If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Florida judge that ruled health care overhaul unconstitutional once paid about $1000 for a white baby   (phillyburbs.com) divider line 434
    More: Interesting, health care overhaul, FISA, Republican Proposal, prescription costs, senior judge, federal judges, medications, Medal of Honor recipients  
•       •       •

13865 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2011 at 11:51 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



434 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-01 05:24:30 PM
Didn't a provision of the health care bill make every business file a form for any transaction over $600 as well?

Bunch of crap in the bill that should not have been there. Whole thing is a stinker.

Apart from people with pre-existing conditions, which I believe is 90% of Farkers for some reason, how will the health bill help people? Me? I make too much to qualify for any benefits. My premiums will go up to subsidize 30 million more people. The type of businesses I work for will be hit. The federal deficit will increase. Health care costs will actually go up more than they normally would because of the bill, according to the latest CBO and other studies.

Honestly, how will it help each of you?
 
2011-02-01 05:28:30 PM

Thunderpipes: how will the health bill help people? Me?


It could help you with that weepy vagina.
 
2011-02-01 05:32:53 PM
sprawl15:Exactly, which is why the mandate was considered not severable. If the mandate is required for other parts of the bill to be valid, and the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the bill is invalidated.

evilmousse: yes, i would strongly guess there were practical reasons; far more than i could guess, but off the top of my head: to balance out the responsibility the insurance companies are mandated to cover; similar to how the post office gets to keep a monopoly on the delivery of mail because they have the added legal responsibility of providing a baseline level of service to absolutely everyone and everywhere. if insurance companies can't decline people, people can't decline companies and vice versa... again, just my opinion here.


hmm, touche, great point. could one include the comparable responsibilities the insurance companies gained in a surgical exorcism of the illegal aspects of this law? i'm not sure what you would be left with were you to succeed.

hm, this just got even more interesting to me now that you've pushed me towards agreeing with the ruling. now i'm curious again about the details of why the mandate's unconstitutional or not; whether my guesses about unenumerated rights are accurate or not.
 
2011-02-01 05:32:58 PM

sprawl15: Thunderpipes: how will the health bill help people? Me?

It could help you with that weepy vagina.


Ahh, the comeback of a witless liberal moron, how touching. Go make me a turkey pot pie, peon.

Health bill will help worthless lazy people and the sick and weak, hurt everyone else, period.
 
2011-02-01 05:37:34 PM

Thunderpipes: Didn't a provision of the health care bill make every business file a form for any transaction over $600 as well?


Sort of. It expanded the reporting requirements already in place.

Prior to this law, the only payments that needed to be reported on 1099-MISC were payments to people or businesses (other than corporations) for services rendered in excess of the aggregate of $600. After PPACA, the law now states that starting in 2013, if you run a trade or business and pay for goods, services, etc. in an amount more than $600 over the course of the year, you must issue a 1099 to the service or goods provider, including corporations. Where previously Apple, Costco, etc. were not receiving 1099s, they will now be inundated with them.

Oh, and here's the kicker. Payments made by credit card are exempt from the new reporting requirements.

To put it into perspective, I just finished my issuance of 1099s for my clients for the 2010 tax year. I issued 267 1099s under the current law. If I were required to operate under the new law, that number would have approached 1000. That's AFTER the credit card purchases were segregated.
 
2011-02-01 05:43:15 PM

evilmousse: could one include the comparable responsibilities the insurance companies gained in a surgical exorcism of the illegal aspects of this law?


You could, but the argument could very easily be made (well, in the courtroom anyway) that the law would basically be unrealistic enforcement of regulations that would choke the industry. And, practically, the lobbyists would call in every favor they had to stop it.

The mandate is unconstitutional on a couple of levels, it's marketed as a tax, but it doesn't take a constitutional form of taxation (it's capitation, expressly forbidden). A mandate to purchase MAY fall under the interstate commerce clause, but that's a huge stretch since insurance isn't allowed to be sold across state lines and there's no precedent for it. The SCOTUS could decide it's a viable application of the commerce clause, but that would be a massive precedent to set and I can't imagine it will go that route.

