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
 
2011-02-01 09:27:44 AM
Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?
 
2011-02-01 09:28:07 AM
that was a pretty big kid then.
but seriously he's on a slippery slope with his position.
the govt can require you to purchase insurance.
it requires you to pay for medicare and medicaid.
social security.
you see, unhealthy people pose risks to society.
the fact that there is a safety net and the taxpayer already carries the burden figures in too.
why not require the users of that safety net to pay what is essentially a tax to have that coverage?

the argument that if they did this then the govt could require you to buy clothes or food is preposterous.
very reaching. this judge is out of touch with the common man.
 
2011-02-01 09:29:29 AM
static.zoovy.com

I wish the Supreme Court would just take up the case already - they do have the authority to bypass the appellate courts and just go directly to the top.

/then we can get back to important news about Charlie Sheen's porn stars
 
2011-02-01 09:38:12 AM
Ha! Nice headline.

It's quite reasonable to mandate people buy health insurance. Hospitals have to treat regardless of ability to pay, by law. And the government spends a substantial portion of its revenues on healthcare for the elderly and poor.

The state, and thus every taxpayer, has a vested fiduciary interest in the people taking care of their own healthcare. Not to mention the hospitals that have to raise fees in order to make up for those who can't pay.

Healthcare is not a free market. If the conservatives insist upon being endlessly insulted by a mandate (even though they're all responsible taxpayers and already have insurance, right?), then the only fair course of action is to repeal the laws mandating hospitals treat without regard to ability to pay. Otherwise, it's an unfunded mandate that forces private institutions to spend resources.

We're either a culture that values the health of the people, or we aren't. Mr. Miyagi middle of the road something squish something something.
 
2011-02-01 10:25:22 AM
Did he have to wait five years for a healthy one?
 
2011-02-01 10:43:10 AM
That's a pretty good bargain. Dude must have had some good connections.
 
2011-02-01 10:44:20 AM
www.zuguide.com

Now there's people - and I know 'em - who'll pay a lot more than $25,000 for a healthy baby. Why, I myself fetched $30,000 on the black market. And that was in 1954 dollars.
 
2011-02-01 11:34:49 AM
Vinson, an ex-Navy pilot appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, is known for maintaining control of his courtroom while letting everyone have their say. He loves camellia flowers and has handled cases from abortion clinic bombings to veterans rights to racial discrimination.

What is this? eHarmony? Does he like long walks on the beach, too?
 
2011-02-01 11:35:35 AM

Nabb1: That's a pretty good bargain. Dude must have had some good connections.


Well, this whole thing is just who knows who. Then over here you have favoritism.
 
2011-02-01 11:43:40 AM
The meat on the dark ones is a bit gamey.
 
2011-02-01 11:54:08 AM
That's crazy. I'd never pay more than 16.95/lb. for baby, and that's for the prime cuts.
 
2011-02-01 11:56:07 AM
i want my baby back, baby back ,baby back
 
2011-02-01 11:56:18 AM
That seems like a better way to get your kid to do the lawn than "Because I'm your father".

/you still gots money to work off, boy
 
2011-02-01 11:56:28 AM
Oof. out of my league. I'll stick to the canned baby and baby-flavored ramen noodles.
 
2011-02-01 11:56:54 AM
In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.
 
2011-02-01 11:57:20 AM

syrynxx: The meat on the dark ones is a bit gamey.


That why you gots to soak them in in buttermilk before making chicken fried steak...
/Wut?
 
2011-02-01 11:57:21 AM

Nabb1: That's a pretty good bargain. Dude must have had some good connections.


That was in '54. Baby didn't fetch as much cash then.
 
2011-02-01 11:57:42 AM
Popcorn!

Will this thread be as epically trolled as yesterdays?

ONLY TIME WILL TELL!!!
 
2011-02-01 11:57:47 AM
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled . . .
 
2011-02-01 11:58:10 AM

Thrag: That's crazy. I'd never pay more than 16.95/lb. for baby, and that's for the prime cuts.


You can't get decent free range organic baby at that price.
 
2011-02-01 11:58:22 AM

DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.


The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.
 
2011-02-01 11:59:18 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Ha! Nice headline.

It's quite reasonable to mandate people buy health insurance. Hospitals have to treat regardless of ability to pay, by law. And the government spends a substantial portion of its revenues on healthcare for the elderly and poor.

The state, and thus every taxpayer, has a vested fiduciary interest in the people taking care of their own healthcare. Not to mention the hospitals that have to raise fees in order to make up for those who can't pay.

Healthcare is not a free market. If the conservatives insist upon being endlessly insulted by a mandate (even though they're all responsible taxpayers and already have insurance, right?), then the only fair course of action is to repeal the laws mandating hospitals treat without regard to ability to pay. Otherwise, it's an unfunded mandate that forces private institutions to spend resources.

We're either a culture that values the health of the people, or we aren't. Mr. Miyagi middle of the road something squish something something.


It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

/not saying it's unconstitutional
//I don't have a GED in Law
///just saying your argument isn't addressing the issue
 
2011-02-01 11:59:30 AM

thompsonius: then we can get back to important news about Charlie Sheen's porn stars


Guy is my hero. Some people have Superman. Some people have Batman. I have Charlie Sheen. The Last of the Real Men in Hollywood. He has chunks of Jude Law and Owen Wilson in his 90-proof stool.
 
