Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

First They Came for Our Tax-Subsidized Sodas, then They Came for our Tax-Subsidized Snack Foods

—

by

James A. Bacon
in , , ,

Graphic credit: The Onion (Click for more legible image)

by James A. Bacon

I had occasion the other day to visit an inner city convenience store in Richmond while working on an article I hope to post to the blog shortly.  I am not exactly Mr. Health Food Guy — I won’t touch tofu, cauliflower or fish oil — but even I was appalled by the wares on display.

Entire shelves in this shoebox establishment were given over to beer, soda, candy, pork rinds, potato chips and sugar-drenched cereals. The healthiest (or should I say “least unhealthy”) foods were ordinary starches like rice and potatoes whose sole nutritional virtue is that they were not drenched in sugar, fat and salt. If there is any correlation between the percentage of shelf space stocked with junk food and the nutritional intake of neighborhood residents, there should be no mystery whatsoever why Richmond’s inner-city population is suffering an epidemic of obesity, diabetes and hypertension.

I totally subscribe to the doctrine that people should be held accountable for their behavior. We should not make excuses for poor people who blow their slender resources on cigarettes, lottery tickets, a six-pack of beer and a bag of Tom’s Bacon Cheddar Fries. But I also acknowledge that the story is much bigger than the irresponsible lifestyle choices of the poor. Rent-seeking corporations and a spineless federal government bear their share of the blame.

Yesterday, Coca-Cola held its annual meeting. If all went according to schedule, David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research, was planning to criticize the company for lobbying to keep soft drinks eligible for food stamps. Currently, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) forbids only the purchase of alcohol and tobacco. Through SNAP, American taxpayers subsidize the purchase of about $4 billion worth of soda products yearly.

My thinking on the subject coincides exactly with Almasi’s sentiments:

I’m all for freedom of choice and respecting peoples’ personal decisions, but Coke lobbying for its share of food stamp money is above and beyond altruism. While publicly promoting so-called ‘sustainability’ by hyping good nutrition and active lifestyles, Coca-Cola lobbyists are quietly seeking to ensure that American taxpayers subsidize the company’s high-calorie, sugary beverages. Both political parties carp about cutting the budget and fixing the deficit. How about stopping this virtual river of soda being paid for with our tax dollars?

I also agree with Justin Danhof, director of the National Center Free Enterprise Project:

In a free marketplace, folks should be able to purchase what they want. That is why Coca-Cola was right to fight New York City Mayor Michael Bloombeg’s efforts to ban large beverages, but wrong when it fought his efforts to limit SNAP funds to healthier items. SNAP does not operate in a free market. It is taken from folks’ paychecks. It is reasonable to limit how those benefits are administered and for what items.

Actually, I would go a step further. I would apply the same logic to snack foods as well. If hunger is still a problem in the inner city, as many say is the case, public funds should be limited to products that meet basic nutritional guidelines. Surely, this is an area where do-gooder liberals and skin-flint conservatives can join forces to create better public policy and improve the health of the poor.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

29 responses to “First They Came for Our Tax-Subsidized Sodas, then They Came for our Tax-Subsidized Snack Foods”

  1. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    So, Jim Bacon is trying to get into the Nanny Hall of Fame along with Mary Poppins and Michael Bloomberg.

    Like most Nannies Bacon dispenses homespun logic along the lines of “a stitch in time saves nine”.

    In Bacon’s case, it’s the evil Coca-Cola Company that attracts his ire.

    A 12 oz can of Coke has about 150 KCal, 0 fat, 42 g of sugar. Not healthy but not a catastrophe.

    Compare that to a Stouffer’s Chicken Pot Pie – 1,180 KCal, 68g of fat and 1,860 mg of sodium.

    You could drink a six pack of Coke and be better off than eating one of those pot pies.

    Does Jim propose that Stouffer’s Chicken pot pies be on the banned list too?

