Jeff Ream Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 On 12/29/2017 at 2:50 PM, N.E. Brigand said: As with too much legislation, I think that we will find in a few years that some of the arguments made in favor of this law will be seen to have been highly flawed or even outright lies. Maybe sooner than that. (One prominent southern senator who voted for the law said today that it's probably too friendly to corporations, who, he says, will use their tax cut savings to buy back stocks rather than to hire more workers or otherwise drive economic growth.) We will see. It might be instructive to compare this to some of the claims that have been made in the past for DCI rules changes at the Januals. How many of those have delivered as promised? well those lies hurt fewer Americans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 On 12/29/2017 at 1:47 PM, dcsnare93 said: As someone who works in health care, I find this rather sad. So now that young healthy individual decides not to keep their insurance, becomes ill and now possibly is left with massive medical debt. I see this _a lot_. What that uninsured person did not pay is absorbed by the federal government and states (i.e., taxpayers), the practitioners and hospital that served them, those who donate, etc. The burden is just being shifted elsewhere. As opposed to what? A system where insurers have to at least break even, and whatever costs the insured person does not pay are absorbed by the federal government and states (i.e. taxpayers), the practitioners and hospital that served them, those who donate, etc. The burden may only shift to different line items on the same ledgers. Quote This is already off-topic, and I won't argue about whether the mandate was good or bad, but an increase in uninsured individuals is not an improvement, and definitely not a step in the right direction of trying to contain health care costs. One could also make the case that insurance, like any middleman, adds a layer of expense to the entire system... or that it disengages consumers from direct bill paying, comparison shopping, negotiation, and all the other market forces that ordinarily keep prices from ballooning out of control. In any case, not expecting this aspect of the law to affect drum corps in any new way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.