2011-02-01 12:00:12 PM

Scerpes: DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.

The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.


The government forces you to buy health insurance? You can't just pay the doctor when you use his services? Come on... you're reaching.
 
2011-02-01 12:00:39 PM

hillbillypharmacist: then the only fair course of action is to repeal the laws mandating hospitals treat without regard to ability to pay.


I'm pretty sure most conservatives are fine with this. They don't seem to think that someone else's health and well-being affects them.
 
2011-02-01 12:00:44 PM
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.
 
2011-02-01 12:00:52 PM

YoMammaObama: Scerpes: DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.

The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.

The government forces you to buy health insurance? You can't just pay the doctor when you use his services? Come on... you're reaching.


Not under Obamacare, you can't.
 
2011-02-01 12:01:14 PM

aug3: i want my baby back, baby back ,baby back


Chiliiiiii's black market babies.
 
2011-02-01 12:01:38 PM
Solid decision. It makes sense, everyone here knows it. Not only is it indeed a slippery slope bill, but forcing someone to buy a private product is not what government should be doing. Big difference between this and auto insurance as well, for those who would use that.

Slippery slope is horrible. No reason if this passes, Obama could not say we all have to buy a Prius, whether or not we drive.
 
2011-02-01 12:01:56 PM
I'm no legal scholar here, but since the clause that says people have to buy healthcare hasn't come into effect yet. Who has been damaged by this bill?
 
2011-02-01 12:02:03 PM
Under that logic, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said, the government could force Americans to buy clothes or food.

Herp, Derp...wouldn't want a law that says I have to eat food. Pretty sure there is already laws that say I have to wear clothes.

/Understands the analogy, just thinks it's a poor one.
 
2011-02-01 12:02:12 PM

Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.


In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!
 
2011-02-01 12:02:20 PM

dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?


that was fast.
 
2011-02-01 12:02:21 PM
FTA: Under that logic, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said, the government could force Americans to buy clothes or food.

Are there no laws against being naked in public? Are there laws regulating how you grow your own food? Don't you need zoning and permissions for producing enough food to feed yourself year-round?
 
2011-02-01 12:02:32 PM
Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?
 
2011-02-01 12:03:27 PM

Listen to this judicial activism:

In another notable decision, Vinson ruled a Florida county's ordinance banning the showing of the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" was unconstitutional. He also approved a 1993 settlement against the Shoney's restaurant chain for $134 million in a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by thousands of black employees.

Right wing judges everywhere!
 
2011-02-01 12:03:45 PM

dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?


uphold the constitution? Yep, you're correct

BTW, you should work on your trolling because that was lameO
 
2011-02-01 12:03:46 PM

Thunderpipes: Solid decision. It makes sense, everyone here knows it. Not only is it indeed a slippery slope bill, but forcing someone to buy a private product is not what government should be doing. Big difference between this and auto insurance as well, for those who would use that.

Slippery slope is horrible. No reason if this passes, Obama could not say we all have to buy a Prius, whether or not we drive.


Exactly. That's why we need single payer, or at least a public option.
 
2011-02-01 12:03:56 PM
Let the character assassination begin.
 
2011-02-01 12:03:59 PM

dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?


Do people just use the term judicial activism anytime they disagree with the judge's rulings now? I mean, I can understand you disagreeing with his ruling, but it

DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.


I've never heard a constitutional rationale as to why the Government has the power. I'm not saying that health care overall is a bad thing, but I still don't get why the commerce clause would give the government the power to do this. Not only is the Government not regulating commerce (they're forcing people to engage in it).
 
2011-02-01 12:04:41 PM

HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?


Sure. Just choose not to drive. That's a lot different than choosing not to be.
 
2011-02-01 12:04:51 PM
Charlie Sheen's penicillin and rehab bills alone are enough to sink ObamaCare, Medicare, UNICEF, Social Security and NATO.
 
2011-02-01 12:04:57 PM
Just tax the rich and give everyone single payer.

BUT don't outlaw private insurance and private stuff.
 
2011-02-01 12:05:28 PM

Scerpes: The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.

The government forces you to buy health insurance? You can't just pay the doctor when you use his services? Come on... you're reaching.

Not under Obamacare, you can't.


That was my point. Having no insurance and paying the doctor only became an absurd idea in 2008. Your FDA comments may seem absurd now, but give it a little time.
 
2011-02-01 12:05:47 PM
well, I farked up that post...
 
2011-02-01 12:06:07 PM

HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?


Of course you can. You just won't be allowed to legally drive on government funded roads. This is a dumb argument. You don't have to drive. You can even avoid needing insurance I believe, if you pony up the money to cover the requirements can't you?
 
2011-02-01 12:06:20 PM

sign_of_Zeta: I still don't get why the commerce clause would give the government the power to do this.


Because health care now makes up whopping 1/6th of GDP. If that isn't commerce, I don't know what the fark is.
 
2011-02-01 12:06:22 PM

HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?


FFS, the car insurance analogy is fundamentally flawed and gets debunked 3-4 times every thread. By now, you just sound like an idiot for spouting the same talking point.
 
