View Full Version : Obamacare arguments in the Supreme Court-Day 1
Bubblehead1980
03-27-12, 12:00 AM
Well, what is possibly the biggest case the Supreme Court has heard in a while is being heard this week as arguments began today.The big day is tomorrow when arguments on the individual mandate are answered but the government's lawyer did have a bit of a flop today as he could not keep with the truth about whether the fine is a "tax" or "penalty", despite Obama's words calling it a tax.
Should be interesting, as the future of healthcare and liberty is at stake.
gimpy117
03-27-12, 07:29 AM
well, if we had just gone with the original idea, and not let the right wing water it down at the bequest of the insurance companies; with a few dems in tow...we wouldn't have this issue
mookiemookie
03-27-12, 08:16 AM
Oh great. He titles it "Day 1." Implying that he's going to have a running day by day commentary. I know we're all waiting with bated breath for his insightful, well reasoned and even handed analysis. Well, except for those of us that have him on ignore. Which is to say a lot of us. :haha:
well, if we had just gone with the original idea, and not let the right wing water it down at the bequest of the insurance companies; with a few dems in tow...we wouldn't have this issue
Nice bit of revisionism you got going on there. The Democrats held filibuster proof majorities in both houses of congress as well as controlled the oval office. You can't blame the republicans for this mess. That's all on your party.
Oh great. He titles it "Day 1." Implying that he's going to have a running day by day commentary. I know we're all waiting with bated breath for his insightful, well reasoned and even handed analysis. Well, except for those of us that have him on ignore. Which is to say a lot of us. :haha:
Yet you still were drawn to his thread like a moth to a flame. Dance moth dance!
JSLTIGER
03-27-12, 08:21 AM
well, if we had just gone with the original idea, and not let the right wing water it down at the bequest of the insurance companies; with a few dems in tow...we wouldn't have this issue
On the contrary, my biggest point of contention about the plan is the purchase mandate, which would have been a part of the bill regardless of any meddling by the insurance companies.
From my own understanding of Constitutional Law (and yes, folks, I am a licensed attorney), I personally believe that any law requiring the purchase of an item by the Federal government is unconstitutional. I know that proponents of Obamacare argue that it's similar to collision coverage on an automobile, but last I checked, there is no requirement to own a car. Therefore, the requirement to have coverage only applies to those who choose to own one and is an entirely different animal.
I actually fear the consequences should SCOTUS come to a conclusion other than this, as a consequence of the "slippery slope." If the government can force us to buy healthcare insurance, then what is to stop them from forcing us to buy other products that we may not actually need?
Bubblehead1980
03-27-12, 08:30 AM
On the contrary, my biggest point of contention about the plan is the purchase mandate, which would have been a part of the bill regardless of any meddling by the insurance companies.
From my own understanding of Constitutional Law (and yes, folks, I am a licensed attorney), I personally believe that any law requiring the purchase of an item by the Federal government is unconstitutional. I know that proponents of Obamacare argue that it's similar to collision coverage on an automobile, but last I checked, there is no requirement to own a car. Therefore, the requirement to have coverage only applies to those who choose to own one and is an entirely different animal.
:yeah: I think most people who use the car insurance argument are woefully ignorant of the constitution and it's limit on federal power.I laugh at the idiots who try to use that argument.
mookiemookie
03-27-12, 08:30 AM
Yet you still were drawn to his thread like a moth to a flame. Dance moth dance!
Yes! It's fun...like watching someone about to make a mistake. You can't bear to look away.
Tribesman
03-27-12, 08:34 AM
Oh great. He titles it "Day 1." Implying that he's going to have a running day by day commentary.
But isn't the hearing already over?
Bubbles declared the results already.
Skybird
03-27-12, 08:45 AM
Great show, the American Freedom Union versus the United Union for Freedom in America, with the True Free Americans in the midsts of it and the Independent Union of American Freedom Fighters preparing at the sideline.
All this talking about liberty and true Americanship reminds of a certain Monthy Python sketch, doesn't it?! :DL
Yes! It's fun...like watching someone about to make a mistake. You can't bear to look away.
:DL You're a good egg Mookie!
Bubblehead1980
03-27-12, 09:29 AM
But isn't the hearing already over?
Bubbles declared the results already.
No, three days of arguments for this one.
Bubblehead1980
03-27-12, 09:31 AM
Yes! It's fun...like watching someone about to make a mistake. You can't bear to look away.
Please mookie, explain why obamacare is constitutional? Again, don't insult me, just prove me wrong.Wait, you can't or can you? Lets see...
kraznyi_oktjabr
03-27-12, 09:38 AM
I don't see Bubbles' posts (and in no way am I going to press that "view post" button) I just comment generally that this is going to be interesting case. "Buy this or else..." law sounds like something that should not pass SCOTUS unscathed but I'm not surprised if it does.
