[34f3f3f]

OMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.

Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.

[34f3f3f]

OMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.

Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.

[34f3f3f]

OMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.

Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.

[34f3f3f]

OMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.

Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.

[34f3f3f]

OMG! Who’s going to listen to a judge who is a libertarian and named after a pizza.

Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so. It already is a right in the US, if you are poor, or old and can’t afford it. Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. So the question then becomes should that right be extended to more, or everyone. But first you need to determine whether you mean a legal right, or a moral duty? In my view, a moral duty is a better fit and is less complicated, as it implies as a society, we all have a duty to care for each other, and ultimately it doesn’t matter whether a private insurer is the treasurer, or the government treasury. What does matter is cost, and what has been very apparent is that when you compare cost management around the world, the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them. There is no argument here. The tax argument is also completely redundant. If you substitute health insurance premiums for tax, it comes out the same, or even worse if you uses today’s high premiums. To vote against this bill would be irresponsible, and be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As with all these important bills, the missing ingredient is always education.

[34f3f3f]

Brezhnev and Reagan decided to sort out their differences by a 100 meter race (that’s 109.36133 yards for the Imperialists). Regan won by a whisker, but Pravda reported Brezhnev came second, and Reagan came in second to last.

[34f3f3f]

Brezhnev and Reagan decided to sort out their differences by a 100 meter race (that’s 109.36133 yards for the Imperialists). Regan won by a whisker, but Pravda reported Brezhnev came second, and Reagan came in second to last.

[34f3f3f]

Brezhnev and Reagan decided to sort out their differences by a 100 meter race (that’s 109.36133 yards for the Imperialists). Regan won by a whisker, but Pravda reported Brezhnev came second, and Reagan came in second to last.

[34f3f3f]

Brezhnev and Reagan decided to sort out their differences by a 100 meter race (that’s 109.36133 yards for the Imperialists). Regan won by a whisker, but Pravda reported Brezhnev came second, and Reagan came in second to last.

[34f3f3f]

Brezhnev and Reagan decided to sort out their differences by a 100 meter race (that’s 109.36133 yards for the Imperialists). Regan won by a whisker, but Pravda reported Brezhnev came second, and Reagan came in second to last.

[34f3f3f]

I actually prefer the smaller 3-4 unit properties, and fewer tenants paying higher rents. It just seems to me the more renters you need to collect from, the greater the probability of problems occurring. To be honest I haven’t seen that many 5 units for sale, but was curious just from the point of view of CRE declines I keep hearing about. Anyway, I’ll certainly follow up Marchus and Millichap.

[34f3f3f]

I actually prefer the smaller 3-4 unit properties, and fewer tenants paying higher rents. It just seems to me the more renters you need to collect from, the greater the probability of problems occurring. To be honest I haven’t seen that many 5 units for sale, but was curious just from the point of view of CRE declines I keep hearing about. Anyway, I’ll certainly follow up Marchus and Millichap.

[34f3f3f]

I actually prefer the smaller 3-4 unit properties, and fewer tenants paying higher rents. It just seems to me the more renters you need to collect from, the greater the probability of problems occurring. To be honest I haven’t seen that many 5 units for sale, but was curious just from the point of view of CRE declines I keep hearing about. Anyway, I’ll certainly follow up Marchus and Millichap.

[34f3f3f]

I actually prefer the smaller 3-4 unit properties, and fewer tenants paying higher rents. It just seems to me the more renters you need to collect from, the greater the probability of problems occurring. To be honest I haven’t seen that many 5 units for sale, but was curious just from the point of view of CRE declines I keep hearing about. Anyway, I’ll certainly follow up Marchus and Millichap.

[34f3f3f]

I actually prefer the smaller 3-4 unit properties, and fewer tenants paying higher rents. It just seems to me the more renters you need to collect from, the greater the probability of problems occurring. To be honest I haven’t seen that many 5 units for sale, but was curious just from the point of view of CRE declines I keep hearing about. Anyway, I’ll certainly follow up Marchus and Millichap.

[Author]

Posts