Dear Tenants: Your rent for the next least term....

[ArmedProgrammer]

Speaking as a landlord and small-business owner...

1) If the market will support a higher rent, you should be charging it, Obamacare or not.

2) If the market will not support a higher rent, then you have to decide if being a landlord is the best use of your assets. If you have a better way to deploy your assets, you should do so, Obamacare or not.

3) Obamacare represents a first step in an attempt to bring some correction to the cost shifting that has been occurring in health care for years by adding some individual responsibility into the equation. I thought we were supposed to be in favor of personal responsibility - after all, the idea originally came from the Heritage Foundation (a well-known bastion of liberalism).

I too am a landlord and small business owner. I agree with #1 and #2. Although sometimes it takes a tax or other cost increase to adjust what the "market will bear". Also - if I have good tenants - I will weigh that into the equation as well. Sometimes it's the right business decision to not upset the apple cart. There's a lot of value in a low drama tenant.

#3, however, I respectfully disagree all to heck with. It represents the first step in a government takeover of the healthcare system. It was totally written by special interests, and in no way gets us closer to personal responsibility. How the hell does MANDATING that I have to buy your COMMUNIST coverage promote personal responsibility, comrade? I call iguana

Edit - CarmelHP - looks like we're thinking alike.

 

[TheRude1]

One of many new taxs to come I'm affraid !

 

[IndyDave1776]

I too am a landlord and small business owner. I agree with #1 and #2. Although sometimes it takes a tax or other cost increase to adjust what the "market will bear". Also - if I have good tenants - I will weigh that into the equation as well. Sometimes it's the right business decision to not upset the apple cart. There's a lot of value in a low drama tenant.

#3, however, I respectfully disagree all to heck with. It represents the first step in a government takeover of the healthcare system. It was totally written by special interests, and in no way gets us closer to personal responsibility. How the hell does MANDATING that I have to buy your COMMUNIST coverage promote personal responsibility, comrade? I call iguana

Edit - CarmelHP - looks like we're thinking alike.

I would have to generally disagree with this. The basic factors which determine what the traffic will bear include predominantly what people are willing to pay and what they are able to pay. In the event of the ceiling being set by what they are willing to pay, then your statement will hold true. The problem sets in when the ceiling is set by what they are able to pay. If they don't have the money, they damn well don't have the money. Nothing is going to change that. It is much like Marie Antoinette's famous remark, "Let the eat cake." The twit simply didn't understand the concept of not being able to afford food or the (additional) rancor induced by suggesting that if they can't afford basic food, then they can but luxury food.

Right now, the basically responsible but not independently wealthy citizen is being squeezed by a number of convergent factors including but not limited to:

1. Inflation deliberately caused by the Fed.
2. Inflation cause by free-flowing credit often to those not readily able to repay artificially boosting demand relative to supply, hence causing prices to expand far more rapidly than income.
3. Punitive taxation which favors the irresponsible over the responsible.
4. Taxation which represents larceny by the .gov on behalf of the irresponsible.
5. Regulation which makes domestic jobs creation extremely difficult.
6. Trade agreements (often encouraged by point 5) which benefit a few while opening the door to the massive export of jobs, often without even a significant benefit in form of tariffs to ease the competitive gap and replace tax funds that we still have to pay in spite of being less well off.

After all of this, I would argue that it is not a matter of what the traffic will bear so much as what the traffic can bear--and it doesn't appear to be a pretty picture.

 

[88GT]

Speaking as a landlord and small-business owner...

1) If the market will support a higher rent, you should be charging it, Obamacare or not.

2) If the market will not support a higher rent, then you have to decide if being a landlord is the best use of your assets. If you have a better way to deploy your assets, you should do so, Obamacare or not.

Well, thank you Donald Trump.

3) Obamacare represents a first step in an attempt to bring some correction to the cost shifting that has been occurring in health care for years by adding some individual responsibility into the equation. I thought we were supposed to be in favor of personal responsibility - after all, the idea originally came from the Heritage Foundation (a well-known bastion of liberalism).

Where did you find that steaming pile of ? If Obamacare were correcting the cost shifting it wouldn't be taking MORE money from the producers and giving it to the moochers.

You evil, greedy, 1%er!



I double-dog dare you.

Hellz yes I am

 

[92LX]

Speaking as a landlord and small-business owner...

1) If the market will support a higher rent, you should be charging it, Obamacare or not.