    That’s the trouble with Nannies. They pick random things to make a point.

    Nanny Bloomberg doesn’t want you buying large sodas. However, a taco salad is just fine:

    http://eatthis.menshealth.com/slide/worst-salad?slideshow=77193#sharetagsfocus

    1,600 KCal and 116g of fat – that’s hard to do in any meal, let alone a salad.

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Nanny Bloomberg doesn’t want you to drink large Cokes. However, this monster is OK:

    1,750 KCal and 118g of fat – in a cup!

    http://eatthis.menshealth.com/slide/worst-drink?slideshow=77193#sharetagsfocus

  3. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    When I’m spending my own money, or you’re spending your own money, the government should butt out. When the government has made it a national mission to feed the hungry and spends tens of billions of dollars to do so, it is the public’s business how people spend the money. When food stamp recipients proceed to get diabetes, hypertension and the government has decreed that their maladies shall be covered by Medicaid, it is also the taxpayers’ business.

    In an ideal world, we would abolish all the federal food programs, which turn poor people into dependent wards of the state. Unfortunately, we have so sapped their self reliance that it is exceedingly difficult — especially during a time of high unemployment — for our society to go back. Cut funding, and children and old people will starve. It’s a political non-starter. This is where liberalism has brought us.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      I can’t tell whether you want to ban frivolous food or unhealthy food. A diet Coke is frivolous but relatively healthy. Should that be banned? 70 / 30 ground beef isn’t frivolous but it is unhealthy. Where does it end?

      Personally, I think those receiving unemployment benefits should undergo regular drug testing. As an IT contractor I often had to get drug tested before I could be on a contract. Lots of jobs demand pre-employment drug testing. People receiving unemployment benefits are supposed to be looking for work. Why should tax money be spent on a person who isn’t serious enough about finding a job to put down the joint? Morally, I don’t care whether they use drugs or not. I just want them “off the dole”.

      As for your personal unwillingness to eat tofu – tisk, tisk. The next time you are in NoVa – go to Busara’s in Tysons or Reston. Order the tofu ka pao – extra spicy. Best Asian dish I have even eaten (and I have traveled a lot in Asia). That stuff will set you free.

  4. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    geeze – would Jim Bacon get rid of all food programs that feed kids because they make kids dependent wards of the state?

    that’s where a LOT of the food goes or is intended to go – to children whose parents cannot afford to feed them.

    would Jim Bacon get rid of the free or reduced lunch program in the schools?

    how about it Jim? would you?

  5. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    C’mon, Larry, read what I wrote — “in an ideal world.” It’s not an ideal world. We’ve created a class of people who are totally dependent upon federal assistance. Yank away that assistance and you’d create a humanitarian disaster. It’s hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

  6. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    yup.. I do not disagree but the way this works – is …. to help “the kids”.

    Much of MedicAid and SNAP are predicated on helping kids. In Virginia, in fact, MedicAid is not available to able-bodied adults except moms with kids. In schools. free and reduced lunches – as well as breakfast for “kids” whose parents cannot provide for their needs.

    I’m not sure how we get out of this.

  7. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Your government at work – no Obamacare for Congressmen and their aides?

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html

    Gee, Larry – I wonder why some people want a smaller government.

  8. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    this does not make any sense. The Federal employees, which includes Congress – already get access to their own ‘exchanges’ – it’s called the FEHB.

    http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/

    The article does nothing to explain the background – that right now they, and all Federal employees AND retirees can get their health care from these existing exchanges.

    Ask TMT – DJ. the ObamaCare exchanges are for people who DON’T already have access to health insurance – not people who do have access.

    so please explain that this article is talking about…

    and what the heck does that have to do with this blog topic in the first place?

    do you actually know what you are talking about here DJ?

    how about explaining how people who already have access to the FEHB will be “exempt” from Health Care exchanges?

