The first amendment does protect against compelled speech. But i very much doubt that any sane judge, i wonder if they appealed in the 9th circuit, would extend that to corporations not wanting to disclose their prices on the basis of greed.
How on Earth is that a 1st amendment right? If so every business has been doing business wrong. Just tell customers that whatever they buy has a secret price. And as soon as they walk out thr door, bam! Million dollars!
Oh you bought a milky way candy bar? BAM! MILLION DOLLARS!
Easily worked around. Just write the rule such that you are not allowed to enter in to a medical payment agreement without knowing the cost beforehand. Would need some considerations for emergency treatment of the unconscious, of course, but I'm sure something could be worked out.
No longer about free speech. Now it's about unfair contracts.
You are wrong. If they operate or see patients in the hospital they work for the hospital and receive the benefits of working for said hospital. These benefits include but are not limited to lower malpractice rates, less overhead, not having to make payroll, less taxes..... I could go on but won't. The statement you made is false and physicians negotiate their rate with the hospital in their employment contract; hospitals know exactly what you will be charged on admission. You are more than welcome to educate yourself by reading: Risk Management in Healthcare Institutions by Florence Kavaler and Raymond Alexander if you want a better picture as to how hospitals operate.
Annnnd now were back to telling liberals why they have zero understanding of economics. Out of all the made-up and convoluted terms they use to argue their talking points, they refuse to adopt the time-tested basic human principle of competition. Sad!
The spin is that if people knew how much a treatment cost, they would be less likely to request it if they can't pay for it. That's the talking point. Read it before on that other website, can't remember it's name though.
And they are claiming they have a 1st amendment to secrecy, they are already challenging the new rules through the courts.
As we say here in Australia: Pack of cunts.
Swat members think they have that right as well when they're public servants.
The first amendment does protect against compelled speech. But i very much doubt that any sane judge, i wonder if they appealed in the 9th circuit, would extend that to corporations not wanting to disclose their prices on the basis of greed.
How on Earth is that a 1st amendment right? If so every business has been doing business wrong. Just tell customers that whatever they buy has a secret price. And as soon as they walk out thr door, bam! Million dollars!
Oh you bought a milky way candy bar? BAM! MILLION DOLLARS!
Easily worked around. Just write the rule such that you are not allowed to enter in to a medical payment agreement without knowing the cost beforehand. Would need some considerations for emergency treatment of the unconscious, of course, but I'm sure something could be worked out.
No longer about free speech. Now it's about unfair contracts.
You are wrong. If they operate or see patients in the hospital they work for the hospital and receive the benefits of working for said hospital. These benefits include but are not limited to lower malpractice rates, less overhead, not having to make payroll, less taxes..... I could go on but won't. The statement you made is false and physicians negotiate their rate with the hospital in their employment contract; hospitals know exactly what you will be charged on admission. You are more than welcome to educate yourself by reading: Risk Management in Healthcare Institutions by Florence Kavaler and Raymond Alexander if you want a better picture as to how hospitals operate.
Annnnd now were back to telling liberals why they have zero understanding of economics. Out of all the made-up and convoluted terms they use to argue their talking points, they refuse to adopt the time-tested basic human principle of competition. Sad!
The spin is that if people knew how much a treatment cost, they would be less likely to request it if they can't pay for it. That's the talking point. Read it before on that other website, can't remember it's name though.
When 0bamaCare both forced consumers to purchase, AND tied insurance profits to a percentage based on medical expenditures. Its such a BS argument