Reviewing Day Two of the Supreme Court Healthcare Hearings

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Richard Epstein, professor of law at NYU and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, joins us from Chicago to discuss yesterday's arguments from the Supreme Court's healthcare reform case, and why the line of questioning was so significant.


Richard Epstein

Comments [66]

Calls'em from Here, there & everywhere...

The Supreme Court will overturn 0bamaCare in it's entirety since there is no severability clause in the law; and Justice Kagan will be impeached for her participation in the trial by the new Super Majority in the Senate in 2013. Kagan helped draft the government's case before she was a Justice and therefore has one of the most profound conflicts of interests ever held by any federal justice, let alone one on the Supreme Court. Leftists have no shame, despite their guilt.

Mar. 29 2012 03:12 PM

For the less capable:

A principle of government that defines the relationship between the central government at the national level and its constituent units at the regional, state, or local levels. Under this principle of government, power and authority is allocated between the national and local governmental units, such that each unit is delegated a sphere of power and authority only it can exercise, while other powers must be shared.

The term federalism is derived from the Latin root foedus, which means "formal agreement or covenant." It includes the interrelationships between the states as well as between the states and the federal government. Governance in the United States takes place at various levels and branches of government, which all take part in the decision-making process. From the U.S. Supreme Court to the smallest local government, a distribution of power allows all the entities of the system to work separately while still working together as a nation. Supreme Court justice hugo l. black wrote that federalism meant

a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate State governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. (Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 [1971])

The Constitution lists the legislative powers of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment protects the residual powers of the states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The discussion is about our fundamental freedoms as provided by the Konstitution®.

Pretty simple.

Mar. 28 2012 12:10 PM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Truth, it seems that you are having trouble understanding your own points as you are starting to contradict yourself. You seem to be in favor of a public option but you are not willing to fight for it.

Health care is expensive - because of the Govt, not having a cohesive national heath system and paying through their noses for the ones they pretend not to have - medicare/medicaid.

I get your point about "shared risk" as it is with car insurance - that's still not a reason to "accept" this muddled mandate. The federal govt requires, excuse me - mandates that emergency rooms, incl. those of private hospitals treat the uninsured, without compensation, whose fault is that?

Mar. 28 2012 12:07 PM


Mar. 28 2012 12:03 PM

Someone you love will DIE so that Ronald A. Williams can enjoy his $24,300,112 salary!!

Mar. 28 2012 12:02 PM
Ed Singer from NYC

Isn't mandating auto insurance the same idea???

Mar. 28 2012 11:51 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

It seems that many people have reading comprehension issues. Let me explain one more time before I leave this page for the day:

dboy: I did NOT say that people who do not own cars should be required to purchase car insurance; but we ALL have bodies and they need to be insured for medical care that we could not otherwise afford. That is the point of insurance - to pay for things that we can not afford. They are analogous in terms of the point of insurance and the fact that car insurance is government mandated and the new health insurance is government mandated.

Amalgam: When I said "government," I loosely used the term to apply to both state and federal governments. There are also municipal and local governments, but we are not here for a civics lesson. Again, the point is that a government is mandating that we are insured and the insurance is provided by private, for-profit insurance companies.

Sheldon: One more time: we have bodies, we need health care, health care is expensive (more so than insurance premiums), we need some kind of health care coverage so that we do not have to pay out-of-pocket for the actual health care, so we do all need some kind of coverage. Private health insurance is VERY expensive (but less so than health care) and is NOT my first choice, but that is the option we have been offered because Republicans in Congress opposed the National Healthcare model that was originally proposed.

If anyone out there is NOT interested in being mandated to purchase health insurance, s/he should go out and have him/herself tattooed DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) and if you become ill or are involved in an accident or should anything at all befall your physical self, we can just leave you where you are and let you expire...


You can come to some reasonable conclusion as to how we can possibly provide healthcare coverage for all the LEGAL citizens/residents of this country and we can go with that. I personally favor a parallel of the British National Healthcare or the Israeli Chupat Cholim or the Swedish health care, which would paid for out of our personal and corporate taxes. Make sure your Senators and Congresspersons know that you want national health care paid for by the federal government from our taxes and let's get on with life.