Osmium Steele
03-27-12, 09:57 AM
All this talking about liberty and true Americanship reminds of a certain Monthy Python sketch, doesn't it?! :DL
We have yet to hear from the People's Front of Judea!
Osmium Steele
03-27-12, 10:10 AM
I don't see Bubbles' posts (and in no way am I going to press that "view post" button) I just comment generally that this is going to be interesting case. "Buy this or else..." law sounds like something that should not pass SCOTUS unscathed but I'm not surprised if it does.
I gave up any faith I had in SCOTUS when McCain-Feingold campaign finace reform passed muster. It was as blatantly unconstitutional as Obamacare.
I'll not be surprised either, just trapped.
'ello, 'ello,
At http://www.fantasyscotus.net/ , the „Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League. Play like the 10th Judge,“ you can predict the Health Care cases and win a 200 $ Amazom Gift Card“.
I think I will join the Supreme Court Fantasy League and place my prediction there:
a 5 - 4 outcome to uphold the law.
Peace and a higher high to everyone out there!
P.s.: IF there would be a "Subsim Supreme Court Fantasy League" here with prizes to win, I would join, too ("greedy")!
I don't get it... isn't not being able to afford medical aid at the point of contact, like, a bad thing?
From what I heard on the radio yesterday, there were two bunches of people. Group one said, "I'm not paying for your healthcare, answer my question! this is urmerca! Wooo fk yeah!!!"
The other group said "Making sure everyone who is sick gets treatment regardless, is how a society that looks after not only its weakest members but everyone, including rich and poor should be. We're all commies now."
So, you guys have issues with healthcare, right? :O:
Can someone do a TL;DR of this whole healthcare rumble, so those of us who live with free healthcare can understand the issue, please.
JSLTIGER
03-27-12, 01:04 PM
I don't get it... isn't not being able to afford medical aid at the point of contact, like, a bad thing?
From what I heard on the radio yesterday, there were two bunches of people. Group one said, "I'm not paying for your healthcare, answer my question! this is urmerca! Wooo fk yeah!!!"
The other group said "Making sure everyone who is sick gets treatment regardless, is how a society that looks after not only its weakest members but everyone, including rich and poor should be. We're all commies now."
So, you guys have issues with healthcare, right? :O:
To your point one, jumpy, yes, that's a bad thing. However, your characterizations are a bit out of line and are oversimplified. Although I question why I should have to put money which I work for (or would, if I had a job) towards paying for someone else's healthcare, my primary objections to the Obamacare law are the imposition of penalties on people who do not want health insurance and the fact that such a law will eventually turn our healthcare system into a shoddy version of the NHS you have over in the UK that will eventually result in a large number of deaths.
I am of the belief (and apparently so are at least several of the SCOTUS Justices) that the government does not have a right to make its citizens buy a product under our Constitution. Although there are arguments to be made under the Commerce Clause that Congress does have such a power, it is important to remember that the clause appears in an enumeration of Congress' powers; in other words, an attempt to limit what Congress could actually do. If the law is upheld, then what is next? Can the government mandate that all Americans must buy and eat apples or some other kind of fruit because fruit is good for you and since your health is evidently relevant to interstate commerce, it's just regulation? That to me seems a distortion of the intent of our nation's founders and a severe restriction on our liberty. It's the beginning of a dangerous slippery slope, and a bad path to begin to follow.
As to my other point, this nation simply lacks the medical capacity in order to care for everyone in the ways demanded by this plan. We simply do not have the number of nurses and physicians necessary to take care of everyone over here. The UK's NHS struggles to care for the 62.5 million people which reside in the UK and depend on it for their healthcare (I've seen the complaints). Imagine attempting to create a system with over 5 times that number of potential patients. If you think service in healthcare is bad now, just wait until there are so many more people going to get various procedures done because they're now covered.
This plan will kill people, that I can guarantee. How? Allow me to explain. Because everyone is now covered, patient X goes to see his doctor about an odd mole on his arm. Dr. says, OK, you should have that checked out by a specialist. Patient X says, OK, it's covered. Because everyone is now covered and is going to see the specialist, Patient X will have to wait for months in order to get an appointment with the specialist. The months pass, the mole invariably grows. Patient X finally gets to see the specialist. Unfortunately, the specialist diagnoses it as cancer, which, since he has waited so long for treatment has now metastasized and spread throughout Patient X's body. Patient X now has only a couple of weeks to live before the cancer will finish him. What might have been a simple surgery that would have cured Patient X will now do nothing to solve the problem that was created by failing to receive treatment.
It's not about "urmerca! Wooo fk yeah!!!" It's about the fact that the government will, for the first time in history, force Americans to purchase something and penalize them if they do not. It's about the fact that while made with the best of intentions, this plan will kill people. It's about the fact that this nation does not have the proper infrastructure to support such a plan, and will not for a long time to come, if ever. It's about the fact that I should not have to pay the bill for someone who chooses not to work hard and winds up in a position where they cannot afford insurance.
