Chief Justice Roberts gave Obama what he wanted, but he also gave him something else.
Conservatives are pissed at Chief Justice Roberts for not striking down Obamacare or at the very least the individual mandate. At first I have to admit I was ticked off at Chief Justice Roberts for actually calming that the mandate is a tax, and that congress does have the power under the constitution to administer tax policy. As I listened to conservatives all day rip into Justice Roberts, an interesting thought came to mind. Did Chief Justice Roberts actually give conservatives a gift that they aren't even seeing? You all know I tend to think outside the box. Obama said when he was a candidate for President that he wouldn't raise taxes on people who make UNDER $250,000 a year. The Obama healthcare tax will hit those in the middle class and even the poor who can't afford healthcare. Forget the progressive spew about "tax cuts for the rich". Obama has now given tax hikes to the poor. and middle class. Just another huge lie from the pathological liar at 1600.
How exactly are the tens of millions of people who don't even have jobs going to be able to pay the mandated federal tax for not having health insurance? Obama and his fans were celebrating openly yesterday but behind doors, they know they have a problem. If Obamacare was struck down in it's entirety yesterday, the Obama would only really have to focus on trying to deal with Romney on the main issue of the economy, however, now Obama has to defend Obamacare and the mandatory tax to the American people. The election has now become about whether people want Obamacare or not. The more people find out about what is in Obamacare, the more people don't like it. Most polls show Americans do not want it. Since Obamacare's passing in 2009, Democrats in congress have stayed far away from promoting their victory and defending it against their critics. Obama can no more defend Obamacare to the American people as being a good thing as he can't defend his economic record to the American people with a straight face. Romney will have no problem now I believe solidifying conservatives behind him. The downing of Obamacare has come too much of an issue to ignore. Romney has raised $4.3 million dollars since the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. Obama in all his arrogance believes that the debate is over, because the court ruled Obamacare constitutional. It's far from over. The people simply do not want it, and they will vote accordingly in November. I'm not going to get get on Chief Justice Robert for his ruling. He gave Obama what he wanted, but he also gave Romney and the GOP what they wanted, another huge weapon in which to go after Obama on and that he can't defend against.
How exactly are the tens of millions of people who don't even have jobs going to be able to pay the mandated federal tax for not having health insurance? Obama and his fans were celebrating openly yesterday but behind doors, they know they have a problem. If Obamacare was struck down in it's entirety yesterday, the Obama would only really have to focus on trying to deal with Romney on the main issue of the economy, however, now Obama has to defend Obamacare and the mandatory tax to the American people. The election has now become about whether people want Obamacare or not. The more people find out about what is in Obamacare, the more people don't like it. Most polls show Americans do not want it. Since Obamacare's passing in 2009, Democrats in congress have stayed far away from promoting their victory and defending it against their critics. Obama can no more defend Obamacare to the American people as being a good thing as he can't defend his economic record to the American people with a straight face. Romney will have no problem now I believe solidifying conservatives behind him. The downing of Obamacare has come too much of an issue to ignore. Romney has raised $4.3 million dollars since the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. Obama in all his arrogance believes that the debate is over, because the court ruled Obamacare constitutional. It's far from over. The people simply do not want it, and they will vote accordingly in November. I'm not going to get get on Chief Justice Robert for his ruling. He gave Obama what he wanted, but he also gave Romney and the GOP what they wanted, another huge weapon in which to go after Obama on and that he can't defend against.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 12:10 PM
13 Comments:
The best option was, still is and should have been "Single Payer" (eg. Medicaid style), which I believe will eventually happen.
CB;"The Obama healthcare tax will hit those in the middle class and even the poor who can't afford healthcare".
The middle-class and the poor will be "hit?" Hit by what? Hit with a health plan they can afford? I guess all conservatives have to do is tell their followers they're going to be "hit" by health care to scare the bejesus out of them. Those who refuse (or are just to stupid) to look into the Affordable Health Care Act for themselves will believe whatever they're told. For most right-wing voters it really doesn't matter, because they hate the president anyway. If they're told that President Obama mandates that they wear shoe's, they'd chew off their own feet.
CB;"Obama would only really have to focus on trying to deal with Romney on the main issue of the economy, however, now Obama has to defend Obamacare".
