Reply With Quote
The next logical step is to privatize Medicare and Medicaid and use the same means testing that Obamacare does. That will teach those selfish old bas s that saved money for their retirement!
Remember it's adjusted gross income after all deductions. With a $50,000 gross and a house and 4 kids and you are in the less than 133% that only pays 2%.
The next logical step is to privatize Medicare and Medicaid and use the same means testing that Obamacare does. That will teach those selfish old bas s that saved money for their retirement!
I thought you mean gross as in after all deductions, my bad. A couple with 4 kids making $50,000/year is certainly in dire straits... that said, the kids probably already qualified for CHIP/Medicare.
IMO, the actual next logical step would be the start attacking the cost of care: removing the middle man in the Insurance Co, and go with price controls...
To be frank, if less people would get their insurance through work, and actually had to get personally involved with it, we would actually see actual progress on this. That's why while I don't like this law, I do think it will shake things up enough to eventually get to meaningful reform.
Major inflation happens every day, B... the act of printing money without tangible wealth behind it is inflation... and no, "the trust of the government" is not tangible wealth that can rein in the money supply...
based on what? prices isn't it.
You just don't know what an inflationary spiral looks like because you've never been on one. It's ok, that applies to most Americans. When you see the price of milk shoot up 150% in a matter of a week or two, get back to me, and we'll retake this conversation.
I'd like to avoid hyperinflation, B....
What indicator makes you think we're headed that way?
The most common reason for nations to end up with hyperinflation is because they owe money in a different currency (notably, US dollars). The US isn't in that position.
But regardless of whether or not you owe money in another currency, you can't have hyperinflation without first printing a ton of money without wealth behind it...
I chose not to get insurance at all. I can get it from work and chose not to. I need every dollar I make to pay basic bills. When your poor you live like that.
Obamacare sounds good. I can go for affordable insurance.
But the reason a lot of these countries printed a lot of money in the first place was to buy the currency to pay the obligations. The US is in a completely different world. They don't owe in another currency, the lenders cannot ask to be paid in a different currency, and they can't even ask for their money back period. If they want their money, they have to spend it. It's a nice scam if you're the US.
Uh, no. If you're paying the tax, you're paying any doctor cash for a visit. The tax is NOT insurance, it the price/cost for not having it.
The risk is dollar revulsion, but granted the rest of the world is
A little preoccupied right now. I don't expect our "scam" to last forever.
You realize this is actually a quite impressive statistic, completely flying in the face of the argument you are trying to make, right?
To elaborate, that's an effective inflation rate of 3.57% per year.
The generally accepted definition of hyperinflation is 50% per month, which equates to 12,875% inflation per year.
Me neither... but if anything, the world in general seem to can't get enough of our treasury bonds, so why not sell it to them?
Waiting for someone on a Ron Paul blog to provide them with a response, is my guess.
inside source sez: Roberts wrote both opinionshttp://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/robe...care_opinions/This weekend CBS News’ Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court’s conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court’s four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.
In response, according to Crawford’s story, the four conservatives then independently crafted a highly unusual joint dissent. If so, this would represent a powerful symbolic gesture: Joint Supreme Court opinions are rare. Normally a justice authors an individual opinion, which other justices may choose to join. Jointly authored opinions are reserved for momentous statements of principle, such as in Cooper v. Aaron, when all nine justices jointly authored an opinion declaring that the court’s anti-segregation decisions were binding on state governments that disagreed with the court’s cons utional interpretations.
It’s notable that Crawford’s sources insist on the claim that the joint dissent was authored specifically in response to Roberts’ majority opinion, without any participation from him at any point in the drafting process that created it. It would, after all, be fairly preposterous for the four dissenters to jointly “author” an opinion that was in large part written originally by the author of the majority opinion to which the joint dissenters were now so flamboyantly objecting.
Yet that, I am told by a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process, is exactly what happened. My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/03/so-...e-court-leaks/So Now We Have Supreme Court Leaks Disagreeing With the Substance of Other Supreme Court Leaks (UPDATED — Now With More Leaks)
Orin Kerr • July 3, 2012 3:13 pm
Over at Salon.com, Lawprof Paul Campos writes:
I am told by a source within the Court with direct knowledge of the drafting process. . . that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the Chief Justice.I guess it’s only a matter of time before Jan Crawford runs a story saying that her source insists that Campos’s source is a “liar liar [with his] pants on fire.” Pretty soon those of us who haven’t received leaks are going to feel left out.
This source insists that the claim that the joint dissent was drafted from scratch in June is flatly untrue. Furthermore, the source characterizes claims by Crawford’s sources that “the fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention [sic] Roberts’ majority . . . was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him” as “pure propagandistic spin,” meant to explain away the awkward fact that while the first 46 pages of the joint dissent never even mention Roberts’ opinion for the Court (this is surely the first time in the Court’s history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting), the last 19 pages do so repeatedly.
UPDATE: Here’s another. John Fund at the National Review has a leaker, too – perhaps the same as person that leaked to the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, but who knows:
I’ve learned from my own sources that after voting to invalidate the mandate, the chief did express some skepticism about joining the four conservatives in throwing out the whole law. At the justices’ conference, there was discussion about accepting the Obama administration’s argument, which was that, if the individual mandate was removed, the provisions governing community rating and guaranteed issue of insurance would have to go too but that the rest of the law might stand. The chief justice was equivocal, though, in his views on that point.Any other leaks so far today, or is that it?
ANOTHER UPDATE: Over at Balkinization, Mark Tushnet has a very interesting post that includes a report on the rumors he heard after the argument, specifically sourced to a law clerk:
Within a couple of weeks of the arguments, I heard a rumor, sourced to a law clerk, that the Court had voted to strike the ACA down. The route to me had some credibility, but one could also raise some questions about the interests lying behind the rumor’s circulation (interests not in the litigation but in establishing that the intermediary was a person who had inside sources). . . . Several weeks later I heard that a Washington law firm — I forget which — was saying that the Medicaid expansion was going to [be] invalidated.
Public Opinion Snapshot: Public Says Keep or Expand Obamacare
In the latest edition of the Kaiser Health Tracking poll, for example, 53 percent of respondents said Obamacare should either be kept as is (25 percent) or expanded (28 percent) versus 38 percent who thought the law should be either repealed and replaced with a Republican-sponsored alternative (18 percent) or repealed and not replaced (20 percent).
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...ot_070912.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