My own healthcare is my concern and no one else's. I don't ask anyone other than my parents for help (which I am admittedly lucky to receive). Nonetheless, please tell me why I should work hard and have to subsidize the care of someone who cares so little about it that they do not attempt to work and protect themselves? Why should I have to pay for the medical care of drug addicts and people who choose to live off of my taxes via other welfare programs because they are lazy? I am not talking about the people who are trying, mind you. I'm talking about those that just don't give a damn.
I live in a country where a health care insurance is a must...and relative to earning which means that poor people pay less.
One simply goes to the doctor and gets the treatment....simple.
How wrong and commie it can be?
This is going to be a long discussion, concidering that the court won't rule on it until probably next June.:DL
mookiemookie
03-27-12, 01:18 PM
It's about the fact that I should not have to pay the bill for someone who chooses not to work hard and winds up in a position where they cannot afford insurance. There are many hardworking people who cannot afford health insurance. The self employed, for example. Have you seen the prices on an individual policy? It's ridiculously expensive without the luxury of group pricing and employers paying a portion of the cost.
My own healthcare is my concern and no one else's. I don't ask anyone other than my parents for help (which I am admittedly lucky to receive). Nonetheless, please tell me why I should work hard and have to subsidize the care of someone who cares so little about it that they do not attempt to work and protect themselves? If you have insurance, you already do. In fact, if you're on Aetna insurance like I am, you're subsidizing my health care costs. That's what insurance is. A group of people paying into a pool that spreads the costs of an individual's risk out to everyone in the group.
Take a gander at the steak thread. See that huge and obnoxiously unhealthy dinner I made? Yep, you're paying for my Lipitor if you're on Aetna. Does that bother you? The only solution is to not have insurance.
JSLTIGER
03-27-12, 01:32 PM
There are many hardworking people who cannot afford health insurance. The self employed, for example. Have you seen the prices on an individual policy? It's ridiculously expensive without the luxury of group pricing and employers paying a portion of the cost.
If you have insurance, you already do. In fact, if you're on Aetna insurance like I am, you're subsidizing my health care costs. That's what insurance is. A group of people paying into a pool that spreads the costs of an individual's risk out to everyone in the group.
Take a gander at the steak thread. See that huge and obnoxiously unhealthy dinner I made? Yep, you're paying for my Lipitor if you're on Aetna. Does that bother you? The only solution is to not have insurance.
I don't mind paying into insurance when other people are paying in as well. I understand that that's how insurance companies make money. My problem is when I'm paying for someone's care who isn't throwing back into the pot. Nor do I think that people should be forced to participate in insurance. If you can't pay in or don't want to pay in, then that's fine with me, just don't ask me to pay for you when you need care.
Instead of Obamacare, what should have happened is a regulation on the amount of profit that insurance companies are permitted to generate. I think that they are entitled to a reasonable and not outlandishly high profit. A large part of the reason that prices continue to rise is due to the pressure put on insurance companies by their shareholders to have their profits grow. Now, I'm sorry, but I don't give a damn about the shareholders. These companies are performing a public service like utility companies and need to be held to a higher standard of corporate responsibility.
According to my dim knowledge US health care is one of the most inflated and inefficient ones.
Here is a quickie graph that reflects this.
I don't know hoe accurate it is but it shows more or less what is known to me.
http://static.thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2011/04/cost_of_health_care_Nat_geo.png
All this health care debate looks like ideological struggle ....nothing more.
.................
Osmium Steele
03-27-12, 01:40 PM
If you have insurance, you already do. In fact, if you're on Aetna insurance like I am, you're subsidizing my health care costs.
Those who have Aetna insurance, do so by choice.
Not government fiat.
Insurance, being a profit generating industry, is always going to add to the expense above and beyond the cost of the health care itself.
If the government really cared about improving the health care system they should just eliminate the insurance middleman and offer health care directly. NHS doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs, the whole kaboodle, instead of this half measure that will satisfy nobody except the Insurance companies and their armies of lobbyists.
mookiemookie
03-27-12, 01:54 PM
Those who have Aetna insurance, do so by choice.
Not government fiat.
Yeah, and....? Respectfully, what you're saying is pretty much irrelevant to the point I was making.
I don't mind paying into insurance when other people are paying in as well. I understand that that's how insurance companies make money. My problem is when I'm paying for someone's care who isn't throwing back into the pot. Nor do I think that people should be forced to participate in insurance. If you can't pay in or don't want to pay in, then that's fine with me, just don't ask me to pay for you when you need care. But that's exactly what's happening now. Those of us with insurance are paying higher costs to cover the care of those without. They're ostensibly addressing exactly what you say you have a problem with - those not paying into the system.