2011-02-01 12:07:07 PM

Scerpes: YoMammaObama: Scerpes: DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.

The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.

The government forces you to buy health insurance? You can't just pay the doctor when you use his services? Come on... you're reaching.

Not under Obamacare, you can't.


Yes you can. Under "Obamacare" you are perfectly free not to have health insurance. If you choose not to purchase health insurance you pay slightly higher taxes.

But of course you are aware of that and prefer to lie.
 
2011-02-01 12:07:22 PM
woo hoo! so now children can get recinded again!

*high fives!*
 
2011-02-01 12:07:24 PM

YoMammaObama: Scerpes: DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.

The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.

The government forces you to buy health insurance? You can't just pay the doctor when you use his services? Come on... you're reaching.


Are you an idiot? Because at this point the gov CAN NOT force you to buy insurance but that is the farking plan!
 
2011-02-01 12:07:37 PM

sign_of_Zeta: (they're forcing people to engage in it).


Failure to have insurance is not inaction. It has a calculable economic impact on everybody else. And it's huge.
 
2011-02-01 12:07:55 PM

YoMammaObama: Scerpes: The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.

The government forces you to buy health insurance? You can't just pay the doctor when you use his services? Come on... you're reaching.

Not under Obamacare, you can't.

That was my point. Having no insurance and paying the doctor only became an absurd idea in 2008. Your FDA comments may seem absurd now, but give it a little time.


I don't think it's so absurd. With my high deductible health plan, I pretty much just pay the doctor now. I have yet to meet the deducible.
 
2011-02-01 12:08:04 PM
HighOnCraic: Excellent quote of Swift. I snorted.
 
2011-02-01 12:08:17 PM

HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?


You are not forced to purchase car insurance. It is a condition to be allowed to drive. You can choose not to drive and therefore you can choose not to buy car insurance.
 
2011-02-01 12:08:27 PM

cranched: Let the character assassination begin.


The HERP DERPs don't like the decision so the personal attacks begin...

I thought liberals didn't like this bill? There was all that outrage from liberals when the bill passed. Now they're outraged that it might be struck down eventually?
 
2011-02-01 12:08:57 PM

Scerpes: HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?

Sure. Just choose not to drive. That's a lot different than choosing not to be.


Simple, legalize suicide. Now you can choose not to live. BAM, problem solved.
 
2011-02-01 12:08:59 PM

Bennie Crabtree: FTA: Under that logic, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said, the government could force Americans to buy clothes or food.

Are there no laws against being naked in public? Are there laws regulating how you grow your own food? Don't you need zoning and permissions for producing enough food to feed yourself year-round?


You're not very good at this.

If I chose to never leave my house, I would not have to buy clothes

If there are restrictions on how you could farm your own land, there is no law making you buy oranges.
 
2011-02-01 12:09:06 PM

Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.


I think it's Constitutional. It's a tax. Even if some people took great pains to not call it a tax.

I wish they had just called it a tax, since that's what it is. Pretending it's something else didn't improve the politics of the thing, and muddied the legal waters.
 
2011-02-01 12:09:08 PM

sprawl15: FFS, the car insurance analogy is fundamentally flawed and gets debunked 3-4 times every thread. By now, you just sound like an idiot for spouting the same talking point.


No, it's spot on. You can choose to not get a car, but you can't choose to not get sick or get into an accident.
 
2011-02-01 12:09:44 PM
If his argument of "The government cannot compel you to buy health insurance" holds up, then what else can we throw out? Seatbelts? Helmets for the states that require them? Airbags? Smoke detectors?

Come on...think of some more.
 
2011-02-01 12:09:46 PM

dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.


This was judicial activism. Judge Hudson's ruling from Richmond, OTOH, looked pretty damn solid.

I'd be surprised if this wasn't remanded after a reversal of his severability argument. Many of the provisions of the law are still valid, even if Congress said they shouldn't be without the individual mandate.

Still, for this to stand, I think they'll have to re-work the individual mandate into a progressive income tax. Whether the Republicans will get that through the House is another matter, altogether. So, the law stands, but there's no penalty for not buying insurance, and it ceases to sorta be budget neutral (it did rely on the revenue from people and companies paying the fines).

So, deficit hawk Republicans end up making Obamacare cost more than it already will. Good job, ya'll. "Bububuh! We voted to repeal it!!!1"

/Both sides need to give it the fark up
//Single-payer now, pls.
 
2011-02-01 12:10:26 PM
I paid $40k for a Hispanic baby.

Bennie Crabtree: Are there no laws against being naked in public? Are there laws regulating how you grow your own food? Don't you need zoning and permissions for producing enough food to feed yourself year-round?


Woohoo! Maybe Vinson has just inadvertently set the stage for using case law to smack down zoning laws that prevent you from growing food on your property. Pig farms for everyone!
 
2011-02-01 12:10:41 PM
so, every time I get sick I should wreck my car cause I have full coverage?
 
2011-02-01 12:10:48 PM

DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: I still don't get why the commerce clause would give the government the power to do this.

Because health care now makes up whopping 1/6th of GDP. If that isn't commerce, I don't know what the fark is.


This is the whole problem with Obamacare. By trying to push the commerce clause, it makes it unconstituional. If people were already buying something across state lines, it can apply. You can't use it to force people to engage in commerce and then say it is because the commerce clause. That is dumb. Could you use banking regulation laws to force people to invest their money instead of save it?