LOL! As usual Tyrone, your hacking from the right-wing perspective has clouded your judgement. Answer the question;
What state had the first universal health care plan, including a mandate and a governor who stated that his plan was best for the entire country? And, who was the governor of that state?
First off, don't you think that the Obama campaign has prepared for any attacks on the health care bill coming from a candidate who installed the same legislation in his state? Secondly, in a face to face debate, how can Romney defend the "success" of his plan in Massachusetts, and at the same time ridicule legislation modeled after his same plan? The man can only flip-flop so much before it gets totally ridiculous.
If (and only if) Romney wins in November, I guarantee you he will not "repeal nor replace" the AHCA. Those who vote for him simply on that campaign rhetoric would have better chances voting for a third party candidate. After yesterdays Supreme Court decision, the AHCA is here to stay.
Mr. Allen,
You seem to often take the role of devil's advocate in your responses on this blog. You have brought up valid points in some of your discussions. I am disappointed when you devalue that by namecalling, taking potshots and making assumptions("they just hate the president anyways/they'd chew off their own feet"...).
With that in mind I'm willing to try and open a conversation and see how open minded and willing to debate actual facts you are. It is disappointing when people respond with "you're not going to change my mind". Really? None of us can ever learn new things and have our opinions evolve? I am neither Rep. or Dem. and have actually read huge amounts of the AHCA. I have many friends and family who work in healthcare and insurance and have had many discussions from all angles of this issue.
You are absolutely right regarding your point of Mass./Romney/and universal healthcare. I actually lived and worked in that state for a time. But if you are trying to use that as a point in favor of Obama and AHCA, better look elsewhere. It is failing miserably and should be a great road map of how it did not address the core issues we face with healthcare in this country. Premiums have gone up, costs did not go down and healthcare has declined in that state.
I would be the first to tell you we desperately need healthcare reform, but this bill was rushed into without regard to the consequences of many of the mandates and will not be this great 'healthcare for all program' that many envision. It did not address major issues that are part of our system's woes. I do not think that is trying to scare the bejesus out of people. One example: there was no tort reform. In fact this administration has gone after states that tried to instill tort reform by threatening to withhold funding if they imposed limits on medical lawsuits.
Healthcare is a finite commodity and I assume you understand supply and demand. You cannot possibly believe the country is going to have millions more people demanding their 'free' healthcare and cost is going to go down. I sincerely hope you do not believe 'heathcare is a right'.
You cannot believe that you are going to get quality healthcare when faceless bureaucrats are going to be deciding healthcare policy. Name one, just one, program that became more efficient and more cost effective when the govt got involved. If you read the bill, there are pages and pages of bureaucracy that will be added to our healthcare system. Again, that will lower costs how?
I am disappointed in people "who are just too stupid" (your words)to see past the carrot being dangled to realize it is a big bad wolf holding the other end of the stick. AHCA has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with more revenue and control by the govt. Many are celebrating the SCOTUS decision without realizing more erosions of our liberties and ever expanding encroachment of our govt into our lives. Yes, Congress has the authority to tax and that has, until now, always been levied on an action that a person has to take. We are now being taxed on an "inaction". (You can't deny that Obama stood before the country declaring "that this is not a tax") That should be setting off alarms all over the place.
Sorry for the length of this post. This is just such a multi-faceted issue that is not easily addressed in a few sentences. There is no perfect solution. It might have been nice if our politicians had actually taken some time and approached this with some basic common sense and a few basic principles that people on both sides of the political divide can agree on.
Michelle
Michelle;"I am disappointed when you devalue that by namecalling, taking potshots and making assumptions("they just hate the president anyways/they'd chew off their own feet"...)".
In all honestly, my intent when using metaphors and exaggeration hyperbole, is not to insult you or anyone else. My intent is to merely make a point, which is a clear point based on facts and observation. Michelle, I am a man of 50'ish years of age. I became politically aware and active by the time I turned 18. Over those years I have never seen such antagonism, malignity and spitefulness leveled at a president from the elected officials from the opposite party. Elected officials calling into to question whether the President of the United States is actually a citizen, a Socialist, Marxist, Muslim or a racist.
An elected official shouting "you lie" during the State of the Union, or pointing their finger in the face of the president. Never mind the "citizens" questionable signs of protest during Tea Party rallies. The people have the right to free speech. My angst is with the politicians and political pundits who "fuel" the hatred... that's right hatred! I could go one, but hopefully you get my drift...