I have a lot of problems with this bill, and believe me, I'm not advocating it. I think it's a big giveaway to insurance companies, but I do follow their reasoning on it. If it were up to me, I'd throw the mandate out, and come down hard on the insurance companies. Take away the sweetheart anti-competitive deals they've worked out and let them truly compete. Say "you want free market healthcare, alright, let's have free markets then. Your exemption from antitrust law is gone. You've all just been slapped with antitrust lawsuits for collusion, price fixing and market allocation. Once you pay the bazillions in damages, then let's see the strongest survive."
If the government really cared about improving the health care system they should just eliminate the insurance middleman and offer health care directly. NHS doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs, the whole kaboodle, instead of this half measure that will satisfy nobody except the Insurance companies and their armies of lobbyists.
Pretty much what I think as well. I'm not sure how a truly free market health care system would work out. I don't think it would.
Can someone do a TL;DR of this whole healthcare rumble, so those of us who live with free healthcare can understand the issue, please.
They'll have to agree on what it is first, which, like most things between American left and right these days, is impossible.
why I should work hard and have to subsidize the care of someone who cares so little about it that they do not attempt to work and protect themselves? Why should I have to pay for the medical care of drug addicts and people who choose to live off of my taxes via other welfare programs because they are lazy? I am not talking about the people who are trying, mind you. I'm talking about those that just don't give a damn.
To take the UK model, it's paid for along with income tax under the National Insurance scheme. As far as I'm aware this is a state run thing. Everybody pays for everybody. The idea of 'I pay for me and mine' and sod anyone else (I'm not making a judgement on you here, just trying to clarify between our two systems, and how I've always looked at NI contributions) doesn't really come into it over here.
I don't mind paying into insurance when other people are paying in as well. I understand that that's how insurance companies make money. My problem is when I'm paying for someone's care who isn't throwing back into the pot. Nor do I think that people should be forced to participate in insurance. If you can't pay in or don't want to pay in, then that's fine with me, just don't ask me to pay for you when you need care.
Instead of Obamacare, what should have happened is a regulation on the amount of profit that insurance companies are permitted to generate. I think that they are entitled to a reasonable and not outlandishly high profit. A large part of the reason that prices continue to rise is due to the pressure put on insurance companies by their shareholders to have their profits grow. Now, I'm sorry, but I don't give a damn about the shareholders. These companies are performing a public service like utility companies and need to be held to a higher standard of corporate responsibility.
Insurance, being a profit generating industry, is always going to add to the expense above and beyond the cost of the health care itself.
If the government really cared about improving the health care system they should just eliminate the insurance middleman and offer health care directly. NHS doctors, nurses, hospitals, labs, the whole kaboodle, instead of this half measure that will satisfy nobody except the Insurance companies and their armies of lobbyists.
Something that crops up here is Insurance Companies; private organisations that exist to make money being involved with the healthcare system.
I think on principal I'm opposed to that... if the rising premiums on my car insurance are anything to go by, that particular model is a continual spiral upward.
It seems that there's a shift toward private healthcare with you guys, like we have here, only we have it in addition to the NHS.
You might sometimes get what you pay for if you go private, but at least here you will always get something. The way it sounds if you don't have insurance over there, you don't get healthcare at all? Or is it that the private healthcare insurance market is being siphoned off to pay for public healthcare? So wealthy 'I've paid for the best' people aren't happy about subsidising those who are less fortunate.
Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong, but that sounds like a system designed to make people selfish in their view of what society is all about - after all a society is often judged on how it treats its weakest members. Perhaps that's the NHS talking hehe.
I don't know, it sounds like there's a lot to be confused about how it's actually paid for.
I mean, you guys pay income tax, so the government can do its thing, right? So how is paying a flat rate to the government in the form of a NI contribution any different? Or rather how is it so different that it's causing such a kerfuffle? Is it because there's a profit margin in there somewhere?
Like many social commitments - Healthcare for a society, based on providing care for everyone, will never be a profit making organisation and it's a mistake to think it ever can be. The best to hope for is to break even, but you can probably expect to make a loss. In fact, I'd say it's not working if you're making money out of healthcare; if that's the case then it's already badly gone wrong.
From what I've heard, I'd hate to have such a system of private healthcare implemented here, and I'm uneasy about the current government making moves to sell off the NHS using the US model as some kind of template.
I guess it's only natural for me to shake my head in confusion at the divergent positions regarding medical treatment with you chaps and the apparent anger it is causing. Having read this topic and postulated some of my own thoughts, perhaps my further confusion mirrors the process taking place over the pond.
:06:
kraznyi_oktjabr
03-27-12, 04:04 PM
Just for comparison purposes.
Here in Finland basic health care is taken care of by municipalities, each for their own citizens. More complicated (and not so commonly needed) healthcare services are provided by corporations owned by municipalities. Whole thing is funded by municipal tax income and small fee (about €20 but may vary) paid everytime using services. Private sector exist too and if people want to use it then they can freely do so (I do although last time basic doc's check, blood tests not included, was €88 vs. €20 in public).
Also employers are obliged to arrange occupational health care for their employees. Usually this is arranged by contract between employer and private sector health care provider.