2) If the market will not support a higher rent, then you have to decide if being a landlord is the best use of your assets. If you have a better way to deploy your assets, you should do so, Obamacare or not.

3) Obamacare represents a first step in an attempt to bring some correction to the cost shifting that has been occurring in health care for years by adding some individual responsibility into the equation. I thought we were supposed to be in favor of personal responsibility - after all, the idea originally came from the Heritage Foundation (a well-known bastion of liberalism).

Uhm Yeah..... I am pretty sure she has a good handle on 1 and 2. I think this is more about educating the useful idiots (in communist terms) than anything else. #3........Just uhm yeah....we'll see if your still saying that in a few years. Government run and personal responsibility....Yeah I can think of all kinds of examples of that.....Oh wait I can't

 

[LP1]

I too am a landlord and small business owner. I agree with #1 and #2. Although sometimes it takes a tax or other cost increase to adjust what the "market will bear". Also - if I have good tenants - I will weigh that into the equation as well. Sometimes it's the right business decision to not upset the apple cart. There's a lot of value in a low drama tenant.

#3, however, I respectfully disagree all to heck with. It represents the first step in a government takeover of the healthcare system. It was totally written by special interests, and in no way gets us closer to personal responsibility. How the hell does MANDATING that I have to buy your COMMUNIST coverage promote personal responsibility, comrade? I call iguana

Edit - CarmelHP - looks like we're thinking alike.

Gotta resort to name calling, eh? That's a sure sign that you got nuthin'.

It's obvious that we ALL will use the health care system at some point, so we ALL need to pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for the irresponsible via cost shifting. The only other alternative is to start denying health care and allowing people to rot if they lack coverage or the ability to pay. My compassion for fellow human beings, and moral and spiritual beliefs prevent me from accepting that as an alternative in our society.

 

[88GT]

Gotta resort to name calling, eh? That's a sure sign that you got nuthin'.

It's obvious that we ALL will use the health care system at some point, so we ALL need to pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for the irresponsible via cost shifting. The only other alternative is to start denying health care and allowing people to rot if they lack coverage or the ability to pay. My compassion for fellow human beings, and moral and spiritual beliefs prevent me from accepting that as an alternative in our society.

Then YOU get out your damn checkbook and pay for it yourself.

Oh, and there was no name calling. was pretty much what your post was.

 

[Lex Concord]

Some figure they can vote themselves money from the "public" treasury... they have yet to recognize that those funds only come via the confiscation of property from others..

Unfortunately, I think they not only realize it, but think it is quite the wonderful setup.

Until we end all welfare from the treasuries (corporate or individual, at all levels - this includes public schools, medicare, medicaid, SS, Part D, Obamacare) we will never be free....

 

[Lex Concord]

Speaking as a landlord and small-business owner...

3) Obamacare represents a first step in an attempt to bring some correction to the cost shifting that has been occurring in health care for years by adding some individual responsibility into the equation. I thought we were supposed to be in favor of personal responsibility - after all, the idea originally came from the Heritage Foundation (a well-known bastion of liberalism).

Funny, for a landlord and small business owner, part three makes it seem like you wouldn't recognize the concept of a market force if it bit you on the ass.

Many, if not most, of the problems in healthcare and insurance today are the result of government intervention in the markets.

Government has not the power to correct or create, but only to disfigure and destroy; its only tool is force.

I think part of the issue is that you seem to be firmly locked in the false left-right paradigm; if Washington himself had suggested it, it would still be a pile of .

 

[Lex Concord]

My compassion for fellow human beings, and moral and spiritual beliefs prevent me from accepting that as an alternative in our society.

I'd be curious to know what brand of moral and spiritual beliefs you claim. I'm unfamiliar with the ones by which it is acceptable to steal by threat of lethal force (all government mandates carry such an inherent threat) from one in order to show compassion to another.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Gotta resort to name calling, eh? That's a sure sign that you got nuthin'.

It's obvious that we ALL will use the health care system at some point, so we ALL need to pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for the irresponsible via cost shifting. The only other alternative is to start denying health care and allowing people to rot if they lack coverage or the ability to pay. My compassion for fellow human beings, and moral and spiritual beliefs prevent me from accepting that as an alternative in our society.

I called it a Communist plan BECAUSE IT IS. And yes, I used the term comrade for you in jest because you appear to support it. Can you please show me why these terms are not correctly applied?

As you say, we will all need to use the health care system at some point.