There's no precedent for the federal government to mandate the purchase of a product. The majority of things people think are precedent are either mandated by states (which don't fall under the enumerated powers restriction in the constitution that states the Fed has powers limited to what the constitution lays out) or are transitive mandates (they apply only to specific actions, they aren't universal).

Thunderpipes: Ahh, the comeback of a witless liberal moron


I love getting called a liberal moron and a GOP shill in the same thread. If jackasses on both sides are pissed, I must be doing something right.
 
2011-02-01 05:43:45 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Thunderpipes: Didn't a provision of the health care bill make every business file a form for any transaction over $600 as well?

Sort of. It expanded the reporting requirements already in place.

Prior to this law, the only payments that needed to be reported on 1099-MISC were payments to people or businesses (other than corporations) for services rendered in excess of the aggregate of $600. After PPACA, the law now states that starting in 2013, if you run a trade or business and pay for goods, services, etc. in an amount more than $600 over the course of the year, you must issue a 1099 to the service or goods provider, including corporations. Where previously Apple, Costco, etc. were not receiving 1099s, they will now be inundated with them.

Oh, and here's the kicker. Payments made by credit card are exempt from the new reporting requirements.

To put it into perspective, I just finished my issuance of 1099s for my clients for the 2010 tax year. I issued 267 1099s under the current law. If I were required to operate under the new law, that number would have approached 1000. That's AFTER the credit card purchases were segregated.


Sounds like your costs will increase significantly to do that.
 
2011-02-01 05:45:50 PM

Thunderpipes: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Thunderpipes: Didn't a provision of the health care bill make every business file a form for any transaction over $600 as well?

Sort of. It expanded the reporting requirements already in place.

Prior to this law, the only payments that needed to be reported on 1099-MISC were payments to people or businesses (other than corporations) for services rendered in excess of the aggregate of $600. After PPACA, the law now states that starting in 2013, if you run a trade or business and pay for goods, services, etc. in an amount more than $600 over the course of the year, you must issue a 1099 to the service or goods provider, including corporations. Where previously Apple, Costco, etc. were not receiving 1099s, they will now be inundated with them.

Oh, and here's the kicker. Payments made by credit card are exempt from the new reporting requirements.

To put it into perspective, I just finished my issuance of 1099s for my clients for the 2010 tax year. I issued 267 1099s under the current law. If I were required to operate under the new law, that number would have approached 1000. That's AFTER the credit card purchases were segregated.

Sounds like your costs will increase significantly to do that.


From time, to supplies, to sheer manpower, my costs will increase exponentially. Unfortunately, my clients are not likely to be keen on a rate increase during these tough times. If we are out of the Big R and into recovery by then, I might be able to increase my rate for this, but as it sits, I have a bunch of extra work and no return on it. All so my clients can stay in compliance.
 
2011-02-01 05:46:54 PM

Dr Dreidel: Sweden - democratic socialism.


I have never studied Sweden. Is the tax rate much higher? Do they have any alternative forms of income other than taxation? I see this: but it might as well be written in sweedish (new window)as I do not know what they are or do other than the Swedish Space Corporation... and Green Cargo sounds like Amtrack... still looking:

Vattenfall is a Swedish power company and one of the leading energy producers in Northern Europe. The name Vattenfall is Swedish for waterfall, and is an abbreviation of its original name, Royal Waterfall Board (Kungliga Vattenfallstyrelsen). Vattenfall is wholly owned by the Swedish government.

So a successful socialist society owns the energy producing companies. Only a GENIUS would come up with that shiat... and I bet it really pays the bills well...

Dr Dreidel: * though I was thinking last night - the government created cellular technology, DARPANet, GPS, memory foam, and sent people into outer farking space, to the farking MOON AND BACK. Private industry has given us per-GB data plans, Twitter, TomTom, and still can't get people into space (let alone to the moon), 40 years later


The only "Profit" in going to the moon was bragging rights to be the first... Now if scientists can figure out how to use all the Helium3 or other possible energy sources on the moon... then things may change. Maybe.

