Justice Roberts: I Am A Coward

Quote from Ricter:

Not that I much understand healthcare, luckily I have rarely needed any, but...

1. Tend to agree. What, if I run off to Alaska, build a cabin, and hunt and trap "off he grid", I still accrue a healthcare bill every year?
2. Costs must not exceed revenues. I suppose the theory here is that the total new revenues will exceed the total new costs. Probably true if most of the new revenues come from young people--pre existing conditions should be comparatively scarce amongst them. Yes, I think we might be compelling the young to care for the old.
More...

I'm even ok with young paying for the old if that worked. Assuming that the young would get the same care when they were old. But didn't Social Security get designed with the same "flawless" strategy in mind?
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

I'm even ok with young paying for the old if that worked. Assuming that the young would get the same care when they were old. But didn't Social Security get designed with the same "flawless" strategy in mind?
More...
I think it can work, but the young and old will have to pay more (bake a bigger pie) and the old will have to accept smaller slices (the pie's slices being more numerous). SS was not designed with a baby boom in mind, but it has since been augmented in anticipation of the baby boomers old age. The program is not broken, the scary projections you may see, graph lines where outgoes begin exceeding income cross at the point in time where the boomers are dying off en masse.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

The best system going still is unaffordable. You're not as lost as Krugman or Ricter and think we can just keep piling on the debt. I would support universal healthcare if it could be paid for. But it cannot be.
More...

Essentially then, you have found an eloquent way to support Social Darwinism. No?
 
Quote from Ricter:

I think it can work, but the young and old will have to pay more (bake a bigger pie) and the old will have to accept smaller slices (the pie's slices being more numerous). SS was not designed with a baby boom in mind, but it has since been augmented in anticipation of the baby boomers old age. The program is not broken, the scary projections you may see, graph lines where outgoes begin exceeding income cross at the point in time where the boomers are dying off en masse.
More...
the young are not always less expensive than the old. its true they have less diseases but they get broken bones and they have babies which are very expensive.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I don't think so. Roberts has legitimate top-drawer legal credentials and is certainly aware that Obama's whole resume is basically fake. Like the part about him being a Univ of chicago professor.

Roberts simply lacked the backbone to stand up to the intimidation campaign the administration has been waging and the sure knowledge that he would get the Ken Starr treatment if he ruled the other way. So, he is just a garden variety coward, the kind Obama and his hardleft crowd can push around.
More...

Yeah, I smelled this too. He fell under Obama's spell. Too bad it was on an issue as big as this.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

AAA didn't this really all start with SS? I mean today's ruling brings it to another level but how is this any different as a tax than SS. We are forced to buy SS through taxes, now we are forced to buy healthcare through taxes. Of course with Roberts ruling what is to stop congress from making us buy anything through taxation. i can just picture the education reform act, everyone has the opportunity to go to a 4 year school, and those that can't pay their loans DON'T worry, we the taxpayers, got you covered. maybe we will all have to buy electric cars to save the environment from the boogeyman, who knows maybe everyone is entitled to a car, house, job. A new jobs bill - you can't lose your job because you need one. :(

Even if BO loses the election, is there any doubt in anyone's mind that we have turned the corner? The free markets, our liberty all of it is gradually eroding and has been for some time. The progressive (socialist/communist/marxist/retarded) agenda is WINNING. Once people get these entitlements and pensions etc, no matter how unsustainable, they will never give them up nor vote for any candidate that wants to take them away. And we have more people that are going to be receiving govt assistance, they simply can't afford new costs and taxes, in a generation their kids will be part of the entitlement class. dark days ahead for the USA.
More...

It was FDR's New Deal mainly, and of course Social Security was a big part of that and very controversial at the time. It was sold on the lie that it was an insurance program and everyone would have their own little retirement account. Like a 401k, only managed by the government. Kind of like they sold Obamacare, on the lie you could keep your own doctor and nothing would change. Nothing that is, unless you are elderly and a death panel decides you have lived long enough because they would prefer to spend the money on illegal aliens or some other obama constituency.


The New Deal was very controversial, as you know, and the Supreme Court struck down some of the early programs as beyond the government's power. FDR reacted as obama has, with intimidation. Only he was a bit less subtle. He threatened to expand the Court to marginalize the Justices who opposed him, and he had the votes in congress to do it. So they miraculously saw the light and invented a legal theory that the government could basically do anything in the economic realm, regardless of what the Constitution said.

Now we get Roberts basically saying that whatever minimal limitations the Commerce Clause still imposes, they can be easily circumvented by use of the taxing authority. What a legacy he is creating.
 
Quote from Ricter:

I think it can work, but the young and old will have to pay more (bake a bigger pie) and the old will have to accept smaller slices (the pie's slices being more numerous). SS was not designed with a baby boom in mind, but it has since been augmented in anticipation of the baby boomers old age. The program is not broken, the scary projections you may see, graph lines where outgoes begin exceeding income cross at the point in time where the boomers are dying off en masse.
More...

Perhaps, maybe, possibly. But we'll be at a debt crisis far before that ever happens.
 
2008 Obama Flashback: Health Care Should “Never Be Purchased With Tax Increases On Middle Class Families”

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wzs3aoRnl0E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
the young are not always less expensive than the old. its true they have less diseases but they get broken bones and they have babies which are very expensive.
More...

anecdotes don't matter, the integrated totals do and your statement is not true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top