Emergency medical care for life threatening situations (cardiac arrest, crash injuries etc.) are provided by public sector. Accident insurance is still recommended as public care does not cover all post accident medical care (corrective surgery etc.) and rehabilitation needs.
So have I understood correctly that your system in America does not have anykind of public health care service available (Veterans Affairs excluded)?
JSLTIGER
03-27-12, 04:29 PM
I mean, you guys pay income tax, so the government can do its thing, right? So how is paying a flat rate to the government in the form of a NI contribution any different? Or rather how is it so different that it's causing such a kerfuffle?
What's causing the "kerfuffle," as you put it, is that this is the first time that the national Federal government has said that we MUST PURCHASE insurance or face a fine in the form of a tax penalty.
Income taxes are one thing, and they are legitimate according to the Constitution. It's written very clearly in there that Congress has the power to levy taxes and since the 16th Amendment allowed it, beginning in 1913, those taxes are allowed to be levied based on income rather than by state population. There's a distinct difference between paying taxes and purchasing a product, however. 99.9% of the population will agree that as reviled as they are, taxes are necessary and legal over here. However, up until this point, the government has never been able to force Americans to buy something for themselves. The rub is that the government is now deciding what you should and should not buy for yourself with your own money as opposed to deciding what the government is going to spend its money on with taxes that it has levied. The difference is slight, but it is distinct, and it is identifiable.
The big fear is that this could extend into other parts of daily life and the government could eventually decide that all Americans have to purchase other things or pay a tax. Imagine, for instance, Congress declaring that for the good of the American economy, every American must purchase a car from the Big 3 or face a tax penalty. If this law is upheld, then technically, there is a precedent for that law telling Americans what they must purchase. This is the problem and why it is causing so much trouble over here.
So have I understood correctly that your system in America does not have anykind of public health care service available (Veterans Affairs excluded)?
There is a degree of health care for the poor and there is also the governments own employee health care program. They give themselves a pretty sweet deal so I understand.
JSLTIGER, you think it's really the thin end of the wedge in that respect, generally speaking?
Providing a government subsidised healthcare program is an awful long way from propping up ailing motor manufacturers. The former is intended for medical care ethics and equality of basic care for the citizens. The latter is to subsidise the future profits of a private company (less so the jobs created/sustained - imo they are more of by-product).
So if I have it right, the 'beef' is that gov is saying 'spend this money or be fined' and that money is being paid to what amounts to private health insurance firms.
The issue comes that you are having to pay for a goods and service type thing, rather than pay for a 'tax', then?
But are not government services 'products' too, just that the association is a little removed?
Surely if the gov were running the healthcare system, then you'd be contributing a tax toward its running just like income tax is allotted for public services. As such levying a government tax would not interfere with any constitutional statements?
Sorry I'm being stubborn, but I don't see why there's any difference between the tax (as in a National Insurance Contribution) and paying for a 'product', albeit one that seems to run as much in the interest of business as it is supposedly to healthcare. The only dissimilarity I can see is that one is run by the government as a public service, the other is the government saying pay this money to private companies.
Questions:
Why cannot the gov run things and leave the private insurance profit makers out of the loop? In effect a new tax would be levied according to earnings, just like income tax is (I believe that's roughly how we do things).
Can they not make that decision to levy some tax and then spend it on nationalised healthcare?
I know it's an oversimplification, but ... how to say, isn't it just as simple to nationalise healthcare and remove the business profiteering element that large scale private insurance involvement brings to such an essential service as medical treatment, make it state controlled and generate taxation to pay for it? I'd have thought that would solve the problem of deciding how people spend their money (though governments do that anyway when they take some of your income as a legitimate tax).
In short, nationalise healthcare and raise income tax to support it.
As I said before, maybe it's the NHS talking; as it's something I take for granted so I cannot see what you see in the same light.
One more thing, how much of this debate is rallied by party politics? (I know that's a digression, but it sounds relevant to what the news was saying yesterday)
kraznyi_oktjabr
03-27-12, 06:41 PM
Sorry I'm being stubborn, but I don't see why there's any difference between the tax (as in a National Insurance Contribution) and paying for a 'product', albeit one that seems to run as much in the interest of business as it is supposedly to healthcare. The only dissimilarity I can see is that one is run by the government as a public service, the other is the government saying pay this money to private companies.Tax is controlled by government. In other hand if goverment just forces citizen to pay for private sector product (or face penalty) there is no check to keep costs reasonable.
In this case its about health care but what is it about next?
the_tyrant
03-27-12, 08:20 PM
I have to say, views on healthcare will change depending on your circumstance
if it is just minor things, routine checkups, public healthcare is great!