Michelle;"But if you are trying to use that as a point in favor of Obama and AHCA, better look elsewhere. It is failing miserably and should be a great road map of how it did not address the core issues we face with healthcare in this country".
Well Michelle, that all depends on who you ask. If you ask Forbes Magazine they seem to believe it's a "success." I'm sure you can find a (right-wing opinion) publication that would tout the total opposite.
And no, I'm not using "Romney Care" as a point of favor. In this particular instance my reference to "Romney Care" pertains to the politicizing of health care in general. Allow me to give you example of how the politicians have played us all on the issue of health care.
I have heard from those on the right and the left that the American health care system is broken. You also added that you "would be the first to say we desperately need healthcare reform." However, when the conversation turns to providing health care for everyone (particularly the poor) suddenly the U.S. has the best and most advanced health care system in the world! In there lies the dichotomy...
You claim we desperately need healthcare reform, yet the U.S. is (now "was") the only country in the industrialized world that did not have Universal Health Care (UHC). Yet many on the right claim that UHC is "socialist and government takeover at it's worst." So the rest of the world got it wrong...yet so do we? Unless you're going to "barter" for yours, or your child's next heart operation, how would you expect it to be paid for?
There are only two ways you can have health care. One, you pay, or two, someone else pays (eg. the government or your boss). SO HOW DO YOU REFORM HEALTH CARE UNLESS YOUR PLAN IS TO DO IT LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD????
Michelle;"I sincerely hope you do not believe 'heathcare is a right'".
I "sincerely" hate to disappoint you... Health Care should by all means be- a "right." You, like every other human being, has a "right" to be healthy. Look at it this way...
You don't have the "right" to have a work a job. You don't have the "right" to drive a car, fly a plane, purchase or rent a roof to have over your head, or food for your belly, that you can't afford to pay for. I'm a firm believer that they are "personal responsibilities."
However... having a doctor tell you that you need to take medication for your blood pressure or risk a stroke, is not like your boss telling you'll be fired if you're late for work. Having the bank that holds your mortgage tell you they're foreclosing in 6 months, is not like a doctor telling you you've got 6 months to live. Having a doctor tell you your child needs a life saving operation is not like a teacher telling you your child failed his algebra test.
The simple fact is that your "health" is the most important part of your mere existence. You can be born into total poverty and become filthy rich, thus, as long as you continue to do what made you rich, your "poverty" problem is completely cured. But if you're born with a total health defect, you're a patient as long as you live. Let me ask you this. Do you really believe that a person born with health problems into abject poverty has no "right" to health care?
I do not want the government involved in my healthcare. Progressives have no problem shouting about how they want the government involved when it comes to the issue of abortion, yet these people surprise surprise are the main advocates of the government being involved with health care in general. I so can't stand hypocrites. They talk about a woman's "right to chose" when it comes to abortion, but with a single pay healthcare system, where is the "right to chose for the individual" when it comes to their healthcare? The nation can't even afford Obamacare.
p allen "Let me ask you this. Do you really believe that a person born with health problems into abject poverty has no "right" to health care?"
Show me where hospitals have the right to deny a person healthcare, if the person can't afford it allen. Go ahead and show me it. That is such a lie. There is a difference between not being treated for health needs and not being able to afford that treatment. Hospitals do work with people who do not have the financial means to pay for the treatment provided.
p allen "I "sincerely" hate to disappoint you... Health Care should by all means be- a "right." You, like every other human being, has a "right" to be healthy. Look at it this way... "
No allen, I hate to disappoint you, but Healthcare isn't a right. It's a privilege. Show me in the constitution where it says that the citizens have a right to healthcare. Just point it out to me. Hell, show me in any of the 50 state constitutions where it says that healthcare is a right.
Michelle "You are absolutely right regarding your point of Mass./Romney/and universal healthcare. I actually lived and worked in that state for a time. But if you are trying to use that as a point in favor of Obama and AHCA, better look elsewhere. It is failing miserably and should be a great road map of how it did not address the core issues we face with healthcare in this country. Premiums have gone up, costs did not go down and healthcare has declined in that state."