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      I think I tracked it down. Normally, employers with more than 100 employees are exempt from the exchanges. However, as Obamacare was being passed, Sen. Grassley added a provision that mandates Congressmen and their staff must participate in the exchanges. This created two problems:

      1. A separate law dictates what the government may pay for employee health insurance. There is some debate as to whether this law allows the government to cover the normal 72 – 75% of the premiums under the exchanges. Most people believe that the government will be allowed to cover the same percentage of health care costs under the exchanges as in the past.

      2. The second problem stems from the exchanges themselves. Since Obamacare defines a community rating for the exchanges healthy young people end up paying more in an exchange than they paid prior to Obamacare. Congressional staffers are almost universally young and poorly paid. These young people will see their rates rise sharply just by being in an exchange.

      Here’s an example with entirely fictitious numbers ….

      Congressional staffer Wally Wannabe is 26 years old, healthy and makes $25,000 per year.

      Wally’s health care premium is currently $1,000 per year.

      The government pays $750 per year and Wally pays $250.

      Once in the community rated exchange, Wally Wannabe will pay roughly the average of everybody in the exchange. Let’s say that’s $3,000 per year.

      The government will pay $2,250 and Wally will pay $750.

      Wally’s insurance cost goes up $500 per year.

      Congressmen believe that the increase in health care costs (whatever the actual number is) will be sufficient to send many of the well educated but underpaid aides to the exits (and better paying jobs in the private sector without exchanges).

      So, Congress is trying to reverse the Grassley provision.

      Of course, a healthy 26 year old working in Peoria for a 50 person company will find themselves in exactly the same situation as Wally Wannabe. Needless to say, their employer will not be able to legislate away the 9″ of slime covering everything and anything to do with Obamacare.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        DJ – you got to work off of facts guy. most all Federal employees are able to choose from about a dozen health insurance plans, many of which offer 2 or 3 levels ranging from minimal to Cadillac and the price varies accordingly.

        You will find that all but the most expensive FEHB plans are not as generous as many private sector employer-provided plans including many of the military contractors to the govt.

        you will also find that every Federal employee has access to every plan no matter their pre-existing conditions and they pay the same without each community rated tier – nationally AND most of the plans are portable across the states.

        What Grassley was doing was a political stunt ….and you can bet Grassley himself DOES get Medicare …. himself.

        The ObamaCare health insurance exchanges are, in fact, modeled after the FEHB model.

        If an employee could get from the health care exchanges the same deal from the Obama Health exchanges in terms of non-deniability, community rating rates and portability – he’d not need to worry about what the private employer offered. In fact, he’d be job mobile and could be free to take a better job anytime he wanted rather than being chained to a job he does not because of the health insurance.

        The ObamaCare Exchanges are going to be a BOON to people who cannot get insurance or want to change jobs but rule out jobs without health insurance benefits.

        despite the steady drumbeat of demonisation, ObamaCare is going to gain a LOT of employee supporters.

        Much of the anti-ObamaCare rhetoric is coming from companies who can essentially hold their employees hostage to their health insurance and ObamaCare is going to change that and make it easy for someone to go get a better job and THAT’s what’s behind the “anti” rhetoric.

        Businesses do not want employees to be free to change jobs when they want to because then they’d have to compete on things other than health insurance.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          You are a paragon of irrelevance. What “most federal employees” do is irrelevant to Congressmen and their staff who are specifically covered by the amendment from Chuck Grassley. Congressmen and their staffs are in the exchanges and they don’t like it one bit. In fact, they are so distraught over having to live with the exchange part of Obamacare they are willing to risk immense political backlash to get out of that provision.

          Chuck Grassley’s provision was pure genius since it forces Congress to deal with the mess it created. We are now seeing how Congress does this – by running away.

          The exchanges do not only affect people without insurance. They affect millions and millions of people working for small businesses.

          http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/04/smallbusiness/obamacare-exchanges/index.html

          The sooner Obamacare is implemented the sooner the Republicans will be back in power.

