Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by mhailey

This is off topic, but Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. . . (I predict the counter: "no it isn't." to which i will not respond)

Please allow one more "off topic" post since no one, including our elected representatives, seems to care about the constitutionality of anything anymore.

Originally Posted by commiecat

I was referring to phrases like "death panels", "social security is a Ponzi scheme", "the job-killing health care law", "other countries' health care stats are better because they have less people" and "science can't prove how tides work" that you hear on certain news channels. Despite the evidence against these ludicrous claims, some people still choose to believe them.

I agree with you that so much of our language has become hyperbole that it is hard to converse in a rational way. As a former President once said under oath, "It all depends on what your meaning of the word 'is' is."

Now, many an economics professor has referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. Folks such as Michael S. Rozeff the (now retired) Louis M. Jacobs Professor of Finance at the University of Buffalo and Walter E. Williams the John M. Olin Professor of Economics at George Mason University who is also a nationally syndicated columnist. Others that are connected to the Austrian Theory of Economics also hold this same opinion.

A quote from the wiki that you linked to in a prior post: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. (The red text indicates why it is considered a "scheme" and not an investment or insurance in terms of finance and economics. Sounds like SS to me.)

Another quote (same source): The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. (Sounds like SS to me.)

Another : Knowingly entering a Ponzi scheme, even at the last round of the scheme, can be rational economically if there is a reasonable expectation that government or other deep pockets will bail out those participating in the Ponzi scheme.

The fact is "investors" are participants in the SS "scheme" whether willingly or not. Their investments are removed without a choice of where and how they will "invest". That in itself is why it has lasted for 75 years, as you point out in earlier posts.

We already have "death panels", if you will, considering that hospital and insurance administration review boards can at their discretion refuse eligibility for a kidney transplant to a diabetic with continuing alcoholic behavior. How will that work when a government bureaucrat is added to the mix? More will die waiting for a "decision".

Containing 2400+ pages there is so much hidden in the health care legislation that few know about. New taxes, regulations and much more. Some could be considered "job killing".

From an article by Professor Williams:
"Obama's heath care legislation contains deviousness that has become all too common in Washington. What was sold to the American people as health care reform legislation includes a provision that would more heavily regulate and tax gold coin and bullion transactions. Whether gold and bullion transactions should or should not be more heavily regulated and taxed is not the issue. The administration's devious inclusion of it as a part of health care reform is.

Fighting government intrusion into our lives is becoming increasingly difficult for at least two reasons. The first reason is that educators at the primary, secondary and university levels have been successful in teaching our youngsters to despise the values of our Constitution and the founders of our nation – "those dead, old, racist white men." Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students.

The second reason is we've become a nation of thieves, accustomed to living at the expense of one another and to accommodate that we're obliged to support tyrannical and overreaching government.

Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, 'How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.'"
Walter E. Williams

Originally Posted by WJF

Fighting government intrusion into our lives is becoming increasingly difficult for at least two reasons. The first reason is that educators at the primary, secondary and university levels have been successful in teaching our youngsters to despise the values of our Constitution and the founders of our nation – "those dead, old, racist white men." Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students.

The second reason is we've become a nation of thieves, accustomed to living at the expense of one another and to accommodate that we're obliged to support tyrannical and overreaching government.

Your first point is insulting, do you not think that teachers at what ever level take their profession very, very, seriously? They are taught not to impart their personal opinions, and they are also told what to teach. To me, what you're saying is akin to blaming front line troops for a tactical error, when they were getting orders from way up. It doesn't make sense.

Your second point, well, who fed you until you left home? Who paid for your education? Human beings are social creatures, perhaps if we focused a little less on 'I' and a little more on 'We' the whole lot of us would be a little less keen to screw each other - but this is a lesson that people have been trying to teach for many thousands of years, and what the hell did they know? In science, it's called game theory - and it is extremely interesting.

It's hilarious that you're both glossing over the parts about Ponzi schemes being fraudulent, which social security is not. It explains exactly what you're doing and what you get, and those things happen. They are also schemes which guarantee returns which, again, never come to fruition. Social security has been paid out to individuals as promised for the last 75 years, and was absolutely necessary when it was originally brought to the table. When people do start outliving the available funds, there will be an exit strategy. By your wack definitions, insurance is probably also a Ponzi scheme, right?

I've yet to see any opposition explain why our health care system before reform was so great, or offer any viable alternatives. It's fun to just point out things you dislike without offering any helpful solutions, isn't it?

Other countries health care states are better, and other countries health care states are worse. depends upon the country. This overarching statement is just TOO broad to even address.

Ahh, so you don't respond to "no it isn't" as an answer, yet offer a similar cop-out. There is quantitative evidence that of developed countries, the U.S. is far behind in health care. We pay more and receive less. I wonder if you'd be so dismissive of this conversation if our military was just mediocre by the world's average.

Here are just a few countries off the top of my head: Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, Sweden, UK, Norway. All pay less for insurance, have higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates.

Are any of those specific enough for you to address?

Originally Posted by commiecat

I wonder if you'd be so dismissive of this conversation if our military was just mediocre by the world's average.

Mmm, good point.