----- Original Message -----
ΑΑΑΑ
From: Len Cranford
To: apopeeso@comcast.net ; pyrigenes ; Chris D.
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:00 AM
Subject: Get Healthy or Get Dead;
{With the Jew Establishment stealing everything they can; i.e.; Now, Obama Care, You can expect everything - your Insurance to be rolled into it. Then of course, no Geriatric treatments. So in effect, there will be nothing to help you retirees.}
[Denninger;]
I know I've said it before but this bears repeating.
Get healthy on your own to the best of your ability, or you will get dead.
There is zero interest among lawmakers to go after even the most-rank violations of law that are supposed to operate in the health field.
One example I have brought up many times before (and will continue to): Robinson-Patman.
That law says:
(a) Price; selection of customers
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered
It goes on, of course.
That is, it is lawful to provide a price break based on volume of purchase provided that the discount has a reasonable connection to the differential in cost related to said volume.
That is, if it costs 10% more to deliver one of a thing .vs. 10 of a thing, you can reasonably charge that extra 10% to the people who buy one of the thing as opposed to 10 of the thing.
But you can't charge 500% more when it costs you 5% or 10% more to deliver one instead of 10 -- or 100. And oh, by the way, you're delivering the drug or device to a person, not a billing company (e.g. insurance carrier.)
And that's just the low-hanging fruit. The Sherman and Clayton acts contain no specific statement of their provisions applying only to commodities -- they apply to services as well.
We pay 300, 400, 500% or more what the market price for various pharmaceuticals, supplies and services cost in other first-world economies when it comes to health care and all of it is due to the outrageous and willful blindness at both the state and the federal levels toward these pricing practices.
You're not going to get any sort of relief from state or federal government on this. You're simply not. I've been after this issue for close to a decade now and have gotten exactly nowhere at both state and federal levels, despite the fact that at the state level it is the low-hanging fruit that would resolve all of the state and local pension problems facing our governments!
The fact is that the lawmakers and law enforcers at the state level do not care if you are bankrupted nor do they care if the government itself is ultimately bankrupted by these retiree health care promises that cannot be kept so long as these practices are allowed to continue.
I can speculate as to the reason but it doesn't matter what the reason is -- whether it's simply that both state and federal governments know that the temporary reallocation of the ~20% of GDP siphoned off via these "providers" would provoke an instant (but brief!) economic depression or it's more-venal (e.g. campaign contributions and similar) in nature.
It doesn't matter to you if you're dead when the ability to fund it collapses, and it will.
Time is running out folks. If you can change your lifestyle to do something about you had better do so, because if you don't you're going to end up in a pine box when that which you count on become unavailable at any price you can afford.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Woods
No comments:
Post a Comment