          1. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: a paragon of irrelevance – spoken by a guy who lives in an area that is largely composed of Federal employees and retirees!

            if ObamaCare provides people who work for small businesses – the opportunity to get insurance, independent of their employer, you’re going to find that that is going to be very, very popular with people who will no longer worry about what the employer offers or not.

            those folks will then be free to find the job that best suits their needs without being shackled to the one that provides “benefits”.

            For years, Federal employees have had this freedom – to move to whatever agency they wanted to or even take a job across the country – and still keep their insurance.

            The naysayers are basically not interested in how ObamaCare might benefit individual Americans but you can bet that individuals will use every available option that ObamaCare makes available to them – no matter what employers believe.

            the fact of the matter is – that if employees of even large companies that do provide employer-provided health insurance – could take the money instead and shop for their own best insurance – that employers would then be forced to focus on compensating employees and provide other benefits besides health insurance.

            Grassely is a hypocrite since he is likely collecting Medicare which he would likely not be able to buy if he had to shop on the open market for health insurance.

            here’s Grassely on govt-subsidized Medicare Advantage which Obama wants cut:

            ” Grassley is concerned that the elimination of the Medicare Advantage subsidy would encourage private plans to pull-out of rural areas and lead his Iowan constituents to lose their benefits. ”

            pretty hypocritical if you ask me DJ.

  9. Neil Haner Avatar
    Neil Haner

    Even without food stamps, sodas are already tax subsidized.

    What (other than water) is the #1 ingredient in Coke, Pepsi, and most of their brethren, giving it its sweetness? High Fructose Corn Syrup.

    Corn, of course, is underwritten by $77 Billion in Federal subsidies.

    1. Neil Haner Avatar
      Neil Haner

      That should be $7 Billion annually, not $77, my apologies, which is a rough average over the last 15-20 years or so.

      http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

  10. salz Avatar
    salz

    Everyone might want to read, “Nudge” by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.

    We must begin realizing that behavior isn’t simply behavior. Consumer products companies do everything possible to get buyers for their products and, in the process, they effectively create behavior. Isn’t it time that “we, the people” — through some organization, be it government (a la Bloomberg) or The National Cancer Society — cajole people towards smarter behavior? Smarter behavior meaning behavior which benefits individuals and society, rather than injures individuals and society?

    It injures society if taxpayers are paying for diabetes care for people who drink/eat too much sugar. Sugar-dispensing companies shouldn’t expect we taxpayers to pick up the tab created by their products and others’ inability to “Just say no!” But that is the system we have now.

    the taxpayer can’t “beware” as in the famous dictum, “Let the buyer beware” because we don’t have a choice in whether we pay taxes and we’re not the buyer. Just the payer.

  11. salz Avatar
    salz

    Another good read in this field is “American Mania” by Dr. Peter Whybrow.

  12. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    sorry – the world of food has ALWAYS had uber-fat, uber-bad-stuff long before now and it’s always been about you as an individual taking personal responsibility for how you choose to maintain your body.

    I would also say that even ObamaCare will penalize you if you are a smoker.

    So.. my question is, if we accept the penalties that insurance companies place on people who smoke (or get a lot of traffic tickets), then why is it wrong to do the same for weight?

    Obesity in the US is epidemic.. and it has real economic damage as we all pay for cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, and a host of other illnesses tied to obesity.

    why not make BMI part of the insurance rating?

