ad_facebook
ad_email_468

3 responses to “Chief Justice: Why should all pay for what only some need?”

  1. Duane Williams

    This whole debate seems crazy to me. The government has the power to raise taxes without having to say what the money is going to be spent on. Why couldn’t the government declare that all citizens are eligible to enroll in Medicare and then raise taxes as needed to pay for it? At the same time the government could require that all doctors and hospitals accept Medicare insurance. People who already have health care insurance would not be required to switch to Medicare, but they would still have to pay their taxes.

  2. Duane Williams

    I didn’t need the war in Iraq. Is the Chief Justice trying to say that I should’t have to pay for it? Can I get a tax refund?

  3. David Lampo

    Duane, that’s a strange and invalid analogy. Individuals don’t purchase wars; they do purchase health insurance, and up until ACA, they had a choice in doing so, as well as in the scope of coverage. Now we’re loaded down with mandates to purchase coverage we don’t need. That’s wrong. Why do liberals always promote choice when it comes to abortion and contraception and gay rights (correctly, I might add) but oppose choice in so many other areas of life? They have no moral standing to talk about gay rights when at the same time they say you can’t choose your health care, your retirement plans, what you spend 30 percent or more of your income on, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Roberts’ questions stole the spotlight; will they steal the show on marriage?

Most legal observers who watched or listened to the oral arguments from April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal seeking to strike down bans on same-sex marriages in four states, focused on the likelihood that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote with the court’s four liberal wing justices and find the bans unconstitutional. But a few, like University of California School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, believe the vote could even be 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts on board.

» more


Breaking News

Roberts’ questions stole the spotlight; will they steal the show on marriage?

Most legal observers who watched or listened to the oral arguments from April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal seeking to strike down bans on same-sex marriages in four states, focused on the likelihood that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote with the court’s four liberal wing justices and find the bans unconstitutional. But a few, like University of California School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, believe the vote could even be 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts on board.

» more


Supreme Court: Kennedy’s questions offer hope -and worry- for both sides in state marriage ban argumentSupreme Court: Kennedy’s questions offer hope -and worry- for both sides in state marriage ban argument

Though attorneys for same-sex couples tried numerous times to focus attention to the damage that bans on same-sex marriage inflict on the rights of LGBT people, the spotlight during Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court argument stayed largely on the rights of states to regulate marriage.

» more


Sparring continues among appeals courts as Supreme Court puts off marriage cases another week

The U.S. Supreme Court put off until at least this Friday (January 16) a decision on whether it will hear appeals challenging a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that said states can ban same-sex couples from marrying. Meanwhile, three judges of the Ninth Circuit issued a blistering dissent against the full appeals courts refusal to hear appeals from Idaho and Nevada, and a three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit heard arguments from challenges to three state bans on Monday.

» more


Sixth Circuit panel upholds bans on same-sex marriage, setting up national showdown for Supreme Court

In a decision that will compel the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of bans against marriage for same-sex couples, a panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that it is not unconstitutional for a state to ban marriage licenses to same-sex couples or refuse to recognize marriage licenses such couples obtain from other states.

» more


Healey makes history, Maloney survives, DeMaio’s in a squeaker, but Michaud comes up short

Maura Healey became the first openly gay person elected as a state attorney general, Sheila Kuehl won a hotly contested race in Los Angeles, Sean Maloney survived his U.S. House challenge, and Carl DeMaio may have won a squeaker in San Diego, but Mike Michaud lost his bid in Maine.

» more