Mar. 28 2012 11:42 AM

Imagine true worker freedom!!

Imagine how many new hire there would be if employers were NOT required to pay HUGE SUMS to the "Insurance" Industry®!!

Why do we protect the profits of the "Insurance" Industry™ and NOT the profits of other (almost always small business) businesses?? Could it be lobby $$$$??? Hmm.

Imagine a world where you were NOT held hostage by your employer for your families' healthcare and you had the FREEDOM (oop! are we allowed to talk about freedom in this Kountry™ any more???) to START YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT SMALL BUSINESS AND HIRE MORE PEOPLE!!!

This, sounds like freedom, to me!!!

Mar. 28 2012 11:38 AM

This shouldn't be a discussion, it should be a RIOT!!!

Mar. 28 2012 11:26 AM

Why do we sacrifice peoples health and lives to protect Korporate Profits®?!?!?


Mar. 28 2012 11:25 AM


Mar. 28 2012 11:23 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Dboy I made that point and Truth said I was illiterate for doing so. BEWARE!!

Mar. 28 2012 11:20 AM

...not to mention that auto insurance is mandated by the state - as it should or not be mandated. The act of the Federal government mandating health insurance is arguably unconstitutional (I, for one would agree).

I DON'T want to be FORCED to buy an inferior "insurance™" product that will NOT meet my needs!!! This is money FLUSHED DOWN the "Insurance" Industry® toilet. It is money that is siphoned out of our economy and into the pockets of the Korporate™ coffers!!

The US pays more for and gets less healthcare than any other industrial nation!

SINGLR PAYER is the only sane, humane and efficient plan.

Look at ANY other industrialized country.

Mar. 28 2012 11:18 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Truth - perhaps because of my poor comprehension - I AGREE with almost everything you have just said, except you are still missing the point on car insurance, maybe you should read my post again

" a PRIVATE product just because you happen TO BE ALIVE."

If you CHOOSE to own a car and drive it on public roads, operate a moving company, or be a home contractor - the govt, USUALLY THE STATE, has the right to require you buy insurance as they are considered voluntary commercial activities.

Giving politicians via the federal govt, the right to MANDATE you to buy private insurance simply for being alive is scary. As DBOY said - taxation, regulation, or a public option is the way to go.

Mar. 28 2012 11:17 AM
amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

On the car insurance analogy:

The way I understand the situation is that each individual state, not the Federal govt., determines that people need to purchase car insurance. The argument that the ACA opponents (States Attorneys General) are making - apart from the fact that you must have a care to purchase car insurance - is that under Federalism (think: "state's rights"), it's fine for a state to require insurance purchase but it's not acceptable for the Federal govt. to do so because it's over-stepping it's "enumerated" responsibilities.

That's essentially what Justice Kennedy was after in his line of questioning: Isn't the federal mandate essentially a new commerce not enumerated by the Constitution?

I don't agree with that line of questioning or thought (those in opposition to the ACA), but as I understand it, that's their argument.

Mar. 28 2012 11:09 AM


Helath "insurance" and auto insurance are NOT... NOT analogous!!!

Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn how would you feel if you didn't own an automobile but, you were required to purchase auto insurance.

You have a choice to own an auto, to not. Unfortunately, the same option does NOT apply to the human body.

Stop, now... please.

Mar. 28 2012 11:09 AM

Carl ~


Mar. 28 2012 11:05 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn


1. I don't want the federal government to force me to buy health insurance - frankly, I can't afford it right now. On the other hand, were I to become ill, I couldn't afford to pay for that either, so somehow, we (people with bodies) need to be covered. I did say in my first post that I am not pleased with Obama's health care plan and I've written to him about it, with suggestions as to how we should be covered.

2. Car insurance is government mandated purchase of PRIVATE product. Do you have any idea how many car insurers there are in the market? And those of us with cars MUST purchase car insurance from one of the for-profit insurers.

3. One of my suggestions to Mr. Obama regarding healthcare policy is that it be taxed or levied from our paychecks and employers' taxes. If it were "national healthcare," it could be done that way. Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress opposed that as being too close to "socialism," so Obama was forced to take another tack, which resulted in the situation we are now debating.