I mean, there is a wait, xrays take a few days, but its free! and you really can't beat free.
but if you are in a hospital bed right now, with a life threatening condition, and you cannot afford to wait for a transplant/x-ray/surgery etc, the you would probably prefer the private system. (AKA, here is my money, give me my surgery NOW)
Also depends if you have the money for private care. ;)
I think the US government is between a rock and a hard place with this healtcare proposal. If it raised taxes to pay for it then people would cry merry havoc, so it goes through another method and people still cry merry havoc.
MothBalls
03-27-12, 08:45 PM
I personally believe that any law requiring the purchase of an item by the Federal government is unconstitutional.
Exactly, and hopefully that's what gets fixed.
JSLTIGER
03-27-12, 10:24 PM
JSLTIGER, you think it's really the thin end of the wedge in that respect, generally speaking?
Providing a government subsidised healthcare program is an awful long way from propping up ailing motor manufacturers. The former is intended for medical care ethics and equality of basic care for the citizens. The latter is to subsidise the future profits of a private company (less so the jobs created/sustained - imo they are more of by-product).
So if I have it right, the 'beef' is that gov is saying 'spend this money or be fined' and that money is being paid to what amounts to private health insurance firms.
The issue comes that you are having to pay for a goods and service type thing, rather than pay for a 'tax', then?
IMHO, Jumpy, yeah, it really is about that thin edge of wedge. And like I said, while we're dealing with healthcare now, the fear is that it will lead to a "slippery slope" which would eventually result in a situation like the automaker example which I postulated above. The Constitution does not provide Congress with the power to mandate purchases directly from citizens to corporations. You have the 'beef' exactly right in your statement above.
But are not government services 'products' too, just that the association is a little removed?
Even so, there is a distinct and definite difference between the government collecting a tax and then spending it in a manner which it feels is appropriate and directing people to pay out of their own pocket for a product and be fined if they don't. While that may seem like semantics, it's really not, especially when the government is also directing that people with higher incomes pay more for identical services, as though it were a tax. There is no authority allowing the government to collect a tax in this fashion. Taxes are limited Constitutionally to raising revenue so that Congress may exercise its mandated duties (e.g. defense (raising an army and navy), printing money, coining money, regulating commerce, etc.). Attempting to get around these strictures (as providing healthcare is NOT one of the powers entrusted to Congress) by simply skipping the governmental collection step is unconstitutional.
Surely if the gov were running the healthcare system, then you'd be contributing a tax toward its running just like income tax is allotted for public services. As such levying a government tax would not interfere with any constitutional statements?
If the government were running the healthcare system, then yes, you would be paying the government via a tax for the public service. However, here, the government is not running the healthcare system. Instead, the government is saying that citizens must pay for an insurance plan offered by a private (for profit!) company, or face a governmental penalty in the form of a tax penalty. This is the problem, as the government does not have the authority to do this under the Constitution. They can absolutely raise a tax if they want, but they cannot have a program handled in this manner.
Sorry I'm being stubborn, but I don't see why there's any difference between the tax (as in a National Insurance Contribution) and paying for a 'product', albeit one that seems to run as much in the interest of business as it is supposedly to healthcare. The only dissimilarity I can see is that one is run by the government as a public service, the other is the government saying pay this money to private companies.
You've hit the nail on the head with the last sentence. As I've said, although the difference is slight, it is there. Although income taxes have been around for 99 years (and believe me, they're complicated as hell...I'm finishing up my Masters of Law (LL.M.) in Tax right now), the government has never been able to order citizens to pay money to private companies on a mandatory basis, nor can it (IMHO) under the U.S. Constitution. This is really what is being decided by SCOTUS at the moment.
Questions:
Why cannot the gov run things and leave the private insurance profit makers out of the loop? In effect a new tax would be levied according to earnings, just like income tax is (I believe that's roughly how we do things).
Can they not make that decision to levy some tax and then spend it on nationalised healthcare?
I know it's an oversimplification, but ... how to say, isn't it just as simple to nationalise healthcare and remove the business profiteering element that large scale private insurance involvement brings to such an essential service as medical treatment, make it state controlled and generate taxation to pay for it? I'd have thought that would solve the problem of deciding how people spend their money (though governments do that anyway when they take some of your income as a legitimate tax).
In short, nationalise healthcare and raise income tax to support it.
As I said before, maybe it's the NHS talking; as it's something I take for granted so I cannot see what you see in the same light.
They absolutely could do this, and at one point they tried with the so-called "public option" that was eventually left out of the bill. Americans, though, for the most part don't want government-run healthcare. There is a large segment of society that feels that our government is bureaucratic enough already and that a government-run healthcare system would be unbelievably expensive and inefficient. Also, as I mentioned in my first post response to you:
[T]his nation simply lacks the medical capacity in order to care for everyone in the ways demanded by this plan. We simply do not have the number of nurses and physicians necessary to take care of everyone over here. The UK's NHS struggles to care for the 62.5 million people which reside in the UK and depend on it for their healthcare (I've seen the complaints). Imagine attempting to create a system with over 5 times that number of potential patients. If you think service in healthcare is bad now, just wait until there are so many more people going to get various procedures done because they're now covered.
