[TheRealThing]

Distributors aren't mandated by Federal law in the other industries. They are used for ease and costs savings. However, in the case we are discussing, AB uses federal law to monopolize the market.

If I wanted to create a food company and sell my products, I could use a local distributor, however, if a big mother food company decides to blackmail the distributor into not carrying my products, then I could bypass the distributor and still sell my product to the retailers. The companies have no power to wield over the retailers since those are the ones who sell to the customer.

If Kraft tried to tell Kroger's not to sell my product or they would not allow them to sell Kraft foods, Kroger's would tell them to shove off. If my produce/product was in demand enough. That move would only hurt Kraft. People usually use one or 2 grocery stores. If Kraft isn't available, people will then purchase whatever other product they can that is similar.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jumped on the bandwagon against the three tier system recently. In a report released last year, the FTC concluded that the three tier system limited consumer options and increased the price of alcoholic beverages. It noted that "wine and spirits have the most expensive distribution system of any packaged-goods industry by far, with margins more than twice those in the food business." The FTC reviewed the core regulatory concerns of tax collection and temperance and found that those purposes could be met by other means that had less impact on free trade. It concluded that most of the system was an "abuse of the regulatory process to protect concentrated economic interests" which hurts consumers by limiting the choices of wine and driving up consumer prices.


Here's a link for ya, with a nice article about the 3 tiered system and its effect on prices, and how much they spend on federal campaigns. They spend more than the AFLCIO.https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opini...e.htm?_r=1

I'm sure you'll have some more schoolyard insults to toss my way to show everyone how big of a man you are.

I know you'll never be able to let this alone but, campaign finance and reform is not the biggest problem we deal with these days. Same old libertarian song and dance routine. Personally I don't care how much business, or the AFLCIO spend on the campaigns, as long as at least one side tells the truth. That is the unfortunate nature of our problem these days. One side is lying their head off about their own actions and intentions. While misrepresenting the actions and intentions of their cohorts across the aisle. The dems are the ones doing all the lying and the republicans find themselves on their heels a lot because of a lack of direction and occassionally committment on their own part. I'd say you lean toward supporting this administation and the dems in general.

As to your question, I know enough doc's to formulate an oppinion, and if it's all the same to you, when it comes to "where I get my news" I'll take news from anywhere other than you :please:

One last point. As to your assertion, "If everyone had insurance, the overall cost of the HC at the provider level would decrease rapidly over a matter of a couple of years, if not sooner." Well, everyone may HAVE insurance under this plan. The problem is, everyone will not PAY for insurance under this plan. They will still be sluggardly drains on the system, such as it is, and folks that are accustomed to paying for their family and the sluggards will still pay for their family and the sluggards. Governmental intrusion considered, the medical system will be the worse for said intrusion. The end result being this, people who pay now will pay then, people who don't pay now won't pay then. Therefore nothing has changed except the bureaucratic meddling of Ozombie administration. And, of course, the skyrocketing medical costs and insurance premiums.