Obama should have been honest. Should have said "we want to give more free stuff to people too lazy to work, so we will impose a massive tax on working people to pay for it" and then simply increased people's income taxes by $3,000 or so a year.

As this bill goes, no reason anyone in charge could not mandate people buy any product the government wished. Cars, organic food, Tofurkey, you name it. I will not live under that yoke.
 
2011-02-01 12:10:54 PM
Failing to buy insurance has just as much an effect on society as failing to bury your dead loved ones.

GUMMINT CAN'T FORCE ME TO BUY PRIVATE FUNERAL SERVICES!~!~!
 
2011-02-01 12:11:00 PM

YoMammaObama: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!


Do we need to add a provision protecting the right of individuals to own guns? No, that's covered by the 2nd.

Ditto free expression (the 1st) and the right to privacy (the 4th).

So it's not necessary to "add" protections to the Constitution that already exist (as decided by the impartial Judiciary).
 
2011-02-01 12:11:07 PM
images2.memegenerator.net
 
2011-02-01 12:11:18 PM

DarnoKonrad: No, it's spot on.


Car insurance is required on the state level.
Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.
Car insurance is only required while driving on public roadways.
Penalties for not having car insurance are levied through fines, not taxes.

They're completely farking different.
 
2011-02-01 12:11:31 PM

threedingers: HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?

You are not forced to purchase car insurance. It is a condition to be allowed to drive. You can choose not to drive and therefore you can choose not to buy car insurance.




You can't choose to never be sick or get into an accident -- ergo, as a condition you will need medical care at some point, you need to carry at least an emergency level of insurance.

Unless you have a religious objection. And that's all the mandate is.
 
2011-02-01 12:11:48 PM

Scerpes: HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?

Sure. Just choose not to drive. That's a lot different than choosing not to be.


Well maybe one could opt out of health insurance by agreeing to pay up front for medical services then.
 
2011-02-01 12:12:01 PM

YoMammaObama: That was my point. Having no insurance and paying the doctor only became an absurd idea in 2008. Your FDA comments may seem absurd now, but give it a little time.


What's absurd is bullshiatting yourself.

i285.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-01 12:12:05 PM
Left plays queen side ad hominem to bishop 3.

Your move right.


/THIS is why we can't have sensible political discussion in the US
 
2011-02-01 12:12:22 PM

Hobodeluxe: that was a pretty big kid then.
but seriously he's on a slippery slope with his position.
the govt can require you to purchase insurance.
it requires you to pay for medicare and medicaid.
social security.
you see, unhealthy people pose risks to society.
the fact that there is a safety net and the taxpayer already carries the burden figures in too.
why not require the users of that safety net to pay what is essentially a tax to have that coverage?

the argument that if they did this then the govt could require you to buy clothes or food is preposterous.
very reaching. this judge is out of touch with the common man.


MANDATE - making you do it or go to jail.

DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: I still don't get why the commerce clause would give the government the power to do this.

Because health care now makes up whopping 1/6th of GDP. If that isn't commerce, I don't know what the fark is.


lol, with that reasoning, everything is commerce. If they can make you buy health insurance they can make you buy anything. If you don't get how THIS is a slippery slope, then you don;t know what slippery slope is.
 
2011-02-01 12:12:59 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Scerpes: YoMammaObama: Scerpes: DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.

The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.

The government forces you to buy health insurance? You can't just pay the doctor when you use his services? Come on... you're reaching.

Not under Obamacare, you can't.

Yes you can. Under "Obamacare" you are perfectly free not to have health insurance. If you choose not to purchase health insurance you pay slightly higher taxes.

But of course you are aware of that and prefer to lie.


You don't have to pay taxes at all. If you choose not to, you will pay penalties, interest, and maybe even go to jail. See how this works?
 
2011-02-01 12:13:26 PM

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


No, it's not. A fixed fine is a capitation, which is specifically prohibited by the Sixteenth Amendment.
 
2011-02-01 12:13:42 PM
If this does become law, I have no idea what I'm going to do. I'm self employed, can't really afford private insurance, or I'd have it now, and no insurer in the universe will touch me with my War & Peace length list of preexisting conditions. So, I don't have an employer who can provide it, and no private company will sell it to me, and I'm sure as heck not going to trust the government to do it. Decisions, decisions....
 
2011-02-01 12:13:45 PM
Charlie Sheen's penis should be bronzed and placed in the Smithsonian for all Americans to see.

I heard it has a crack in it like the Liberty Bell.
 
2011-02-01 12:14:05 PM

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.


The post I am quoting reflects my own thoughts, and I would like to promote it by posting it again.
 
2011-02-01 12:14:12 PM

HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?


fools-gold.org
 
2011-02-01 12:14:19 PM

Thunderpipes: As this bill goes, no reason anyone in charge could not mandate people buy any product the government wished. Cars, organic food, Tofurkey, you name it. I will not live under that yoke.


You'll like it or lump it if that's the tax structure that legislature wants. Congress has the power to tax.
 
2011-02-01 12:15:02 PM
The problem is that you are being forced to buy private insurance. All the other taxes are government programs.
You can buy a bond in most states (Possibly all) that will then allow you to not purchase auto insurance.
 
