Skip to comments.Affordable Soda Act: An Allegory for Obamacare
Posted on 10/07/2013 3:43:57 PM PDT by Felis demulcta mitis
Workers at the office assemble a panel of co-workers to represent them on a committee to make decisions concerning the general welfare of the employees. This committee is elected on condition that they faithfully the interests of their peers.
The committee wants to work toward overhauling the current soda machine selection at the office. The current machine is expensive and makes soft drinks unaffordable for lower income workers. The poll shows that most workers think the soda system is in need of reform. Encouraged by the response, the committee makes plans to replace the machine. They conduct another poll asking what workers want out of a new machine. They receive an assortment of responses, but two things are clear. They want cheaper soda, and the least popular flavor is grape soda.
The following night, after all the employees have gone home for the night, the committee meets and has a new machine installed.
In the morning, the workers are shocked when they discover the new machine. While it is a nice, shiny new machine, offering a large assortment of flavors, all of the flavors have doubled in price. Outraged, they demand an answer from the committee, who explains the new soda system.
"Each employee is mandated to buy at least one soda per day. This will ensure that everyone in the office has access to quality soda. In order to ensure that this is affordable to our lowest income workers, we will subsidize two brands of grape soda so they can be consumed at a lower price. Don't worry, if you don't want to switch sodas, you can still have access to your old favorites."
Polls show this new policy is remarkably unpopular, forcing many individuals' soda costs to double or even triple. Although polls (and watercooler conversations) make it clear that the majority of workers loathe the new policy, especially when it becomes known that management and the committee members have passed an exemption to allow themselves subsidized access to any flavor they want. Simultaneously, the committee begins handing out exemptions to their closest friends.
In opposition, Bill from accounting freezes spending. He begins authorizing budget items line by line, being sure to fund payroll, utilities, etc. He will unfreeze spending if the committee capitulates by modifying its soda policy. Not surprisingly, they refuse. In fact, they begin a campaign of petty and vindictive stunts to turn the workforce against Bill. They disable the copier, lock the bathrooms, shut off the water fountains, and snip the phone cords. All of these problems they say, would be averted if Bill would simply fund this wildly unpopular, expensive, unreasonable soda program.
Who is being unreasonable again?
Only problem I see with this is that a large group of liberals don’t work or put in time with the government and can’t relate to a work place analogy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.