  13. maureen_aba Avatar
    maureen_aba

    Limiting SNAP purchases would mean a costly expansion of government bureaucracy. Identifying, evaluating, and tracking the nutritional profile of more than 300,000 food items in the constantly changing market is an enormous undertaking for the government and is prone to arbitrary exemptions based on political agendas and outside lobbying. Also, as the example given by DJRippert in his comment demonstrates, no clear standards exist for the federal government to define foods as good or bad, healthy or not healthy: http://1.usa.gov/10nwnbr.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Maureen, The document you link to makes a persuasive case that it would be difficult to administer any program that attempts to restrict SNAP purchases on the basis of dietary guidelines. Given the zillions of food products out there, and the continual introduction of new products, it would be a Herculean task. Lots of arbitrary lines would be drawn — we’ll cover this but not that — and food producers would be continually lobbying, litigating and gaming the system. OK, I’ll backtrack on the idea that sugary sodas should be off limits for food stamp purchases.

      But I tell you, walk into any inner-city convenience store and look at what the customers purchase. It’s a dietary disaster zone. Even as obesity is epidemic, some poor people still go hungry. Something is very, very wrong, and something needs to change.

      1. reed fawell III Avatar
        reed fawell III

        I agree. As you describe it it seems like a huge health problem fed by public monies so there’s public obligation to fix it.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Set up special SNAP stores that only sell healthy food and then offer 10% extra to anybody who shops in those stores? Presumably, the lowered health care costs would be worth the extra 10%.

      You’d have to assume that there is a sufficient concentration of SNAP recipients to keep a SNAP store busy.

  14. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    here’s a “study” I’d like to see – the percent of obesity in SNAP recipients and reduced/free lunch kids!

    😉

  15. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    “re: a paragon of irrelevance – spoken by a guy who lives in an area that is largely composed of Federal employees and retirees!”.

    The irrelevance was trying to explain away the specific case of Congressmen and their staff (covered by the Grassley Amendment) by referring to the federal government as a whole (not covered by the Grassley amendment).

    “if ObamaCare provides people who work for small businesses – the opportunity to get insurance, independent of their employer, you’re going to find that that is going to be very, very popular with people who will no longer worry about what the employer offers or not.

    those folks will then be free to find the job that best suits their needs without being shackled to the one that provides “benefits”.”.

    Why is this confined to small businesses? Why doesn’t the exact same logic hold for large businesses? Also, if this is such a good idea, why are Congressional leaders trying to backpedal away from this “very popular” concept when it’s applied to themselves and their staff?

    Your arguments remain confused. Here is a summary of your logic:

    1. Exchanges are great ideas and will be very popular with employees put into the exchanges.

    2. Grassley is a hypocrite for insisting that Congressmen and their staffs are put into an exchange. You would think he’d be a hero given point 1.

    3. Congressmen from both parties are scrambling to get themselves and their staff out of the Grassley-mandated exchanges because ….. ???

    A young and healthy employee has no reason whatsoever to want to be in an exchange. Since young and healthy employees rarely need health insurance (except in cases of catastrophic illness) they often select plans with very high deductibles. The community rating aspect of these exchanges effectively squelches the cheap, “catastrophic only” insurance plans favored by the young and healthy.

    So, the less affluent and debt soaked young and healthy Congressional staffers (like young and healthy people at all small businesses) will be forced to subsidize their older (and generally wealthier) colleagues.

    It’s backwards day in Obamaville.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: ” The irrelevance was trying to explain away the specific case of Congressmen and their staff (covered by the Grassley Amendment) by referring to the federal government as a whole (not covered by the Grassley amendment).”

      the insurance that covers Congressman is the same exact insurance that covers a GS5 office clerk. What conceivable sense does it make to say Congress should be forced to use ObamaCare any more than you’d say they should be forced to use MediAid or SNAP?

      it’s just a stunt and it’s a hypocritical one when Grasseley himself advocates for subsidized health care for others but not ObamaCare for others. So he “represents” the “needs” of some of his folks in Iowa while working against the interests of others – with the same needs.

      re: “if ObamaCare provides people who work for small businesses – the opportunity to get insurance, independent of their employer, you’re going to find that that is going to be very, very popular with people who will no longer worry about what the employer offers or not.

      those folks will then be free to find the job that best suits their needs without being shackled to the one that provides “benefits”.”.