2011-02-01 12:15:03 PM

dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?


any facepalm picture *here*
 
2011-02-01 12:15:20 PM

TheFlannelAvenger: no insurer in the universe will touch me with my War & Peace length list of preexisting conditions. So, I don't have an employer who can provide it, and no private company will sell it to me, and I'm sure as heck not going to trust the government to do it. Decisions, decisions....


Insurance companies can't refuse to sell you insurance for pre-existing conditions anymore.
 
2011-02-01 12:15:47 PM

DarnoKonrad: You can't choose to never be sick or get into an accident -- ergo, as a condition you will need medical care at some point, you need to carry at least an emergency level of insurance.


I'm never going to get old or sick or die, because I live a healthy life with the grace of Jesus.

Its probably your fault if you get cancer. You shouldn't have done that, and then the rest of us wouldn't have to pay for your irresponsible ass.
 
2011-02-01 12:15:55 PM

Wharrgoblin: The problem is that you are being forced to buy private insurance. All the other taxes are government programs.
You can buy a bond in most states (Possibly all) that will then allow you to not purchase auto insurance.


That's my only beef with HCR.
 
2011-02-01 12:15:56 PM

DarnoKonrad: threedingers: HighOnCraic: Does this mean I can dump my car insurance as well?

You are not forced to purchase car insurance. It is a condition to be allowed to drive. You can choose not to drive and therefore you can choose not to buy car insurance.



You can't choose to never be sick or get into an accident -- ergo, as a condition you will need medical care at some point, you need to carry at least an emergency level of insurance.

Unless you have a religious objection. And that's all the mandate is.


Well, no. No reason you cannot pay out of pocket. It is actually better for a huge amount of people that are in great shape.

Obamacare will make it so you cannot do this, and say, buy a high deductible plan for catastrophic coverage.

I have paid far, far more into insurance than I have used in benefits in my life, and I am not terribly healthy. I would much prefer to pay for most stuff out of pocket, and have say a $10,000 deductible plan for if I get cancer of the face or something. But nope, not under Obamacare.

Unions are all getting waivers for the Cadillac tax I notice, how interesting....
 
2011-02-01 12:16:25 PM

sprawl15: Car insurance is required on the state level.


Ironic no? As states are not authorized by the constitution to regulate commerce. But congress is. Yea, you just undermined yourself.


sprawl15: Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.


You're not born attached to a car. You are however, equipped with a body that will fail at some point. This has a calculable economic impact congress has the expressed power regulate.

sprawl15: They're completely farking different.


the hell.
 
2011-02-01 12:16:40 PM

DozeNutz: MANDATE - making you do it or go to jail.


Read the farking bill. Page 131: "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."
 
2011-02-01 12:16:48 PM

Thunderpipes: Obamacare will make it so you cannot do this


Yes, you can. Pay the extra tax and do whatever the f*ck you like.
 
2011-02-01 12:16:51 PM

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

Congress has the constitutional power to tax people.


That's pretty much how I view it, though I don't have a GED in constitutional law or anything.

Also, FTFA:

Vinson, an ex-Navy pilot appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, is known for maintaining control of his courtroom while letting everyone have their say. He loves camellia flowers and has handled cases from abortion clinic bombings to veterans rights to racial discrimination.

Uh... is there a reason I'm being told this? Should I care?
 
2011-02-01 12:17:04 PM
The government is forcing me to pay for other people's kids education. Is that a violation of my rights? I don't have kids.

How about when the government forces me to buy jets and tanks and donate them to Israel? I tell ya, we're on the verge of socialism here.
 
2011-02-01 12:17:25 PM
I paid $16.40 for a 7 lb 11 oz baby when I was active military. (do the math for me would ya?)

Shiat I had to do the labor too.
 
2011-02-01 12:17:52 PM

DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: I still don't get why the commerce clause would give the government the power to do this.

Because health care now makes up whopping 1/6th of GDP. If that isn't commerce, I don't know what the fark is.


The problem is if you allow this, then that creates precedent the Government can force you to purchase any sort of goods based on it's own criteria.
 
2011-02-01 12:17:56 PM

DozeNutz: If they can make you buy health insurance they can make you buy anything.


No they can't. Not everything amounts to 1/6th of GDP. There is a clear public interest involved here. The job of government is to work in the public interest within it's assigned powers.
 
2011-02-01 12:18:02 PM

sign_of_Zeta: dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?

Do people just use the term judicial activism anytime they disagree with the judge's rulings now? I mean, I can understand you disagreeing with his ruling, but it DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.

I've never heard a constitutional rationale as to why the Government has the power. I'm not saying that health care overall is a bad thing, but I still don't get why the commerce clause would give the government the power to do this. Not only is the Government not regulating commerce (they're forcing people to engage in it).


The commerce being regulated is private health insurance. The regulation is that no one can be denied private coverage due to pre-existing conditions. This benefit costs insurers money, which gets passed onto premium payers. Some people believe that an expensive benefit such as being able to purchase insurance whenever one needs it should be free for those who don't want to participate in the general pool.