Mar. 28 2012 11:02 AM
Uninsured delay seeking care from Contagious diseases are an Interstate issue.

There is considerable evidence that Uninsured people
tend to delay seeking care (and also have less
use of primary care and worse in-hospital mortality).

In the event that an uninsured person becomes ill with
a contagious disease - since they are more likely to
avoid care or delay care - they are also likely to
SPREAD the disease - including across State lines.
This can clearly have an impact on interstate commerce
and is an issue under Federal jurisdiction.

Being uninsured therefore is highly likely to have
an impact on interstate commerce.

Sadly, I think the discussion yesterday focused too
exclusively on EMERGENCY CARE - rather than also on
primary and screening care and its FEDERAL SCOPE.

Mar. 28 2012 10:59 AM

The Affordable Healthcare Act is a crappy, convoluted plan that, unfortunately does not solve the inherent problems it purports to address. The issues of affordability and accessibility will not be solved until these criminals are put out of business:

Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212

Your health "insurance®" premiums go to pay these ASTONISHING salaries. The lives of our loved ones are sacrificed to pay these immoral executives.

ENOUGH of this convoluted NONSENSE!!



Mar. 28 2012 10:58 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

Rich Z-

If it is immoral to make a profit from providing healthcare, then there would be no doctors. How do you think they can afford all those Mercedes and golf on Wednesdays?


Uninsured Drivers' insurance is a portion of car insurance car owners pay to cover car owners who (illegally) fail to have car insurance of their own. A price we all have to pay for others' irresponsibility. There will always be people who don't follow the rules and that spoils it for all of us. Life ain't fair.

Mar. 28 2012 10:50 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Truth - I re-read your post and please, please, forgive my terrible reading skills.

If you want the federal govt for the first time in the country's history, to force you into buying a PRIVATE product just because you happen to be alive then good for you. I don't.

Usually for things people can't afford individually: Police, Fire, National Defense, Primary Education, Social Security - The state levies a tax, not mandate you go out and buy it on the private market.

Mar. 28 2012 10:49 AM
Nicole from Brooklyn

I find it quite interesting that this discussion always refers to "people who REFUSE to pay for insurance." Even worse is to call them "freeloaders." If insurance was affordable perhaps people would purchase it. Perhaps if more people made reasonable, livable wages, they would then purchase it. People with privilege need to start recognizing their position of power and privilege, and that their possessions, such as health insurance, come along with that position.

Mar. 28 2012 10:45 AM

Richard Epstein...

Martin CheezleWhiz's secret Valintine.

Mar. 28 2012 10:45 AM
Suzi from Texas

Here's my favorite part from yesterday, between Justice Sotomayor and one of the lawyers arguing *against* the Affordable Care Act:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I want to understand the choices you're saying Congress has. Congress can tax everybody and set up a public health care system.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That would be okay.
(Carvin later tried to backpedal.)

Mar. 28 2012 10:44 AM
Rich Z from NYC

It is immoral to make a profit from the provision of healthcare services. For-profit insurance companies, hospitals, and physician practices will drive the cost of healthcare past equilibrium because of the elasticity of demand. It is not a competitive free market. We need a one-payor system.

Mar. 28 2012 10:42 AM
Chris Garvey from Amityville

Richard Epstein is correct, that Wickard v. Filburn was a disaster. It should be overturned.
Filburn produced wheat only for personal and local consumption. He was penalized for growing wheat in excess of his allotment allowed by the Department of Agriculture.

317 U.S. 111 (1942 U.S.) held that Congress may regulate the activities of entities totally apart from interstate commerce, if those activities affect interstate commerce.

Mar. 28 2012 10:40 AM
John A.

How many laws Mandate that I take healthcare,
EG If I'm knocked out by a building brick, can I have a "Do Not Hospitalize" letter in my wallet saying to let me die? As I say this, I'd guess only 0.01% of the populace would elect such a way out of healthcare. It is just a major factor in everyone's modern life to keep the door to the Hospital open to everyone.