      Why is this confined to small businesses? Why doesn’t the exact same logic hold for large businesses? Also, if this is such a good idea, why are Congressional leaders trying to backpedal away from this “very popular” concept when it’s applied to themselves and their staff? ”

      because ObamaCare was intended to help those that cannot get insurance and if a large employer provides it then less need . Would Grassely support taking away FEHB and Medicare from Congressman as a “punishment” for trying to provide insurance to people who currently do not have access to it?

      what kind of sense does that make DJ?

      Your arguments remain confused. Here is a summary of your logic:

      1. Exchanges are great ideas and will be very popular with employees put into the exchanges.

      2. Grassley is a hypocrite for insisting that Congressmen and their staffs are put into an exchange. You would think he’d be a hero given point 1.

      3. Congressmen from both parties are scrambling to get themselves and their staff out of the Grassley-mandated exchanges because ….. ???

      A young and healthy employee has no reason whatsoever to want to be in an exchange. Since young and healthy employees rarely need health insurance (except in cases of catastrophic illness) they often select plans with very high deductibles. The community rating aspect of these exchanges effectively squelches the cheap, “catastrophic only” insurance plans favored by the young and healthy.

      So, the less affluent and debt soaked young and healthy Congressional staffers (like young and healthy people at all small businesses) will be forced to subsidize their older (and generally wealthier) colleagues.

      It’s backwards day in Obamaville.

      here’s the reality:

      1. – access to health care for those who currently do not have it
      2. – Grassely is a hypocrite for fighting to give health care to Seniors but denying
      it to younger folks
      3. – a healthy young person who does not get insurance shows up at the hospital to get care when he gets hurt/sick – and you and I have to pick up the tab
      4. – If Congressional staffers are Federal employees, they have access to FEHB. If not they’d have access to health care exchanges that they not have access to otherwise.

      the only thing that is “confused” here is your opposition to something that will help a great many people that while it may not be the same as FEHB is still a significant improvement over what many folks have none of – without it.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        “What conceivable sense does it make to say Congress should be forced to use ObamaCare any more than you’d say they should be forced to use MediAid or SNAP?”.

        Because that’s the law that was passed.

        Next, why can’y you understand this?

        “By 2014, two kinds of health exchanges are scheduled to be up and running: One for individuals and one for small businesses.

        Under the Small Business Health Options Program, business owners would choose a level of coverage, and their workers could pick among competing plans that qualify.

        Under a new proposal from federal regulators, each business owner would still have their pick of insurance from several providers. But businesses would be limited to choosing a single plan to cover all their employees. An expansion of more options would not come until at least 2015.”.

        A single plan. No choice. Because Odumbo is incompetent.

        Now, let’s all follow the bouncing ball …

        “That includes business owners like Zachary Davis, who owns two ice cream shops and a cafe in Santa Cruz, Calif. He currently provides health insurance to his 20 full-time workers, a diverse group that ranges from college students to seniors.

        Davis chose to offer his employees three different types of plans to better suit their needs.

        The young ones are fresh out of college and loaded with student debt. They prefer to pay lower monthly premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs, because they’re healthy and rarely see a doctor.

        His older workers visit doctors more frequently and opt for higher premiums and lower deductibles.

        Davis said limiting each business to a single plan would be a deal breaker, keeping him out of Obamacare exchanges.

        “That would not be a good fit for us. Having options is very important,” Davis said. “For a business like ours — and a lot of businesses I deal with on a regular basis — I can’t see that making sense.”

        Small employers like to provide workers with a range of health care options because it makes them more competitive with large corporations.”.”.

        Being an apologist for governmental incompetence, I assume you’ll claim that all will be well when the federal government finally gets its act together and allows small business exchanges to offer multiple plans.

        Until then?

        Let them eat cake.

        1. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          re: ” “What conceivable sense does it make to say Congress should be forced to use ObamaCare any more than you’d say they should be forced to use MediAid or SNAP?”.