Allen as usual is grasping at straws, so you have to exucse him Michelle. If the progressive strategy is to say "well Romney did the same thing as governor in Massachusetts", they are going to fail. 1. Romney was a Republican Governor working in a state that was controlled by Democrats both in the house of delegates and the state senate. He even admitted that the health care bill that he signed was far from perfect, but it was the best he could get considering that the state was democratically controlled. 2. He made the key point of noting that the healthcare law that he signed was designed specially for the state of Massachusetts. Citizens of Mass could vote to repeal it or they could move to a different state. It was a state right's issue. Obamacare is a national issue in which citizens can't escape it no matter what state they move to.
Michelle "I am disappointed in people "who are just too stupid" (your words)to see past the carrot being dangled to realize it is a big bad wolf holding the other end of the stick. AHCA has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with more revenue and control by the govt."
When a person who supports Obamacare is asked specifically how the cost of healthcare is going to go down under this law, they can't give an answer. They support the "concept" that some how the government can lower the price of healthcare. It's a pipe dream. You are right Michelle, socialized medicine is nothing more then a government power grab disguised under the pretext of helping the masses. In Great Britain, people pay through the nose in petro taxes to fund their government run health care system. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and idiots in our country just don't get it.
CB;"The nation can't even afford Obamacare".
A nation that can afford to spend hundreds of billions on an unnecessary war (Iraq), foreign nation building, arming and aiding countries hostile to us, surely can afford "lil' ole Obamacare."
CB;"When a person who supports Obamacare is asked specifically how the cost of healthcare is going to go down under this law, they can't give an answer".
My answer would be "yes", because more people will be paying into a system of exchanges. These exchanges will have a pool of companies who will compete for the business. In an efficient capitalistic realm, competition drives prices down. Is it a "perfect system? I would say "no" it's not nearly perfect, but it's a start. There's your answer... anymore questions?
CB;"Show me where hospitals have the right to deny a person healthcare, if the person can't afford it allen".
They cant, and HERE'S why. The EMTAL was signed into law by Reagan. But of course you were unaware of it, and you'll deny it ever happened.
CB;"Show me in the constitution where it says that the citizens have a right to healthcare. Just point it out to me. Hell, show me in any of the 50 state constitutions where it says that healthcare is a right".
Typical right wing brush off. Many right-wing followers like yourself claim that they are avid constitutionalists. Yet you know only what you're told in a never ending stream of talking-points.
Under the 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, it's been determined that "rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution should not be assumed not to exist."
DY the way, as asked a simple question a few days ago. Do you really believe that a person born into abject poverty, with health problems has no "right" to health care?. A simple yes or no is all it requires...
Good evening, gentlemen. Thank you for the mostly civil tone of the discussion.
I agree with you the outburst during the speech was disrespectful. I don't completely agree about the level of spitefulness being 'new'. I'd say that this President has brought much of this on himself. Not really wanting to open another can of worms (yet), but why has the President spent millions to hide all of his records? I do not know anyone in his age group who cannot provide unquestionable documentation of their status. The left wouldn't be all over a candidate on the right hiding his records? Look at the people he has surrounded himself with throughout his life. I think some of the questioning of his beliefs/values is fair game. That is to be expected when you have no record/background to show otherwise.
Back to the conversation at hand. "That all depends on who you ask" I would not ask Forbes Magazine or any other media that has an agenda driven article. I would look at actual numbers from MA. Also, talk to those working on the front lines of healthcare. Costs have not gone down, premiums have not gone down. Try walking into medical offices and not seeing a sign that says "we are no longer accepting 'gov't healthplan patients'. The wait to see those who do can be very long. As Alpha pointed out, it was also a state right's issue.
There are many of your points to discuss. Let's start with two of them. First: "There are 2 ways to have care - you pay or someone else pays". Why should someone else pay? That is a huge part of the problem, people have no concept of what healthcare actually costs. Growing up, we didn't use insurance for routine medical needs. You had insurance for catastophic situations. When it's coming out of your own pocket, you tend to not abuse it and have a stake in your own healthcare. I don't want to do it like the rest of the world, Europe's healthcare systems are massively hemmorrhaging money and look at survivability rates among major diseases. I'd prefer my chances here.
I'm also tired of all the people who 'can't afford healthcare', but have all the latest electronics, I-phones, sports tickets, fancy vacations, nice cars,etc. In fact, there have been several reports showing that many of the uninsured actually have access to insurance, but choose not to partake. We all have to make choices in life.
