Blueliner Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-strikes-down-rule-requiring-drug-ads-to-reveal-prices/ar-AAE2BLO?ocid=spartandhp Shock! This would have been good for Americans. Everyone I've talked to (left and right), and from what I've seen, thinks this was a great idea based on the recent events. But this effing activist nobama judge and the anti-everything Trump left are now beginning to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Pathetic. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 The government does have the right to require health insurance. 2 sides, but be careful of the 2 headed coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 9 hours ago, Scottdale said: The government does not have the right to require health insurance for citizens but they should be allowed to make a private company list their prices in TV ads? How many sides does the coin have? Do you agree that the government gets into many situations that make the citizens angry? Problem is that there really isn't that much we can do about it. The government is going to do what it wants in future and there ain't crap we can do about it except complain. I learned at an early age that survival is tough. To get ahead took effort. To get far ahead took effort and luck. Whats easier to control? A bunch of small mobs, or one giant mob? Think about why the government likes to keep us split into smaller manageable groups. How the fuck could the military and police stop the entire US population if we banded together and decided to over run the government? Some 310,000,000 vs 2,000,000. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 Constitutionally speaking, it was probably the correct ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 On 7/10/2019 at 5:42 AM, zulu1128 said: Constitutionally speaking, it was probably the correct ruling. possibly, but as a consumer not wanting to be mislead, I think there are probably better solutions.... In this day and age we don't need to sit thru two hours of sales pitch and be forced to go for a test drive at the dealership before we can even find out what that cars price is... The question as it relates to advertising, is really how long or how much leeway should companies be given before a product's actual price needs to be disclosed to potential buyers??? In our present system, one of the many ways in which it is broken, is that even AFTER all transactions are complete, most consumers have no idea how much everyone involved is being billed (excepting what they fork over at the drugstore). Now just like having to sit thru a 'test drive' at the car dealership, I think it should be within the rights of a consumer to "request" the price or be able to leave.... Now in the past, like say when advertising was just "billboards" and such, there's a total market disadvantage to force upfront price reveal, but today I think ads could, or 'possibly' should contain "links" or similar that any consumer can find a "List" price at least....I mean isn't that the whole reason we came up with those silly "list" prices as well? (like who actually pays list? 🤣) So in effect this law does not even do what it advertises (pun lol) in giving consumers their price...….and only requires that they be allowed to know what ballpark they are even in.....🤔 Just my offhand two cents...as I haven't given it much thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.