This plan will kill people, that I can guarantee. How? Allow me to explain. Because everyone is now covered, patient X goes to see his doctor about an odd mole on his arm. Dr. says, OK, you should have that checked out by a specialist. Patient X says, OK, it's covered. Because everyone is now covered and is going to see the specialist, Patient X will have to wait for months in order to get an appointment with the specialist. The months pass, the mole invariably grows. Patient X finally gets to see the specialist. Unfortunately, the specialist diagnoses it as cancer, which, since he has waited so long for treatment has now metastasized and spread throughout Patient X's body. Patient X now has only a couple of weeks to live before the cancer will finish him. What might have been a simple surgery that would have cured Patient X will now do nothing to solve the problem that was created by failing to receive treatment.
One more thing, how much of this debate is rallied by party politics? (I know that's a digression, but it sounds relevant to what the news was saying yesterday)
Although some of this is being driven by party politics, in many cases, people's responses are crossing party lines, depending on demographics like income level, current health status, etc. As with any law in Washington, politics will always play a role. Nevertheless, in many cases, people's opinions have more to do with what they perceive to be the proper path for the country rather than any one political party's agenda. For myself, I can say that I have looked at this from a purely legal standpoint, and I simply don't see how anyone could conclude that the purchasing mandate is Constitutional.
Aha! That's the missing link that I hadn't spotted, that the health-care isn't actually done through a government project but by private agencies. Sounds a bit like what we might be heading towards in the UK if the Condems have their way.
That is a receipe for disaster as private agencies will attempt to run for profit, and as jumpy has correctly stated, health care is not a profit making business and if you're in it for the money then you're doing it wrong.
I think I understand what the problem is now, I was originally under the impression that the hospitals and health-care, etc, would be run by the government itself, not by companies.
GoldenRivet
03-27-12, 11:00 PM
Im all for a bipartisan healthcare plan
Im all for reform
Im completely against the mandate, and i have wasted countless hours on this site wrapped up in discussion, entangled in argument, encircled in endless debate and waging an pointless war of words with those whose minds are so fixated on the man behind the plan that their view is unwavering. I have been engaged in so many discussions with those individuals here who are so focused upon their way being the only solution that they cannot see the fundamental problem with this health care plan, and that problem quite simply is the Government of the United States requiring it's citizens to purchase any object or service is and ought to be unconstitutional, illegal and immoral.
Once we allow this mandate - we are no longer citizens, we become subjects.
no more will i contribute to this rubbish. because i have run out of too many things among those things being what little faith i ever had in our federal government - i have run out of my faith in my fellow countrymen - i have run out of faith in this "system" and because of this I just cease to give a damn.
As sad as it is... For the actions of her uneducated masses and the folly of the fools who lead them, the United States of America as a whole deserves whatever unending financial ruin and downward spiral she faces in the coming decades.
I have to say, views on healthcare will change depending on your circumstance
if it is just minor things, routine checkups, public healthcare is great!
I mean, there is a wait, xrays take a few days, but its free! and you really can't beat free.
but if you are in a hospital bed right now, with a life threatening condition, and you cannot afford to wait for a transplant/x-ray/surgery etc, the you would probably prefer the private system. (AKA, here is my money, give me my surgery NOW)
If you have it that is. I had two coronary artery stents put in after a minor heart attack a few years ago and the hospital billed my insurance company for a little over seventy thousand dollars. Now if I had to come up with it I guess I'd have had to do without.
CaptainHaplo
03-27-12, 11:45 PM
Ok so the arguement is that because everyone will use health care at some point, they must buy insurance. That fails to meet the standard of the commerce clause, since the commerce clause is to be used for interstate commerce - aka "... among the states".
Thus, the only way the commerce clause applies is if you go out of state for your health care. That is a relatively small portion of people that live in one state and see a doc in another....
Now - lets deal with the compulsive purchase issue. Everyone uses health care, so the government should be able to force everyone to buy insurance? If that logic applies, then the same could be said for a motor vehicle. Everyone has to travel in such a conveyance at some point in their life (amish folks being an exception). The cost of a car is rather high. If the government mandated that we all buy a car, then car companies would have a guarantee of so many new customers, the costs of cars should come down. That is, after all, the claim on health insurance....
Now if the government can mandate we all buy a car, using the above point (and in many ways the commerce clause would apply to a greater extent with an automobile than it would with healthcare) - it only follows that the government could mandate what kind of car we buy, since they are mandating the "minimum" coverage of insurance.
Oh - and the government owns GM and really likes "green" vehicles (even though they don't sell). Anyone want to guess what they would mandate we all buy?
Either way this goes, Obamacare will die. Either through being struck down or through a major electoral backlash and repeal.
The problem is that if the court does not overturn it - precedence (whether the law stays or not) has been set and the government has an open door to make citizens purchase products or services at its choosing. That isn't a door that will be easily shut if it is opened....