Here's a perfect example: An upper-middle-class local family decided to quit their jobs and start their own business. Multiple kids in multiple activites, Range Rover, Mercedes,half-million dollar home, all the trappings of the good life, etc. But now that income was going to be limited they had to make some choices. What did they forgo? Health insurance. 1 year later and the wife is diagnosed with breast cancer. While that is a terrible thing to happen and I pray for her recovery, they made a decision to gamble and they lost. There were many other things they could have given up or changed in their lifestyle but didn't and I should now subsidize her care? I'm paying for my insurance, who's going to subsidize the things I'm doing without? Where is their responsibility? And as Alpha said, hospitals cannot deny healthcare. If that were so Mr. Allen, there would be a lot more people dying on the Southside of Chicago every single day.
See, you can go round and round talking about who is going to pay for healthcare but that isn't addressing the real issues. The fact is: the majority of healthcare issues are lifestyle- related. Until we start dealing with those issues and making people accountable for their own health and choices not much is going to change.
The second point: "Healthcare is a right". Then I believe you do not understand the meaning of "rights". If I have a right to something, that means I take and someone else has to just give it to me. So doctors who spend thousands of dollars and many years in training/education just have to fork over their services? They have no right to earn a living, provide for their family and choose who and how they want to care? People can just demand to be seen and treated with nothing in return? That is what a right means. I don't care if you're filthy rich or filthy poor -I nor anyone else, have a 'right to be healthy". We all have different rows to hoe, for some people it is health issues. My family has that in spades so I know whereof I speak.
You chose to avoid answering my questions. 1)There was no tort reform. This administration totally backed their legal pals and costs will never go down without any tort reform. 2)Supply and Demand. You've increased demand and probably lowered supply (at best it stays the same) - costs only go up in that situation. 3)Quality of healthcare when it is being decided by faceless bureaucrats. Not to mention the rationing that will have to occur. The layers of bureaucracy embedded in the bill will, again, only increase costs. 4)It's not a tax/it is a tax flipflop.
As Alpha said at the end "There's no free lunch" Who is going to pay for all of this? Secondly, do you think it's okay that Washington is decreeing a healthcare plan/tax on all of us that they don't have to be a part of? If this is such a great plan why don't they have to be in it too? Just another example of "do as we say and not as we do"
Michelle
Mr. Allen: "More people will be paying into a system of exchanges". If they're not paying into their company's plan now, what makes you think they'll pay into the exchanges? All these people who don't have money for insurance are suddenly going to start paying for the gov't plan? Why not just open insurance regulations so they can compete as you stated (i.e. sell across state lines)? Uncouple it from employment and let it be like buying auto insurance.
There's an example for you. My 20 year old neighbor has multiple accidents and tickets, do you want to pay the same premium as a reckless driver? I had a hard time stifling myself when pro-'Obamacare' people said yes, we should all have the same insurance (but at least they were willing to have a civil discussion). I also don't want to pay the same healthcare premium as my alcoholic uncle. Or my diabetic uncle who keeps complaing about his doctor won't do anything for him, yet he (my uncle) has not followed any of the doctor's orders (exercise, diet change,etc)
I answered your question. Look at what you said you believed were personal responsibilities (shelter/food). I believe healthcare falls in that same area. Yes, we cannot control what we are born with healthwise, but as the saying goes, "Life isn't fair". You do the best you can with the hand that you are dealt. My own family has your example. Poverty level and a child born at 22 weeks. They don't believe they have a 'right' to anything. There have been services provided for them and friends, family, community who do what they can to help. Frankly, all the insurance in the world wouldn't have changed the outcome or way things are going. In fact under Obamacare, they probably wouldn't have the freedom to make some of the medical choices that they have made. We need to get gov't out of welfare, charity etc and let it go back to private sector, community and yes, faith-based groups. It is more effective and cost efficient. People get'targeted' help where/when they need it and it doesn't become a way of life, but again, that's another can of worms. It just leads back to my question:
Name one program that became more effective/cost efficient when the gov't got involved. Michelle
Michelle;"So doctors who spend thousands of dollars and many years in training/education just have to fork over their services? ".
The US Bill of Rights (VI Amendment) set forth a criminals "right to counsel." Lawyers, who've spent thousands of dollars and many years in training/education, are in turn paid by whom? That's right, your tax dollars...