Rather than this "mandate", and rather than changing our system of ER's treating everyone regardless of ability to pay, I would say that we change it to this: When the no denial for pre-existings kicks in for everyone, it can exclude those that don't participate for X number of years. If you've been carrying coverage, or paying the penalty, or are excused for hardship reasons...you can always get a new plan to cover whatever ails you.

If you opt out...you opt out. You don't get the benefit of being able to buy coverage when you're sick until you've paid in for awhile.
 
2011-02-01 12:18:30 PM
How about we find that laws requiring hospitals and medical providers give emergency care without regard to the patient's ability to pay unconstitutional? You know, we don't make McDonald's or any other restaurant feed hungry, starving people for free.

Look. Nobody knows when they will become sick or injured. In order for healthcare to work properly and stop all the silly cost-shifting, everyone must contribute so that everyone is covered. Period. Otherwise, before 911 dispatches an ambulance they need to run a credit check and take your Visa card number. No credit, too bad about those chest pains or that spurting artery!
 
2011-02-01 12:18:43 PM

DarnoKonrad: You're not born attached to a car. You are however, equipped with a body that will fail at some point. This has a calculable economic impact congress has the expressed power regulate.


What's your point? How does that magically make a federal mandate of health insurance for all citizens the exact same as states requiring people driving on public roads to purchase insurance?
 
2011-02-01 12:19:11 PM

12349876: What's absurd is bullshiatting yourself.


I hoped you had paid attention to the other farkers who could actually argue a point, dumbass. But you seem to be making the same mistake here and now. Maybe you can take a screen shot of this post too and try to figure out where your ass is in relation to your head.
 
2011-02-01 12:19:47 PM

xtragrind: cranched: Let the character assassination begin.

The HERP DERPs don't like the decision so the personal attacks begin...

I thought liberals didn't like this bill? There was all that outrage from liberals when the bill passed. Now they're outraged that it might be struck down eventually?


I agree, are we grasping for straws now to make judges look like activist right judges?

So he paid the doctor directly, when he was in law school, hes 70.
 
2011-02-01 12:19:58 PM

DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.


Unfortunately it's the same slippery slope fallacy that Obama used when he was against it.

Seeing how most gov't institutions get run in this country, it's difficult for me to get behind them administrating health care. Something does need to be done, i just don't know that the current plan is it.
 
2011-02-01 12:20:31 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Thunderpipes: As this bill goes, no reason anyone in charge could not mandate people buy any product the government wished. Cars, organic food, Tofurkey, you name it. I will not live under that yoke.

You'll like it or lump it if that's the tax structure that legislature wants. Congress has the power to tax.


They do not have to power to specifically target a group of people with a punitive tax in this particular fashion.

Like I said, Captain Tax should have just put a huge income tax increase to everyone in the bill, then it would be realistic and fair. It just would not go over well, so they play games with silliness.
 
2011-02-01 12:20:52 PM

jaybeezey: Seeing how most gov't institutions get run in this country, it's difficult for me to get behind them administrating health care


Except they won't be. It'll be private insurers, just like it always was.
 
2011-02-01 12:21:10 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: Uh... is there a reason I'm being told this? Should I care?


Camellia's are in bloom here. Beautiful. I have about thirty camellia trees. They pop right about the same time the azeala's bloom. Beautiful. You "up north" types don't know about camellias and azealas. Don't feel bad. I don't know anything about crack addicts and snow-blowers, either.
 
2011-02-01 12:21:17 PM
Lawyer charged us $1,000 to handle our adoption, but that was for a half Asian, half Caucasian child.

Asshole still farked it up, and I had to continue the case pro se or it would have been thrown out by the judge and we would have had to start it all over again.
 
2011-02-01 12:21:27 PM

Thunderpipes: They do not have to power to specifically target a group of people with a punitive tax in this particular fashion.


Of course they do.
 
2011-02-01 12:21:54 PM

Thunderpipes: Philip Francis Queeg: Scerpes: YoMammaObama: Scerpes: DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.

The FDA forces people to eat healthy food? Or any food for that matter? Come on...you're reaching.

The government forces you to buy health insurance? You can't just pay the doctor when you use his services? Come on... you're reaching.

Not under Obamacare, you can't.

Yes you can. Under "Obamacare" you are perfectly free not to have health insurance. If you choose not to purchase health insurance you pay slightly higher taxes.

But of course you are aware of that and prefer to lie.

You don't have to pay taxes at all. If you choose not to, you will pay penalties, interest, and maybe even go to jail. See how this works?


Yes I do. I understand that a tax increase is NOT the same as forcing someone to buy something. My taxes would be lower I had a home loan. Does that mean the government is forcing me to buy a home?
 
2011-02-01 12:22:11 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Thunderpipes: Obamacare will make it so you cannot do this

Yes, you can. Pay the extra tax and do whatever the f*ck you like.


This is a ridiculous goddamn argument. By your reasoning, you don't have to follow any laws, as long as you can pay the fine.

Dumbass.
 
2011-02-01 12:22:31 PM
TFA:

"He loves camellia flowers ..."

Why do I need to know this about a judge? Does he have a PR person? An agent? When will his reality show start?

WTF is this?
 
2011-02-01 12:22:38 PM

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.

You're not born attached to a car. You are however, equipped with a body that will fail at some point. This has a calculable economic impact congress has the expressed power regulate.