Also, the private companies created the equipment to go to the moon and back by competition (Motorola did the comunications for example) that then filled the market. So even though the government was spending with Nasa, the private industry was still in competition for the bids and most advancements had a real world earth application...

Ultimately, If I could wave a magic wand and create utopia I'd call it "Hollywood, Oil and Porn" as I previously outlined. So it appears we are at an impasse. See you around.
 
2011-02-01 05:48:47 PM

Dr Dreidel: DARPA


t1.gstatic.com
Not this shiat again...
 
2011-02-01 06:00:31 PM
fascinating, sprawl15, and i thank you for your time responding to me.

I love getting called a liberal moron and a GOP shill in the same thread. If jackasses on both sides are pissed, I must be doing something right.

best sign there is =)
 
2011-02-01 06:02:41 PM

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: Sweden - democratic socialism.

I have never studied Sweden. Is the tax rate much higher? Do they have any alternative forms of income other than taxation? I see this: but it might as well be written in sweedish (new window)as I do not know what they are or do other than the Swedish Space Corporation... and Green Cargo sounds like Amtrack... still looking:


They're nominally socialist; they have higher taxes (and lower income disparity) than us, yet still provide more services; report less of a church attendance rate than almost anyone in the world (I think only Norway has fewer churchgoers), and their women are tall and hot. That's all I needed to hear.

Dr Dreidel: * though I was thinking last night - the government created cellular technology, DARPANet, GPS, memory foam, and sent people into outer farking space, to the farking MOON AND BACK. Private industry has given us per-GB data plans, Twitter, TomTom, and still can't get people into space (let alone to the moon), 40 years later

The only "Profit" in going to the moon was bragging rights to be the first... Now if scientists can figure out how to use all the Helium3 or other possible energy sources on the moon... then things may change. Maybe.

Also, the private companies created the equipment to go to the moon and back by competition (Motorola did the comunications for example) that then filled the market. So even though the government was spending with Nasa, the private industry was still in competition for the bids and most advancements had a real world earth application...


Not a sermon. Just a thought.

Ultimately, If I could wave a magic wand and create utopia I'd call it "Hollywood, Oil and Porn" as I previously outlined. So it appears we are at an impasse. See you around.

When the oil hits the Pornywood...
 
2011-02-01 06:17:58 PM

sprawl15: Protective tariffs are only required to be uniform throughout the United States since they fall under international commerce regulation: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".


Bizarre.
 
2011-02-01 06:21:03 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: From time, to supplies, to sheer manpower, my costs will increase exponentially. Unfortunately, my clients are not likely to be keen on a rate increase during these tough times. If we are out of the Big R and into recovery by then, I might be able to increase my rate for this, but as it sits, I have a bunch of extra work and no return on it. All so my clients can stay in compliance


[citation needed]
 
2011-02-01 06:24:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: From time, to supplies, to sheer manpower, my costs will increase exponentially. Unfortunately, my clients are not likely to be keen on a rate increase during these tough times. If we are out of the Big R and into recovery by then, I might be able to increase my rate for this, but as it sits, I have a bunch of extra work and no return on it. All so my clients can stay in compliance

[citation needed]


What do you need a citation on? The cost of my supplies going up? The time it will take to keep clients in compliance? The part about me not raising my rates on my clients?

I'm unsure what part of that you need a citation on.
 
2011-02-01 06:30:44 PM

Dr Dreidel: They're nominally socialist;


If your government owns one of the largest energy companies in northern Europe (Along with many other companies)... and your entire population is 9/8ths that of New York City... you are more than nominally socialist.

The US is nominally socialist. But that seems to be our disagreement. I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder...

whenlastweleftourheroes.com
 
2011-02-01 06:31:55 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: What do you need a citation on? The cost of my supplies going up? The time it will take to keep clients in compliance? The part about me not raising my rates on my clients?

I'm unsure what part of that you need a citation on


The part of the bill that will require you to issue 1000 1099s.
 
