You may think at first that this guy has lost his mind, but bear with me. Remember that addage given us by El Rushbo, Rush Limbaugh. He said his strategy is to illustrate absurdity by being absurd; proving the invalidity of political policies by taking them to extremes. Be patient with me and yourselves and think this all of the way through before you reply.
Beginning next year, on or about January 1st, our economy is going to get hit by the greates burden it has had to bear since WWII. That burden is, of course, ObamaCare. Those of us who are working, and those of us who make enough for the Left to consider us rich, are going to have to pay for the health insurance for all of the poor, pitiful, helpless non-contributors of our society.
Forget for a while, all of the arguments against it. Unless the Congress suddenly gets a spine, those arguments are moot. Even if we win the debate, Congress, in its current configuration is not going to change a thing.
We need two things:
One thing that we need is a corporate strategy to insulate the producers, the businesses, the investors, and the job creators from the great shockwave that is about to hit them. How do we do that? Well, I'm no economist, but I think that I can devise ways to use the very tools of the Left against them.
Businesses such as Papa John's Pizza, Staples, Sam's Club can close ranks with other businesses and give better prices through special memberships to those that demonstrate need. Such need can be shown by filling out application forms that include information on changes in their budget for health insurance.
High-income individuals such as doctors and lawyers can legitimately charge more for their services. When the inevitable losses from Medicare's habit of not paying the "going rate" for services, simply write them off as bad debt, and pay no corporate income taxes at all.
The second thing that we need is a strategy for initiating a little turnabout. Remember, "turnabout is fairplay"!
Businesses can at least make the attempt to charge more for their services for people who make less money, if only to prove a point. Some may actually find ways to do this. The poor are often the least-dependable customers, anyway, and are the reason for the increased costs in health insurance for paid employees. Losing a very small amount of customers may actually be worthwhile in the long run.
The poor should pay 10% more for consumable products. This would have an added benefit of illustrating the unconstitutionality of charging different rates, and could give weight to the need for a flat tax system. The knee-jerk reaction from the Left will be that all of this is unconstitutional. But, this is what we want. We want there to be boycotts (as ineffectual as they usually are). We want there to be a successful court challenge. We want to be forced to charge the same rate to those of all levels of income. This, after all, is the point we have been trying to make with regard to our income tax system. It is unconstitutional.
If my suggestion does not bring lawsuits, and the legal precedent is not set that reverses decades of income discrimination, then at least we will be able to recoup our losses due to socialist political policies. If a lawsuit does come, do not contest it. Do not settle out of court. Let them make their case, and let them win.
When the legal precedent is set, we will have them where we want them!