It has the express right to regulate interstate commerce, not any commerce ever. Just saying "commerce" doesn't allow the government to do whatever it want. I still don't get how if I didn't want health insurance it would an interstate commerce issue.
 
2011-02-01 12:22:50 PM
The car insurance question is not debunked. What about no fault states what require you to buy insurance to cover yourself? What if you don't want yourself covered? The laws require that you buy private insurance. Same thing in my book. No not government funded road.. public roads.
 
2011-02-01 12:23:18 PM

sign_of_Zeta: The problem is if you allow this, then that creates precedent the Government can force you to purchase any sort of goods based on it's own criteria.


You're just making a slippery slope argument that completely ignores the compelling interest that 1/6th of GDP represents. You buy a lot of things the government wants out of compelling interest -- from aircraft carriers to farm subsidies.

You want to make a distinction between those monies going to private or public entities that does not exist in the Constitution.
 
2011-02-01 12:23:23 PM
What did Candidate Obama have to say: "If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house"
 
2011-02-01 12:23:45 PM

Dr Dreidel: YoMammaObama: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!

Do we need to add a provision protecting the right of individuals to own guns? No, that's covered by the 2nd.

Ditto free expression (the 1st) and the right to privacy (the 4th).

So it's not necessary to "add" protections to the Constitution that already exist (as decided by the impartial Judiciary).


Right. So since there is no right for the government to mandate commerce (the thing that doesn't exist in the constitution) it should be added if you want it to be "constitutional". Or you can try and pretend that it really is there and we just need Supreme Court Justice Indiana Cage to cover the document in invisible ink to find it for us...

albums.mouseplanet.com
 
2011-02-01 12:24:22 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: You "up north" types


You sound Mexican, so: ¡Brava historia, hermano!
 
2011-02-01 12:24:27 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes I do. I understand that a tax increase is NOT the same as forcing someone to buy something. My taxes would be lower I had a home loan. Does that mean the government is forcing me to buy a home?


There's a large legal difference between an incentive and a penalty. Your tax decuction from purchasing a home is incentivized onto constitutionally allowed income taxes. The penalty for not purchasing health care is an independent unconstitutional direct tax levied per head.
 
2011-02-01 12:24:27 PM
HOW MUCH BABBY COST?
 
2011-02-01 12:24:44 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

I think it's Constitutional. It's a tax. Even if some people took great pains to not call it a tax.

I wish they had just called it a tax, since that's what it is. Pretending it's something else didn't improve the politics of the thing, and muddied the legal waters.


If it's a tax then everyone would have to pay it. As only people who refuse to purchase their own insurance by 2014 will have to pay it, it's not a tax. It's a penalty.
 
2011-02-01 12:24:54 PM

MugzyBrown: Bennie Crabtree: FTA: Under that logic, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said, the government could force Americans to buy clothes or food.

Are there no laws against being naked in public? Are there laws regulating how you grow your own food? Don't you need zoning and permissions for producing enough food to feed yourself year-round?

You're not very good at this.

If I chose to never leave my house, I would not have to buy clothes

If there are restrictions on how you could farm your own land, there is no law making you buy oranges.


There is a law making you buy food, however. And if you do not buy food, they can stick a tube down your throat and make you eat the food and then bill you for it.

That's what the whole "right to die" movement is about.
 
2011-02-01 12:25:56 PM
Let's not forget that Charlie Sheen tapped the toppermost shelf of available puss-wa: Denise Richards.

Charlie Sheen>Barack Obama.

The sooner you libbo creeps realize you're not getting free health care on Charlie Sheen's dime the sooner you can complete the grieving process.
 
2011-02-01 12:25:59 PM
This thread is a competition to see who can come up with the worst false equivalency.
 
2011-02-01 12:26:10 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes I do. I understand that a tax increase is NOT the same as forcing someone to buy something. My taxes would be lower I had a home loan.


No they would not. Not even close to lower. You are the disingenuous lying sack of shiat and you know it. But I thank you for losing the car insurance analogy.
 
2011-02-01 12:26:12 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: You're not born attached to a car. You are however, equipped with a body that will fail at some point. This has a calculable economic impact congress has the expressed power regulate.

What's your point? How does that magically make a federal mandate of health insurance for all citizens the exact same as states requiring people driving on public roads to purchase insurance?




If you want to use public roads, you must buy insurance. If you want to use the emergency room you're legally entitled to be admitted to, you must buy insurance.

But somehow, every American having access to 911 but not all of them being able to pay for it is Okay?

You're already being 'forced' to subsides this shiat. Wake up. Your argument is ass backwards.
 
2011-02-01 12:26:42 PM

VictorOfBorge: How about we find that laws requiring hospitals and medical providers give emergency care without regard to the patient's ability to pay unconstitutional? You know, we don't make McDonald's or any other restaurant feed hungry, starving people for free.

Look. Nobody knows when they will become sick or injured. In order for healthcare to work properly and stop all the silly cost-shifting, everyone must contribute so that everyone is covered. Period. Otherwise, before 911 dispatches an ambulance they need to run a credit check and take your Visa card number. No credit, too bad about those chest pains or that spurting artery!