2011-02-01 06:45:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: What do you need a citation on? The cost of my supplies going up? The time it will take to keep clients in compliance? The part about me not raising my rates on my clients?

I'm unsure what part of that you need a citation on

The part of the bill that will require you to issue 1000 1099s.


Were you not paying attention when I explained the differences between the reporting requirements now and the future requirements?

Just by including corporations, I would have increased my issuances fivefold.

But if you're asking about a specific bill section, it's 9006.
 
2011-02-01 06:59:27 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: What do you need a citation on? The cost of my supplies going up? The time it will take to keep clients in compliance? The part about me not raising my rates on my clients?

I'm unsure what part of that you need a citation on

The part of the bill that will require you to issue 1000 1099s.

Were you not paying attention when I explained the differences between the reporting requirements now and the future requirements?

Just by including corporations, I would have increased my issuances fivefold.

But if you're asking about a specific bill section, it's 9006.


"There are companies that have been providing volume 1099 filing services for years. They can be reasonably priced, for example, one company offers up to fifty 1099s for $45. Another offers unlimited client/filers and unlimited recipients for $199 startup and $99 annually. The IRS has a list of some of these providers on its website, many of which provide the ability to import from Microsoft Excel files or Quickbooks. With normal bookkeeping practices and the ability to import data, most businesses can cover all 1099 requirements for less than $100 per year"

There you go, I just saved you a bunch of money.
 
2011-02-01 07:05:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: What do you need a citation on? The cost of my supplies going up? The time it will take to keep clients in compliance? The part about me not raising my rates on my clients?

I'm unsure what part of that you need a citation on

The part of the bill that will require you to issue 1000 1099s.

Were you not paying attention when I explained the differences between the reporting requirements now and the future requirements?

Just by including corporations, I would have increased my issuances fivefold.

But if you're asking about a specific bill section, it's 9006.

"There are companies that have been providing volume 1099 filing services for years. They can be reasonably priced, for example, one company offers up to fifty 1099s for $45. Another offers unlimited client/filers and unlimited recipients for $199 startup and $99 annually. The IRS has a list of some of these providers on its website, many of which provide the ability to import from Microsoft Excel files or Quickbooks. With normal bookkeeping practices and the ability to import data, most businesses can cover all 1099 requirements for less than $100 per year"

There you go, I just saved you a bunch of money.


That's electronic FILING of 1099s. That does not include the actual gathering of data and setup of files. The filing of 1099s costs me very little. I have an IRS FIRE account, so I don't need an outside service to file them for me. Those companies won't prepare and audit the correctness of the information that needs to be reported. They also don't take raw data and discern which vendors need to be issued a 1099. They don't segregate the credit card payments from the cash/check payments.

Anyone can take an excel file that is already clean and formatted, import it, and produce forms. That's the least complicated portion of the actual process.
 
2011-02-01 07:15:31 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: What do you need a citation on? The cost of my supplies going up? The time it will take to keep clients in compliance? The part about me not raising my rates on my clients?

I'm unsure what part of that you need a citation on

The part of the bill that will require you to issue 1000 1099s.

Were you not paying attention when I explained the differences between the reporting requirements now and the future requirements?

Just by including corporations, I would have increased my issuances fivefold.

But if you're asking about a specific bill section, it's 9006.

"There are companies that have been providing volume 1099 filing services for years. They can be reasonably priced, for example, one company offers up to fifty 1099s for $45. Another offers unlimited client/filers and unlimited recipients for $199 startup and $99 annually. The IRS has a list of some of these providers on its website, many of which provide the ability to import from Microsoft Excel files or Quickbooks. With normal bookkeeping practices and the ability to import data, most businesses can cover all 1099 requirements for less than $100 per year"

There you go, I just saved you a bunch of money.

That's electronic FILING of 1099s. That does not include the actual gathering of data and setup of files. The filing of 1099s costs me very little. I have an IRS FIRE account, so I don't need an outside service to file them for me. Those companies won't prepare and audit the correctness of the information that needs to be reported. They also don't take raw data and discern which vendors need to be issued a 1099. They don't segregate the credit card payments from the cash/check payments.