Tell you what, let's illustrate the absurd nature of your argument. Heck, we will all need to eat at some point, too! And my morals won't let me see ANY child go hungry - in spite of the dumbass decisions of their parents.

So I'm going to force EVERYONE to immediately pay a TAX of $20,000 per year, except those who make less than $40,000 per year. If they don't pay up I'll throw them in Jail . After all MY moral code won't allow it! Pretty soon you'd get pissed, right? After all, why should MY moral code be inflicted on YOU?

That is the same argument you are making. It was, and it is, pure iguana . Period. And I'm known around here for trying to be civil. That does not change the fact that your argument is in error.

Would I willingly give to help those who are needy, or have gotten ill? Heck yes! There is a difference between willing donation and forcible confiscation! I will willingly donate lots of stuff to help folks. But I'll be damned if I'll sit idly by while it's forcibly taken from me.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

1. If you own rental property, what you charge is your business with the caveat that the response you receive is contingent on that decision. Scold about what a given property owner should do is irrelevant.

2. It is unethical and unacceptable to place a higher burden on housing which often is at the point where there is a very limited margin between the level of profitability and the rate the traffic will bear. Landowners bought their property for their own betterment, not that of nanny.gov or people who are turning to .gov-sponsored larceny for their solutions. I would understand your remark to indicate that you do not have a problem with the .gov converting a profitable business into a money-losing business with the suggestion that if you can't make money, then get out. I find this a very strange idea coming from anyone who would normally be expected to support personal freedom.

3. ObamaCare doesn't correct anything, nor does it foster personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is either providing for yourself or doing without, not having money forcibly taken to provide for you and others according to the preferences of nanny.gov. State-sponsored larceny is never a correction for anything. As for a correction, the right answer (if .gov intervention is indeed an answer) would be to impose regulations similar to those used on the railroads in the late 1800s, specifically requiring advertised rates and prohibiting discounts or rebates such that everyone was guaranteed the same price. This would eliminate the disparity in price between those with insurance and those who pay their own way and seemingly get soaked as opposed to the sweet rates the insurance providers get. Further, I wouldn't consider the Heritage Foundation's ideas to be holy writ much in the same way I do not credit any preacher or institution with owning the patent on God.

Correction? By institutionalizing it? By making it de jure? What idiotic blather. How about this correction? Make everyone pay for their own damn insurance or they don't get coverage. That would sort out priorities and ensure personal responsibility pretty damn quick.

Based on my personal experience with an emergency room visit and no health insurance, SOMEBODY is getting ripped off, but I'm not certain who. All I know was when I told them I had no insurance, my bill was reduced by roughly 50%. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Based on my personal experience with an emergency room visit and no health insurance, SOMEBODY is getting ripped off, but I'm not certain who. All I know was when I told them I had no insurance, my bill was reduced by roughly 50%. Draw your own conclusions.

I am happy to hear that you fared that well. If we are to follow the problem back to its source, I would say that insurance itself is the problem and not the solution, which in turn has been exacerbated by regulation. Prior to the advent of insurance (as explained to my by grandpa) people didn't head to the doctor's office every time they or any of their children sneezed. It would appear that insurance (i.e., insulation from individual responsibility) has created an artificial demand which in turn has created an artificial spike in cost, which in turn has created a perceived necessity for EVERYONE to be insured such that they can 'afford' health care. The costs were further pushed upward by lack of attention on the parts of the insurance providers to what they were actually being charged back in the good old days when the margins were so good they really didn't much care, which of course is no longer the case. Once again, Adam Smith's invisible hand is being smacked by hammers in the hands of several different actors who shouldn't even be in the room. I failed to specify that my previous though on the most acceptable (or perhaps least unacceptable) regulation was predicated on the notion that returning to simple free-market economics (i.e., the doctor fixes me and I pay him) is at best a pipe dream.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I am happy to hear that you fared that well. If we are to follow the problem back to its source, I would say that insurance itself is the problem and not the solution, which in turn has been exacerbated by regulation. Prior to the advent of insurance (as explained to my by grandpa) people didn't head to the doctor's office every time they or any of their children sneezed. It would appear that insurance (i.e., insulation from individual responsibility) has created an artificial demand which in turn has created an artificial spike in cost, which in turn has created a perceived necessity for EVERYONE to be insured such that they can 'afford' health care. The costs were further pushed upward by lack of attention on the parts of the insurance providers to what they were actually being charged back in the good old days when the margins were so good they really didn't much care, which of course is no longer the case. Once again, Adam Smith's invisible hand is being smacked by hammers in the hands of several different actors who shouldn't even be in the room. I failed to specify that my previous though on the most acceptable (or perhaps least unacceptable) regulation was predicated on the notion that returning to simple free-market economics (i.e., the doctor fixes me and I pay him) is at best a pipe dream.