Tribesman
03-28-12, 02:05 AM
Thus, the only way the commerce clause applies is if you go out of state for your health care.
No the arguement for application or not of the commerce clause is if it is viewed as economic activity or economic inactivity.
The whole individual mandate problem comes from the provision that insurers must insure.
The compromise on your healthcare bill made the whole thing into a joke that was pandering to the insurers.
Now - lets deal with the compulsive purchase issue. Everyone uses health care, so the government should be able to force everyone to buy insurance? If that logic applies, then the same could be said for a motor vehicle. Everyone has to travel in such a conveyance at some point in their life (amish folks being an exception). The cost of a car is rather high. If the government mandated that we all buy a car, then car companies would have a guarantee of so many new customers, the costs of cars should come down. That is, after all, the claim on health insurance....
Yes, no, no and no...which makes you next passage a no too as it is built on that false premise.
@Oberon
Sounds a bit like what we might be heading towards in the UK if the Condems have their way.
Well you won't know for sure Oberon as the Condems are still defying the UK courts by refusing to publish their assessment on the impact of their proposals.....though common sense would suggest that an asset stripping price gouging rip off is the only possible outcome if their policy goes ahead, even with all the much heralded tiny little concesions the Lords gained.
gimpy117
03-28-12, 12:26 PM
Nice bit of revisionism you got going on there. The Democrats held filibuster proof majorities in both houses of congress as well as controlled the oval office. You can't blame the republicans for this mess. That's all on your party.
errr yes and no. Part of it was the republicans refusing to play ball and flipping out the whole time...while the democrats try to be nice and "compromise", and part of it was undoubtedly a lot of palm greasing. But frankly, If it had gone down the way obama said, we would hopefully have had nationalized healthcare other than the watered down crap we have now.
to be honest, I don't even like to call ii obamacare, because it's first an attack name on obama and i feel its silly, and second the bill was changed so much from what was originally envisioned (as far as i know) by a "wonder twin powers combined!" of the refusal to play ball of the R's and a roll over and Die attitude of the D's and lost of $$ from pretty much the only ones to benefit from this bill
@Oberon
Well you won't know for sure Oberon as the Condems are still defying the UK courts by refusing to publish their assessment on the impact of their proposals.....though common sense would suggest that an asset stripping price gouging rip off is the only possible outcome if their policy goes ahead, even with all the much heralded tiny little concesions the Lords gained.
Aye, the sods, and there's the Tea Boy claiming that the Lib Dems got concessions over the NHS bill...yeah, right, the biggest part of planning that Clegg would have been involved on would have been the font size of the document.
Sickens me that I voted for the man, actually thought he might have a bit of backbone, but he's thrown it all away for a false promise of power when in reality the only thing the Lib Dems are going to be at the next election are the Tory whipping boys for everything that's gone wrong in this coalition. :damn:
errr yes and no. Part of it was the republicans refusing to play ball and flipping out the whole time...while the democrats try to be nice and "compromise", and part of it was undoubtedly a lot of palm greasing. But frankly, If it had gone down the way obama said, we would hopefully have had nationalized healthcare other than the watered down crap we have now.
to be honest, I don't even like to call ii obamacare, because it's first an attack name on obama and i feel its silly, and second the bill was changed so much from what was originally envisioned (as far as i know) by a "wonder twin powers combined!" of the refusal to play ball of the R's and a roll over and Die attitude of the D's and lost of $$ from pretty much the only ones to benefit from this bill
That's quite a dance step you got going there Gimpy! :DL
gimpy117
03-28-12, 09:43 PM
That's quite a dance step you got going there Gimpy! :DL
well, a bill that danced it way through congress with such grace deserves one, but ultimately the idea of a health care mandate were republican ideas in the first place
well, a bill that danced it way through congress with such grace deserves one, but ultimately the idea of a health care mandate were republican ideas in the first place
Ideas that were rejected. Why were they rejected?
CaptainHaplo
03-29-12, 02:01 AM
Apparently if the idea comes from one Republican, then all republicans are responsible for it. Same way with democrats.
Partisan political swiping at its best....
Aramike
03-29-12, 03:50 AM
well, a bill that danced it way through congress with such grace deserves one, but ultimately the idea of a health care mandate were republican ideas in the first placeYou're exactly right on this. Yet, you're glossing over the fact that such a mandate was attached to a bill that Republicans unanimously REJECTED.
You're using the same argument that Democrats will use after the Supreme Court strikes down the law in all likelyhood, but it's a flawed argument at best, and a downright ignorant one at worst.
Hypothetical situation: Party A proposes a bill to limit the US population to 200 million people. Party B says it's impossible to do so without murdering 100 million people, so such a provision would be necessary. Party A then includes that provision in the bill and passes it over the universal objection of Party B.
How in the HELL can you blame Party B simply because they stated the common sense requirement that Party A's bill would have?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.