Anyone can take an excel file that is already clean and formatted, import it, and produce forms. That's the least complicated portion of the actual process.



Let me bold the actual relevant part for you:

"With normal bookkeeping practices and the ability to import data, most businesses can cover all 1099 requirements for less than $100 per year"

Do you not have normal bookkeeping practices and the ability to import data? What are you, one guy in 1994 with a notebook and pencil?
 
2011-02-01 07:25:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: What do you need a citation on? The cost of my supplies going up? The time it will take to keep clients in compliance? The part about me not raising my rates on my clients?

I'm unsure what part of that you need a citation on

The part of the bill that will require you to issue 1000 1099s.

Were you not paying attention when I explained the differences between the reporting requirements now and the future requirements?

Just by including corporations, I would have increased my issuances fivefold.

But if you're asking about a specific bill section, it's 9006.

"There are companies that have been providing volume 1099 filing services for years. They can be reasonably priced, for example, one company offers up to fifty 1099s for $45. Another offers unlimited client/filers and unlimited recipients for $199 startup and $99 annually. The IRS has a list of some of these providers on its website, many of which provide the ability to import from Microsoft Excel files or Quickbooks. With normal bookkeeping practices and the ability to import data, most businesses can cover all 1099 requirements for less than $100 per year"

There you go, I just saved you a bunch of money.

That's electronic FILING of 1099s. That does not include the actual gathering of data and setup of files. The filing of 1099s costs me very little. I have an IRS FIRE account, so I don't need an outside service to file them for me. Those companies won't prepare and audit the correctness of the information that needs to be reported. They also don't take raw data and discern which vendors need to be issued a 1099. They don't segregate the credit card payments from the cash/check payments.

Anyone can take an excel file that is already clean and formatted, import it, and produce forms. That's the least complicated portion of the actual process.


Let me bold the actual relevant part for you:

"With normal bookkeeping practices and the ability to import data, most businesses can cover all 1099 requirements for less than $100 per year"

Do you not have normal bookkeeping practices and the ability to import data? What are you, one guy in 1994 with a notebook and pencil?


A good number of my clients don't use Quickbooks and have no need to do so. But I'll say this again. That's only for FILING the 1099s. That does not include the auditing of information for correctness. That assumes that you have all the data correct and in the right spot so that some data monkey can import your data and spit out some forms. Someone still has to actually create the file. That's what I do. It's a bit more complex than just submitting an excel spreadsheet and spitting out some forms on my end.

Of course, this is all moot as it relates to my clients. Tax preparers are forbidden from releasing return information to third parties without specific written consent. To obtain specific written consent for each of my clients that need this service would be even more burdensome than the actual preparation of the forms.

So please, try to understand what you are trying to convey before doing so. I do find it interesting that the only place I can find that quote is from Kos and a whitepaper that the diarist put out. He clouds the requirement by using that quote you bolded.
 
2011-02-01 07:38:31 PM

Thunderpipes: MyRandomName: Are liberals honestly too retarded to understand state vs feds? There are no federal mandates for car insurance and none for public nudity. Those are state regulations. Also, just because a penalty has the same effect as tax plus rebate, they are not the same.

If p implies r and q implies r, it does not mean p and q are equal. Take a logic course morons.

In Vermont you can be in public naked all you want. The law only states you have to leave your home that way, can't strip in public.


Oh really? I guess it's time to look up real estate prices in Vermont.
 
2011-02-01 08:52:53 PM
I hate you all.
 
2011-02-01 08:59:09 PM

machodonkeywrestler: I hate you all.


I wish I hated everybody.
 
