not a great fan of George Bush. He did many things I didn't agree with, but to try and hang the housing crisis on him alone is simply not fair. Spinner you are exactly right. This mess has roots that go all the way to the Carter administration. I just hate that no one had the guts to deal with it before it exploded. It is a shame our leaders can't come together and deal with the big issues in a reasonable manner. It is now all about getting the power and keeping the power and not about what is right for the citizens. I do believe that if we stay on our current path, what we saw in the 2008 crisis will be nothing to what is coming. There will be financial armageddon.
Let's put the whole 'the government can't force me to carry health insurance' part of this deal aside for a moment.
Let's see if you all can help me figure it out here:
They're going to force health insurance companies to provide health insurance to people they wouldn't
otherwise write>>> health insurance companies aren't going to be able to turn a profit (or as much of a profit) from underwriting margins>>>There will be consolidation of the industry where companies either leave the market or consolidate>>>>people will be left with less choice in carriers, plans, and care>>>>costs will continue to
rise because of fewer competitors, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and added costs to offset the cost of those who actually use their health insurance>>>more people will go to the government for their health
insurance>>>>taxes will rise.
What am I missing?
This post was edited on 7/7 10:39 AM by MolivaManiac
Let's see if you all can help me figure it out here:
They're going to force health insurance companies to provide health insurance to people they wouldn't
otherwise write>>> health insurance companies aren't going to be able to turn a profit (or as much of a profit) from underwriting margins>>>There will be consolidation of the industry where companies either leave the market or consolidate>>>>people will be left with less choice in carriers, plans, and care>>>>costs will continue to
rise because of fewer competitors, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and added costs to offset the cost of those who actually use their health insurance>>>more people will go to the government for their health
insurance>>>>taxes will rise.
What am I missing?
This post was edited on 7/7 10:39 AM by MolivaManiac
There are no death panels. Previous versions of the law allowed Medicare to reimburse physicians to voluntary discuss with patients about end-of-life planning. Those provisions were scrapped when people like Sarah Palin said this was the same as allowing the government to decide if patients lived or died. Try reading the law, or go to a source like the Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation for a synopsis. Honestly, I blame the current administration for not doing a better job selling the law. The amount of misinformation, speculation, and ignorance is regrettable considering this exists amongst the people who most benefit from the law.
http://healthreform.kff.org/
I want to say thank you to nynj for providing details of the contents of this controversial plan on which the rest of us had strong opinions and little real knowledge. I think that this speaks to an explanation(or at least a piece of the answer) as to why our country is in such peril today. No matter which side of the aisle we prefer, most of us choose to accept the prevelant party line of the party of our choice rather than doing any real research of our own on important topics. All of us should recognize that listening to the rhetoric of partizan publications and TV spokesmen is not real research. We are opinonated and vocale, but choose to accept the dogma of our favorite writers and commentators rather than reading the legislation, court decision, etc ourselves. And, what's more, we are the norm in that regard, not the exception. What an irony, that in a country that let's us have a voice in national and state matters, we rely on "preachers" (not talking religion here, the term refers to pundits who tell us what to think on all sorts of matters in our national interest). All of us are educated, intellectually capable folks who should be motivated by training and inclination to form our own opinion from our own research, but we choose to play follow the leader and our opinions are predictable repetetions of the coaching we have received from our chosen "authorities" rather than genuine insight. I would definitely include myself in this giant flock of parrots.
Yes, some good stuff at that link.
Back to the questions I posed above. See 'Guaranteed Issue' and 'Rate Restrictions' at the Kaiser link. Can someone explain to me how or why that will work? I'm willing to be convinced.
Also, where are we on tort reform?
Back to the questions I posed above. See 'Guaranteed Issue' and 'Rate Restrictions' at the Kaiser link. Can someone explain to me how or why that will work? I'm willing to be convinced.
Also, where are we on tort reform?
The basic premise of Medicare and Medicaid is to prevent 'Insurance Death Spiral' for carriers. Those are managed by the Federal government. How are they doing?
How is job creation in Massachusetts?
What other private industries does the Federal Government force to serve all potential customers?
How is job creation in Massachusetts?
What other private industries does the Federal Government force to serve all potential customers?
According to the non-partisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Mitt Romney's health care reform achieved nearly universal health care with modest additional costs to tax payers.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin." So maybe not all...but thats a lot of potential customers the government says you have to do business with.
"...place of public accomodation".
Come on, my company and yours don't have to do business with anybody we don't want to do business with. If I'm a jackass in the Apple Store and have no money, they don't have to sell me an iPad.
The only answer I could come up with to my question is the government forced the banks to loan money to basically everyone for mortgages, under the premise of racial equality in home ownership. How did that go?
What went wrong with Medicare and Medicaid? And OASDI? And USPS ... And Amtrak? And...
Come on, my company and yours don't have to do business with anybody we don't want to do business with. If I'm a jackass in the Apple Store and have no money, they don't have to sell me an iPad.
The only answer I could come up with to my question is the government forced the banks to loan money to basically everyone for mortgages, under the premise of racial equality in home ownership. How did that go?
What went wrong with Medicare and Medicaid? And OASDI? And USPS ... And Amtrak? And...
Similar threads
