I can see why this would create controversy among fans. It's a very touchy subject, especially for those who's premiums went up due to Obamacare. But when cooler heads prevail I think this is nothing write home about. The law says people will get fined (uh actually "taxed" if you're an Obama lawyer) if they don't sign up. So you could look at it like that. The Ravens are just doing a public service for Ravens fans who may need to sign up for this before then get fined, or taxed if you are an Obama lawyer.
Just like DOMA, the law will succeed or fail on it's own. So far it's not off to a good start. But time will tell. If it's really that bad and the majorty of Amercians feel this way, then November 2014 will not be kind to Democrats.
As to whether it was a good business decisions ... as someone else pointed out $130,000 seems like pocket change for an NFL franchise. I'm not sure the considerations were purely business.
I also find it funny that some of the comments below the article are claiming that publishing the article will hurt RSR in the same way Tony is claiming advertising for Obamacare will hurt the Ravens. Publishing this article just drove additional traffic to Tony's site during the bye week. Seems like a savvy move to me.
Tony should know that the Baltimore Ravens are almost indescribably far from being the first professional sports team to do something like this.
Yes, no law will have 100% approval and that's the larger point. The prudent thing is to stay out of political issues when you're trying to run a business.
The fact that it's Obamacare is immaterial to Tony's overall point. If you're trying to expand the fan base outside the borders of MD, the prudent thing to do is the remain apolitical. No matter the issue.
Id be just as upset if the issue happened to be the team promoting the changes to MD's concealed carry law, welfare reform or any other hot button issue -- it immediately divides the fan base, which is counterproductive to the overall goal of expansion.
This thread is the prime example why it's not smart business for the team to make this move.
If an owner wants to spend their own money on political issues, go for it. Angelos is a champion of a lot of left causes and has donated millions to the same. I have zero issue with him doing it, it's his right and I could care less what he believes.
But when the TEAM takes a stance and uses TEAM dollars, that's where the fan base divides and limits future growth of the fan base. We are already challenged enough by having so many teams in such close proximity. Supporting a law / policy / stance immediately limits your already challenging task of growth beyond the borders of MD.
Half the idiots who voted don't even know whats in it. Using the election as proof people like a law that's not even full in effect is foolish.
And of course, the law was passed by hook, crook, bribes, lies and parliamentary tricks (reconciliation), in a totally partisan manner, unlike any other major piece of social entitlement legislation in US History. It also was unpopular when it was passed and is unpopular now. The 2010 historical landslide in the House occurred precisely because of Obamacare and the way it was passed.
As for the SCOTUS, it didn't uphold Obamacare at all. It rejected the mandatory Medicaid expansion as unconstitutional. And it ruled the administration's argument that the individual mandate was allowed on interstate commerce grounds was unconstitutional. It merely said that if were (had been) treated as a simple tax, the law could be upheld. The problem there is two-fold. One, Obama incessantly insisted it was not tax (famously verbatim to Stephanopoulos in a testy exchange), and the bill would not have even passed had it been sold as a tax. And two, tax legislation must arise in the House, per the Origination clause, and the ACA did not. It was hilariously tacked on, at 2,000 plus pages, as an amendment in the Senate to the House bill: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (which had passed 416-0). It was just one of the duplicitous moves Reid pulled while ramming through the law.
Needless to say all the points it was unsuccessfully sold with when it was rammed through are being exposed as lies. Keep your current insurance? Lie. Keep your doctor? Lie. Lower premiums for everyone? Lie. Everyone will have insurance? Lie. Deficit neutral? Lie.
Businesses are cutting hours, dropping spouses from health care plans, and dropping insurance altogether because of the consequences of the law. They also are not hiring until they can accurately assess what the law will cost them.
As for how well Romneycare is doing, I suggest more research:
The simple fact is, the same positives (and obviously there are some) could have been achieved much more efficiently, much less expensively, with much less government control of the industry / personal healthcare decisiosn / religious beliefs, and with much less harm being done to many less people. The utter incompetence displayed with the exchanges is just the icing on the boondoggle cake.
I'm not going to argue Obama's signature health care law here, I participate in other forums I frequent that are more appropriate IMO. What I will say it is a polarizing political issue with many people on both sides of the fence. As a entertainment entity I question the need to pick sides in a very divisive political issue when people have strong opinions on it. Ultimately it's Biscotti's team and he's a smart man, it's his call.