2011-02-01 09:00:04 PM
i've been thinking some more about our discussion, sprawl..

capitation, * a mandate to purchase MAY fall under the interstate commerce clause, but that's a huge stretch, * There's no precedent for the federal government to mandate the purchase of a product.

capitation isn't something i'd heard of, thanks, i agree about the commerce clause, and the last point has been a glaring issue to me from the start as well. is there any precedent for the govt mandating a company provide a service?

and i'd like to think again about the post office as an example, and their being given a monopoly in trade for being mandated to provide a base level of service. the obvious differences we can see is that the post office is a governmental agency pretending to be a private entity, and the health companies under this law are private entities becoming quasi-governmental; and also there's no obligation to participate in the mail on the citizen's part, though there is an obligation for the company to OFFER (not necc. provide, subject to their terms eg. you can't mail on sunday etc.) service. the only counter i'll offer to the difference between needing to offer/partake in service is that only two things in life are certain, HEALTH and taxes ^_-. back to this comparison in a second.

to be honest, i've thought from the start that this legislation, while a good base idea, was ineptly designed and had a constitutional poison-pill within it. if i can throw away the reality of the law, i'd like your opinion: is there a way where the base idea of the trade-off of universal coverage for mandated participation could have been implemented constitutionally? i point to the post office as an example, but there's the added complication of replacing an already present private industry with a governmental agency, which to my understanding is actually more constitutional than where we're at, but impossibly more politically unappealing.

so if i were to dream the impossible dream that we were in the founding fathers' shoes now: defining our future govt, i would almost want to define a new category of entity, neither wholly govt or private, for situations such as the post office and health insurance, and figure out all the safeguards one would need against corruption, bloat, poor service, etc. could that happen? no way in hell.
 
2011-02-01 09:15:14 PM
Every person alive has taken advantage of health care and most i would guess have used insurance or emergency care at some point. So every judge should recuse him or herself...
 
2011-02-01 10:17:12 PM

Thunderpipes: people like me want to see something that really fixes the problems. Fraud (90 billion a year alone in medicare fraud), costs ($4300 for an MRI? Really?), malpractice insurance and lawsuits, and most of all, poor people having kids without thinking about money.

Obamacare does nothing to help any of this.


You are a liar:
costs and the other things you falsely say are not there
 
2011-02-01 10:21:12 PM

Jack31081: If one helps form the base of our tax law, and the other is unconstitutional, why didn't the health care bill just create a new tax and then provide a tax break of the same amount for anyone who purchased health insurance?


Because they promised they would do it without [calling it] a new tax
 
2011-02-01 10:22:39 PM

evilmousse: i'd like your opinion: is there a way where the base idea of the trade-off of universal coverage for mandated participation could have been implemented constitutionally?


IMO, a single payer system would be constitutional under the 'general Welfare' clause; where, as part of being a citizen, and as part of paying your taxes, you have access to at least a fundamental level of health insurance. That would attain its funding through income taxes (constitutional method of acquiring funding) and it wouldn't be a mandate, it would be providing a service if people require it. I wouldn't have a problem with them also dropping state boundary restrictions on health insurance issuance.

evilmousse: and i'd like to think again about the post office as an example


Bear in mind, the post office is an enumerated power (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7).
 
2011-02-02 05:16:27 AM
If you're healthy, why should you have to pay for health insurance? And why should healthcare providers be forced to cover things such as erectile dysfunction, "mental health" problems so loosely defined that almost anyone can be considered mentally unstable, abortions and/or contraceptives, ineffective cancer treatments, etc.? Not to mention people with pre-existing conditions, often self-inflicted. Our government should not be in the business of healthcare at all, outside of emergency care and safety regulations, and anyone without private insurance or anyone who did it to themselves by way of booze, drugs, cigarettes, food, sex, etc. should have to personally foot the bill. Remember that the government wastes well over half of the money takes in, vs only a small percentage for local charities and a slightly larger percentage for private health insurance, so it's not in our economic best interests to have the government taking over everything.

I am of course biased - I have private health insurance and I pay taxes. I do donate to charity as well, but I don't believe it cost-effective for the government to extort $400K-$500K so it can pay $200K for cancer treatments for someone who will probably die anyway within 5 years. The big cancer charities aren't any better, they pay their executives big salaries and only like 1/3 makes it to the end recipient. If you want to make a difference, shut down as much of the government as possible and donate to LOCAL charities such as food banks, soup kitchens, hospices, etc. All the people with erectile dysfunction, minor mental health problems, cancer, etc. or anything self-inflicted can very well pay for insurance, ask for charity, or die quietly - that money is better spent elsewhere.