In 2007 (which I'm sure is much higher today) $74 billion of you tax dollars was spent on jails. $50 billion was spent on prosecuting and defending all those criminals. It seems a bit odd that you would support criminals having "rights" to your tax dollars, but sick people should not?
Michelle;"You chose to avoid answering my questions. 1)There was no tort reform".
Let me ask you this Michelle, and please be honest. What would "tort reform" do for you? The question is, how does it help you personally, not what it does for corporate or business interests.
If you believe that "tort reform" can lower the overall cost of health care and health insurance, there are several states that have passed tort reform, so you should be able to prove it.
Michelle;"Supply and Demand. You've increased demand and probably lowered supply (at best it stays the same) - costs only go up in that situation".
Who knows how the law will effect S&D, until the law totally takes effect. If it does have negative effects, okay you can say you were right. If it doesn't, then I can say you were wrong. An try explaining how S&D effects the oil markets. I think you'll find that you cant....
Michelle;"Quality of healthcare when it is being decided by faceless bureaucrats. Not to mention the rationing that will have to occur".
Will be? Will occur? If the government makes health care available for all, there will be "rationing?" The government mandate says that everyone must "buy" (taxed) health insurance. So effectively you're saying that if every American "buys" health insurance, health services will be rationed. So you don't want every American to have access to health insurance, doctors and hospitals because you believe rationing will occur. That's a rather selfish position, but at least now I'm clear on where you stand.
Michelle;"I'm also tired of all the people who 'can't afford healthcare', but have all the latest electronics, I-phones, sports tickets, fancy vacations, nice cars,etc.".
You mean all those products that allows people to have jobs designing, building, transporting, selling and offering services for? Should the people who have "nice cars and the latest electronics" forgo those items to pay health insurance premiums? You say you're "tired of these people", as if all people who do not have health insurance are doing it. There are roughly 45 million Americans who do not have health insurance. There's no way all of them have I-phones, fancy cars and the latest electronics. But for the sake of your argument, let's say "half" of them (22 million) do. Alright, let's take the sale of 22 million cars, I-phones, television sets, computers, sports tickets, etc., out of the U.S. economy each year, and give it to the insurance companies. That takes care of at least half of the problem...right?
But wait a minute... what happens to those people who were designing, building, selling or servicing those 22 million cars, I-phones, television sets, computers and sports tickets?? About 22 million I-Phones were sold in the United States last year. Oh well, that effectively closes any U.S. based Apple services, business and tech offices and jobs. A little over 5 million new passenger cars were sold in the U.S. last year. 22 million less cars, electronics and other consumer goods sold? Now they're unemployed and can't afford health insurance!
Michelle;"If they're not paying into their company's plan now, what makes you think they'll pay into the exchanges?.
Because the idea is that premiums will be "lowered." Example: You need transportation to get to work, school, personal business or play, right? If you can travel in a lap of luxury at the same (or lower) price as traveling on a smelly donkey, which would you choose? If people can have access to something as critical as health care at a fraction of the cost we have now, you better believe they are going to take advantage of it.
In your scenario of the "upper-middle-class local family that decided to quit their jobs and start their own business", did you ever consider "why" they decided to forgo their health insurance? I'd be willing to bet that their insurance premiums was one of, if not the "highest" expense in their budget. Had that not been the case I'm almost sure they would have not given up their health insurance.
Michelle;"I answered your question.".
I asked this question;
Do you really believe that a person born into abject poverty, with health problems has no "right" to health care?. A simple yes or no is all it requires..
Show me where you answered it...
Michelle;"Name one program that became more effective/cost efficient when the gov't got involved".
There's more than one area of "cost effectiveness" to consider. Have you ever rode a "city or state" owned bus? If you ride it lets say 20 miles 5 days a week, is it cost effective for you, versus driving you car, taking a private taxi or limo? Ever rode an Amtrak train? Try this and tell me which is more cost effective. Call Fed Ex or UPS and see how much they charge to send a letter across country. Then, go buy a "government" postage stamp, and see which one is "cost effective."
When done properly, government recycling programs have proven to be very cost effective. I remember when I was a kid, the Twins Pines milk man would bring glass bottles of milk to the house twice a week. My mother would ask us not to play with or break the bottle because the company would charge more if the bottles weren't returned. Even then, they knew it was cheaper to clean and re-use the milk bottles rather than disposing of them in a land fill, or just giving them away.
Post a Comment
<< Home