Mar. 28 2012 10:38 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn


Apparently, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Re-read what I wrote.

No, I did not listen yesterday, but the point I made is not that people who don't have cars should be forced to buy car insurance, but that car insurance is government mandated. Everyone who has a car must have car insurance and everyone who has a body should have health insurance (or coverage). The whole point of insurance is to pay for things that we could not otherwise afford.

Unfortunately for the insurance industry, they earn their money from customer premiums and they have three major ways to spend their revenues: staff salaries and overhead, payouts to or on behalf of insured customers and shareholder dividends. They set themselves up that way and they'll have to live with it unless they'd like to go out of business.

Mar. 28 2012 10:37 AM

Broccoli needs to be a mandate also for the very sick nation with very sick economy and very sick health care system.

Mar. 28 2012 10:37 AM
Carol Chaitkin

I don't think AG's are generals...are they not attorneys (in) general? General in these expressions is probably an adjective, not a noun...Does anyone know the origin of these titles?

Mar. 28 2012 10:36 AM

Soylent Green™!!!

Mar. 28 2012 10:36 AM
ken from Manhattan

How do conservatives propose to take care of the uninsured or the uninsurable?

I think I have and idea what kind of health system they want to return to.

Last night, my wife and I watched an old 1930s Humphrey Bogart movie called "High Sierra." In a subplot, Bogart as a John Dillingeresque bank robber, takes an interest in crippled teenage girl. He asks the father, "Can't a doctor fix her foot?" and the father replies the family is too impoverished to afford the needed operation. So if it weren't for Boagart using some of his ill-gotten gains, the girl would remain clubfooted for the rest of her life.

Think about how many old movies or novels depicted similar situations. That was the reality, that was the American health care approach just a generation or two ago.

Mar. 28 2012 10:35 AM

@MNorthrop, I agree. He doesn't like the regulation of grain futures ... I guess he won't like the regulation of financial derivatives either.

Mar. 28 2012 10:32 AM
Paul Langer from Fort Salonga, NY

I'm hoping the Court strikes the individual mandate down for two reasons:

1. It is starting us down an incredibly slippery slope. If allowed, Congress will use this to make us pay individually for things that should be supported by taxes. That creates more opacity in governance.

2. What we really need is a national health insurance program. The Affordable Healthcare Act is not enough.

Mar. 28 2012 10:31 AM
JM from Manhattan

The next thing to come is government regulation of food and drugs preventing us from buying diseased meat and dairy even if we want to buy it.. Government regulation and interference in who can call them self a doctor or nurse instead of letting the free market determine certifications (ie the practitioner with the least deaths gets the most patients ...sorry to those that died trying) why do we have the government in our lives in any way. The free market can regulate food and drugs bridges and safety . Why is the government trying to tell me which plane is safe to fly?

Mar. 28 2012 10:31 AM

Why are we at all interested in helping the State?

Mar. 28 2012 10:30 AM

Isn't it ironic? An individual mandate to purchase insurance may not stand yet the political will to create a national health service or even a public option cannot be summoned. Is the status quo, pay too much money for too little health care, really all that is left to us? We're already paying 17% of GDP with (depending on whose numbers you trust) 10-15% of the population uncovered. Can our political system truly not come up with a better way?

Mar. 28 2012 10:30 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

I think that Richard Epstein is also an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Mar. 28 2012 10:30 AM

Not every aspect of the US responds to Supply & Demand. When it comes to Death (of a spouse or child) there is no limit to what we will pay. Competition will not solve this problem. No one wants to die and will do whatever they need to do, including subverting capitalism. Healthcare just can NOT be measured and paid for on this scale. It does not compute.

Mar. 28 2012 10:27 AM
C.E. Connelly from Manhattan


I enjoy your show, but, please, this guest is making about 10 debatable assertions a minute that aren't being challenged. I realize there's going to be another quest with a different point of view. I also understand that you're goal is to have civil discussions, but the hard-rights need to be challenged on their merit. They're just repeated over and over again in all manner of media. Because they aren't challenged people start to accept them as true.