Sounds harsh, but unless you have an unlimited amount of money, the money you do have needs to be allocated where it will do the most good. Our government is about the worst candidate possible.
 
2011-02-02 09:33:28 AM

relcec: MBrady: Geotpf: I still don't see how it is unconstitutional.

Congress has the constitutional power to tax people.

Congress has the constitutional power to give a tax rebate to people who buy certain items from other private indidviduals. (For example, I bought a house in 2009 so I got an eight grand tax rebate.)

Taxing everybody by the amount of the "fine" for not having health insurance (see my first example above) and then giving a tax rebate of equal size of the "fine" to those who buy health insurance (see my second example) amounts to the exact same thing as fining those who don't buy health insurance.

Therefore, it's constitutional to fine people who don't buy health insurance.

Now, this would be different if there was jail time involved, IMHO. But there isn't. It's merely a tax by another name.

So instead of expanding the Medicare system, which is basically what Obamacare is; why not put everyone on the president/congress/supreme court plan? That way, businesses would not have to provide healthcare to employees, and it would get around the constitutionality of the federal mandate of everyone having to purchase healthcare.

Can't do that though because the dems always want to "give the people something," but they don't want to make them equal with those in charge, eh?

it is not an expansion of medicare. in fact they cut medicare. they did expand medicaid significantly though (even though most of the new revenue will flow through pricate insurance companies). did you mean medicaid?


Does it really matter? In order to "lower" the cost to under a trillion dollars, hopey defunds medicare, then puts all the people who don't qualify for medicare into obamacare, and then the libs assume that all the private company's currently insuring their employees will continue to do so.

Great idea - on paper.

Except that:

a) we won't mention how many unions and other large campaign contributers got exemptions. how many is it now? over 300?
b) the dems/libs don't care about the people who were previously insured by private companies when those companies decide to drop health insurance.
c) we won't mention the increased cost when those people who have lost their healthcare from b above have to go on obamacare.
d) at NO time did the dems/libs consider putting everyone on the presidental/congress/scotus health plan, did they? they couldn't, because it would be "too good" for the people, and the dems can't let the people have a good thing.
e) at NO time did the dems/libs consider going on obamacare themselves, because they know it's a shiatty plan.
 
2011-02-02 11:13:06 AM

sprawl15: IMO, a single payer system would be constitutional under the 'general Welfare' clause; where, as part of being a citizen, and as part of paying your taxes, you have access to at least a fundamental level of health insurance.


No opinion needed, we already have such a system, Medicare. If you're over 65, there's no opting out, and there's no opting out of paying the Medicare tax at any age. I've read that Medicare has already survived challenges to its Constitutionality, but can't be arsed to Google them up.

If Medicare as it exists today is Constitutional, expanding it to cover everybody, and raising the Medicare tax rate to pay for it, is certainly Constitutional.
 
2011-02-02 03:43:59 PM
agreed guys, an expansion of the medicare concept would probably have been the most legal route to pursue.

surely that was considered as an option though. i suppose then, the trouble was/is the difficult politics and disruptive nature of spawning a government agency to compete with what was purely a private arena. i wonder what precedents there are in that context... i know getting congress to agree to such a thing isn't realistic lately.

that's why i'm fumbling about my post-office idea, i see in the current legislation a misguided effort to accommodate the wishes of those whose interests would be most disrupted by the change, but agree that accommodating said people are the key to being realistic about the politics of the situation. i've been trying to dream up ways those interests could be respected fairly, though obviously not handed everything on a silver platter. and yes i'm aware the post office spawned from an enumerated power; i wonder if enumerating a power for healthcare in order to establish a transitionary path from completely private industry to post-office-ish monopoly-with-forced-social-responsibilities is more politically realistic than trying to pass the birthing of a medicare-for-all to compete alongside the insurance companies as they are.
 
Displayed 34 of 434 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report