Your grandpa is correct. As our insurance has gotten less and less efficacious and as its expense has risen, we don't go to the doctor. In fact, based on my experience, seeing a doctor if you're not at death's door may be hazardous to your health and long-term well-being. Between lawyers and frivolous malpractice trial awards and drug companies searching for profits, we are probably the most over-medicated, over-tested society in the world.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Gotta resort to name calling, eh? That's a sure sign that you got nuthin'.

It's obvious that we ALL will use the health care system at some point, so we ALL need to pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for the irresponsible via cost shifting. The only other alternative is to start denying health care and allowing people to rot if they lack coverage or the ability to pay. My compassion for fellow human beings, and moral and spiritual beliefs prevent me from accepting that as an alternative in our society.

Not giving coverage to those who dont have insurance or a way to pay for it is the only way to truly fix the insurance system. Otherwise it is going to be the same old Robin Hood routine. I think you will find people are more generous when they freely give than when robbed.

I have little sympathy for those who take, take, take, yet expect more. Life is not fair, no one said it was going to be. Used to be people worked harder to get ahead. Not as much anymore.

 

[Thatguythere]

Insurance is not the problem. Lack of will,discipline and education is the problem. I deal with too many people routinely using the ER for there personal physician. They com in for stupid stuff, like cough for a day or knee pain for 20 yrs. This is not an emergency. Yet the charge must be applied or it fraud. This is then written off as a loss.
These people claim they can't afford insurance or medicine. However, when asked how much they smoke, they will answer 1.5 packs a day. How much do you drink- 6 pack of beer a day. All this while yanking and texting on their blackberry or IPhone.
The poor in america are not poor. Third world countries would love to be poor in america! Hence the problem with illegal immigration.
Stepping off my soap box now........next....

 

[Lex Concord]

Not giving coverage to those who dont have insurance or a way to pay for it is the only way to truly fix the insurance system. Otherwise it is going to be the same old Robin Hood routine. I think you will find people are more generous when they freely give than when robbed.

I have little sympathy for those who take, take, take, yet expect more. Life is not fair, no one said it was going to be. Used to be people worked harder to get ahead. Not as much anymore.

I take no issue with your statement except the "Robin Hood" reference. The original legend (as appropriately relayed by Disney and others) had Robin retrieving money from the tyrant lords (the rich) and returning it to the people, those made poor by the official theft.

A modern day Robin Hood would be busting into Fort Knox and redistributing gold to taxpayers.

 

[level.eleven]

Correction? By institutionalizing it? By making it de jure? What idiotic blather. How about this correction? Make everyone pay for their own damn insurance or they don't get coverage. That would sort out priorities and ensure personal responsibility pretty damn quick.

The "let'em die" mantra works well in hazy dorm rooms. Not so much in real life. Try again.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The "let'em die" mantra works well in hazy dorm rooms. Not so much in real life. Try again.

You do realize that ACA has the seeds already in place to be the arbiters of who gets what type of medical treatment, don't you? The "Death Panels" notion was scoffed at in the media, but they are there in waiting. "Too old for that heart transplant"; "no point in a joint replacement at your age, take a pain pill and get used to getting old" (the latter a paraphrase from ODL when asked about ACA).

The ACA also has been making provisions for stopping life before it gets decanted.

When the government decides who gets health care and who doesn't (and don't think those with more "resources" won't get preference for reduced healthcare resources) people will die waiting for care that they could get today without question at a hospital or clinic.

At that point, it makes little difference whether a patient pays for ever-decreasingly available healthcare services or whether he doesn't pay; there won't be as much available and it won't be what we're used to today. If you think I'm wrong, check with your friends in Great Britain (BTW, I have a good friend who's British and we've talked about their system since he almost died waiting for health services).

 

[CarmelHP]

The "let'em die" mantra works well in hazy dorm rooms. Not so much in real life. Try again.

Let 'em pay = Let 'em die only in the overly fevered imaginations of the Obamapologists and other assorted redistributionists.