Mar. 28 2012 10:27 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Truth in Brooklyn- in case you were not listening yesterday: Driving a car is a privilege. Also, would you like the federal govt to force you to buy car insurance whether you have a car or not?

Mar. 28 2012 10:27 AM
mark brown from

What we need: I said over 7 years ago (check my blog)
we need SINGLE payer health insurance (national health insurance)
Phased in over X (I say 20) years so that the insurance company does not torpedo it.

The key is that the current insurance companies will start to compete for these new policy holders..

At certain points, the number of insurance providers will be reduced, and the benefits be equalized, until we FINALLY have a bunch of single payer programs...

Mar. 28 2012 10:26 AM
carolita from nyc

I pay for other people's healthcare whether I own health insurance or not these days. I'd rather be getting something out of it, too, by having health insurance too, in that case. I don't see how the health insurance issue is that different from social security. We all have to pay it, whether we need it or not, because we all might need it someday.

Mar. 28 2012 10:25 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Epstein is a brilliant force of nature !!!!!!!

He should be on the SCOTUS !!!!

Mar. 28 2012 10:25 AM
The Truth from Becky

Look to Canada for the solution to the problem.

Mar. 28 2012 10:25 AM

Regardless of what he is saying, Professor Epstein has at times sounded immaturely defensive and unprofessionally combative.

Mar. 28 2012 10:23 AM
Susan Norris from Chincoteague, Va.

Guys, the problem is the word, "insurance." All the underwriters I've known (in 40 years worth) know (but rarely say) that it ISN'T INSURANCE at all.
Everyone needs it regularly, IT'S PRE-PAID Health Care. You pay ahead for what you are 100 per cent guaranteed to need. And yes, you pay for older folks just as they paid for your food, clothing, shelter and education.
EVERYONE MUST be in it -and there are NO insurance underwriting principles that will work other than kicking out the older of any strip and the sick or previously sick (everybody eventually.)

Mar. 28 2012 10:22 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

@ Hugh - you are right, Epstein is right:

Obama's heart was in the right place but this gerry-rigged mandate is not the solution: Taxation, tax credits, regulation, and public options would have been so much better.

Mar. 28 2012 10:22 AM

Isn't this entire mess a mess because the health insurance purchase mandate ultimately enlarges the mess because nothing about Obama's plan attacks the actual cause of the crisis: the insurance companies are gouging everyone from the care providers, care givers, and the patients.

Private healthy insurance industry IS the cause. This only allows them even greater scope to destroy people's lives and the national budget. With one exception: if the mandate is law, and people can't afford to buy insurance, are they then criminals who can be imprisoned, thereby helping out the private prison industry?

Mar. 28 2012 10:21 AM
m. from manhattan

I am almost going to have to turn this off because I cannot listen to this guy's voice.

will someone just talk about how all the other civilized nations give everyone health care? or let's talk about how it's working in massachusetts.

Mar. 28 2012 10:21 AM
The Truth from Becky

The "broccoli" comparison is just asinine, the government is not currently paying upwards a couple billion for your broccoli!...just a dumb comment.

Mar. 28 2012 10:21 AM

With all this bogus cell phone, broccoli who-ha, why isn't the most important point being underscored?:

We will not let people die in our streets!!!

We have laws, religions, personal moral beliefs, etc. that dictate that people get hospital care whether they can pay or not. That's what makes this different.

Mar. 28 2012 10:20 AM
Roger from New York

The arguments before the Supreme Court about the Health Care Act were nothing short of exasperating. Questions and comparisons from learned Justices, who referred to broccoli and cell phones, reveal that some judges, despite their intelligence and supposed wisdom, fall back on simplistic thinking that reveals personal bias rather than thoughtful assessment. Where is the perceptive analysis we should expect of our highest court, which has already been demonstrated by conservative judges in lower courts? It is plain to see that the health care system is utilized by everyone at some point in their lives, either by choice or involuntarily. The staggering cost of American health care can only be accommodated if it is spread across the population. A mandate in the context of the current, imperfect law may well be the fairest outcome short of a radically revamped system. The fact that states require drivers to have insurance is an obvious comparison, and far more germane than broccoli. Yet, unlike medical care, not everyone has, or will have, a need to own a vehicle.