          Because that’s the law that was passed.

          does every law that Congress pass – apply to Congress? why are some done selectively and others not?

          Next, why can’y you understand this?

          because it’s a stunt pure and simple.. it has nothing what-so-ever to do with the issue other than some idiot Senator trying to get attention.

          re: “By 2014, two kinds of health exchanges are scheduled to be up and running: One for individuals and one for small businesses.

          Under the Small Business Health Options Program, business owners would choose a level of coverage, and their workers could pick among competing plans that qualify.

          Under a new proposal from federal regulators, each business owner would still have their pick of insurance from several providers. But businesses would be limited to choosing a single plan to cover all their employees. An expansion of more options would not come until at least 2015.”.

          A single plan. No choice. Because Odumbo is incompetent.”

          did you read the part about MORE OPTIONS guy? why are you so hyper-critical of a brand new law that is going to be changed as time goes by as most all laws are – over time?

          “Now, let’s all follow the bouncing ball …

          “That includes business owners like Zachary Davis, who owns two ice cream shops and a cafe in Santa Cruz, Calif. He currently provides health insurance to his 20 full-time workers, a diverse group that ranges from college students to seniors.

          Davis chose to offer his employees three different types of plans to better suit their needs.

          The young ones are fresh out of college and loaded with student debt. They prefer to pay lower monthly premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs, because they’re healthy and rarely see a doctor.

          His older workers visit doctors more frequently and opt for higher premiums and lower deductibles.

          Davis said limiting each business to a single plan would be a deal breaker, keeping him out of Obamacare exchanges.”

          until 2015? are you looking for perfection from the get go guy? why?

          Small employers like to provide workers with a range of health care options because it makes them more competitive with large corporations.”.”.

          some don’t offer any at all.. and the health care exchanges are VOLUNTARY for small business under 50 anyhow.

          if you don’t like the exchanges or they don’t suit your needs, you are free to do something else.

          “Being an apologist for governmental incompetence, I assume you’ll claim that all will be well when the federal government finally gets its act together and allows small business exchanges to offer multiple plans.”

          there is no more or less incompetence than there is with Medicare or MedicAid or any of the 30 other countries that offer some level of universal health care for their citizens.

          nothing is perfect especially at the beginning.

          why are you bound and determined to condemn something that is new and no matter how you cut it – a vast improvement for many people – if not all people ?

          why?

          do you use that same standard for the rest of govt ? oh.. and Dominion Power also.. and who else?

  16. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    every single industrialized country – ON THE PLANET – INCLUDING places like Singapore have health care for everyone – paid for by individual mandate taxes and ALL of them spend 1/2 what we do for health care – live longer and have less infant deaths.

    and our response to this is what? to continue to fight against a system that is competitive with other countries …

    now how DUMB is that? we have this really confused idea that somehow this is “America” and we are a capitalistic country that can provide health care thorough the free market that is “better” than ‘socialism” and what is the result? We’re last in the world of industrialized countries.

    And what would we do instead of ObamaCare ? Answer: nothing. just wait for the free market to work.

  17. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    If the folks who oppose ObamaCare had a BETTER IDEA – there would at least be some kind of reasonable discussion as to pluses and minuses and selecting better options to go forward.

    but the anti-ObamaCare folks have nothing.

    no ideas. no solutions. just opposition.

    In Congress the other day, Cantor tried to do something to help people with pre-existing conditions and guess what happened? He had to pull the legislation.

    there were no amendments, no better alternatives proposed. nothing.

    just opposition to the proposal.

    in other words, just continue with the US being dead last in industrialized countries in the cost of health care, life expectancy, and infant deaths.

    this is the anti-ObamaCare folks … about all you can say about them is that
    they know what they don’t like – but they have nothing else to say … they are devoid of ideas and leadership to deal with the issue.

Leave a Reply

Read More