Mar. 28 2012 10:19 AM

currently people with health insurance are forced to buy health care for people without health insurance.

according to the conservative argument that is even more unconstitutional.

Mar. 28 2012 10:19 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

I requested yeaterday that you have Epstein on the show.....THANK YOU BRIAN AND BLS PRODUCERS !!!!!!!!

Mar. 28 2012 10:19 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but CAR INSURANCE is a government mandated insurance that we have to purchase from private insurers. And we buy it for almost the same reason: individuals can't afford to pay out of pocket if they are involved in an accident that results in damage to vehicles and persons.

My opinion of the Obama plan is that it is not the best way to go about providing health care/insurance for the American public (and I've written him to say so), but in light of the way we buy car insurance, I can't say that being mandated by government to purchase health insurance would be any more illegal than that.

Mar. 28 2012 10:19 AM
Robert from RBC

I hope so, I love broccoli. Sauteed with garlic in good olive oil and a squeeze of lemon and black pepper. But I think Scalia said baroccoli! What is that?

Mar. 28 2012 10:18 AM

It's NOT "Obamacare" or even "Romneycare"--it's a scheme cooked up in the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank.

When people talk about funding healthcare, do they want to leave in a middleman who provides NO value but adds overhead? That's what this scheme does by requiring people to pay for for-profit healthcare or get Medicaid if they cannot afford it.

The best approach would be single-payer (like the rest of the industrialized world) and tax people to the top dollar on FICA. This would level the playing field.

Yes, the Romneys can afford to pay for insurance or pay out-of-pocket for catastrophic illnesses, especially with their 13% tax rate. But most people can't do this.

Pre-"Obamacare," we have a scheme that basically kills off 60 million uninsured to garner corporate profits. That's more people in a wider dragnet than previous genocide schemes killed off, yet it makes a profit. That's obscene and gives the lie to any ideals this country purports to stand for.

Mar. 28 2012 10:18 AM

My question. Can every person visiting the US be required to buy health insurance? They may use it when in the country ie. they get hit by a bus. No one can be denied emergency care. I know first hand that non residents use the US healthcare system.

Mar. 28 2012 10:16 AM
Denny Crane from Boston Legal

Where's Alan Shore when you need him?

Mar. 28 2012 10:15 AM
Hugh Sansom

I'm pretty damn progressive, and I have to say that it sounds to me like the conservatives did a significantly better job before the Supreme Court yesterday (much as I hate to find myself agreeing with Richard Epstein).

I think there is a neglected point here: What we are seeing, I think, is that the Obama approach of trying to keep the health insurance industry happy while addressing the looming catastrophe in health care is just a very unhappy compromise. Obama ruled out single-payer from the start. We now know that he also opposed the public-option.

Epstein is right — Obama's is a gerry-built scheme. But — contrary to the claims of conservatives — we have overwhelming evidence that of monstrous market failure in health care. A solution that many Americans could embrace, including conservatives, is a very heavily regulated insurance industry with a public option — ala France, which has plenty of private providers operating in a regulated market. And France's system operates extremely well (which is why American naysayers focus on Britain, not France).

Mar. 28 2012 10:13 AM
Chris Garvey from Amityville

Richard Epstein is the possibly most brilliant person I've ever met.

Mar. 28 2012 10:11 AM
Mike C from manhattan

We force just about everyone that works to buy retirement insurance ... its called social security and also health care in retirement .. its called medicare so how can you argue against "Obama care" when this is already being done

Mar. 28 2012 10:11 AM

I said it yesterday and I'll repeat it here: having a partisan commentator from either side is useless. The conservative thought the conservatives had the better argument? What insightful analysis!

Mar. 28 2012 10:09 AM
1400 month for healthy fit family of 4 plus deduct

"do we make everybody eat broccoli?" No, we just make sure everybody has food to eat.

Since welfare and food stamps are considered legit, let's stick with that model since he brought it up.

The health care equivalent would be... drum roll.... universal health care.

(Why was that traded away again? Can we have a redo?)

Mar. 28 2012 10:05 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.