I'm not arguing there don't need to be changes. I'm just saying the government doesn't have the power to do that currently the way our constitution was written. Rather than writing unconstitutional laws we have change the Constitution itself. People just don't want to try that because they're sure it'll fail. Instead they try to change the Constitution via Judges. This is bad because it sets bad precedent. It would give justification for the Government to pass laws for people to have to purchases other good. It's just a bad idea.
 
2011-02-01 12:27:00 PM

Thunderpipes: This is a ridiculous goddamn argument. By your reasoning, you don't have to follow any laws, as long as you can pay the fine.


It's not a fine, it's a tax. And yes, you can do exactly that.
 
2011-02-01 12:27:51 PM

DarnoKonrad: In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.


Did you eat lead paint flakes as a child? When DarnoKonrad said healthy food that meant food that is nutritious as opposed to unhealthy food like candy and soda. Not healthy as in food that must pass health inspections. Has the FDA ever taken a candy bar out of your pie hole?
 
2011-02-01 12:28:10 PM

sign_of_Zeta: DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: I still don't get why the commerce clause would give the government the power to do this.

Because health care now makes up whopping 1/6th of GDP. If that isn't commerce, I don't know what the fark is.

The problem is if you allow this, then that creates precedent the Government can force you to purchase any sort of goods based on it's own criteria.


Like houses, fuel-efficient cars or energy-efficient windows~
 
2011-02-01 12:28:31 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: You sound Mexican, so: ¡Brava historia, hermano!


Nope. Floridian, born and bred.

I was born in Florida, I'm going to die in Florida and in between I'll be in Florida.

I've been to every state in this godforsaken union and there is no State that even comes close.
 
2011-02-01 12:29:02 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: Geotpf: I still don't see how it is unconstitutional.

Congress has the constitutional power to tax people.

That's pretty much how I view it, though I don't have a GED in constitutional law or anything.

Also, FTFA:

Vinson, an ex-Navy pilot appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, is known for maintaining control of his courtroom while letting everyone have their say. He loves camellia flowers and has handled cases from abortion clinic bombings to veterans rights to racial discrimination.

Uh... is there a reason I'm being told this? Should I care?


I'm still wondering what the fact that he adopted a child has to do with anything... His history doesn't suggest that he's a blind ideologue & I'm not even sure how the adoption is supposed to fit in...
 
2011-02-01 12:29:09 PM

jyoders19: If it's a tax then everyone would have to pay it.


There are lots of taxes only some people pay.
 
2011-02-01 12:29:14 PM

dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?


So the two Democratic Judges that ruled the law constitutional were just correct? I'm sure it had nothing to do with party politics or activism.

So then I ask you, is the law Constitutional.
 
2011-02-01 12:29:20 PM
And this is exactly why a public option was needed.
 
2011-02-01 12:29:30 PM

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?
 
2011-02-01 12:30:33 PM
Strange. I wonder what would happen in his courtroom if someone turned up wearing no clothes and saying it is his constitutional right or say the mother who refuses to buy food for their children.
 
2011-02-01 12:30:48 PM

YoMammaObama: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes I do. I understand that a tax increase is NOT the same as forcing someone to buy something. My taxes would be lower I had a home loan.

No they would not. Not even close to lower. You are the disingenuous lying sack of shiat and you know it. But I thank you for losing the car insurance analogy.


I never posted the car insurance analogy, you moronic lying sack of shiat.

Of course my tax liability would be lower if I had a home mortgage. I could get a deduction for the interest.
 
2011-02-01 12:31:28 PM

MBrady: 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?


Yeah, those liberals like the idea of single payer, but since it didn't oppress people enough they scrapped it.

That's exactly what happened.
 
2011-02-01 12:32:10 PM

TheJoeY: sign_of_Zeta: DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: I still don't get why the commerce clause would give the government the power to do this.

Because health care now makes up whopping 1/6th of GDP. If that isn't commerce, I don't know what the fark is.

The problem is if you allow this, then that creates precedent the Government can force you to purchase any sort of goods based on it's own criteria.

Like houses, fuel-efficient cars or energy-efficient windows~


No, what I mean is if you want to ride a bike to work every day but the Government forces you to purchase a car. Or vice-versa. Or to make it so you had to buy milk. I'm not saying that will ever happen, but the facts this sets precedence for this things is horrible. Basically the way this law is implemented and the way Health insurance is in this country, this sets the pres
 
2011-02-01 12:33:09 PM

Hobodeluxe: the govt can require you to purchase insurance.


You dropped these: 't and private.
 
2011-02-01 12:33:09 PM

maxximillian: Did you eat lead paint flakes as a child? When DarnoKonrad said healthy food that meant food that is nutritious as opposed to unhealthy food like candy and soda. Not healthy as in food that must pass health inspections. Has the FDA ever taken a candy bar out of your pie hole?


Says you. The FDA does regulate healthy food, as in, it won't harm you -- as it once did before the FDA came into existence.

What's the damned difference between regulating lead content and trans-fat content in food?
 
2011-02-01 12:33:41 PM

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

No, it's not. A fixed fine is a capitation, which is specifically prohibited by the Sixteenth Amendment.


Honest question, is it still capitation if the tax has a floor but varies after that (say $600+ or 2.5% or income, whichever is greatest)?

\capitation is Article 1, sec 9, not Amendment 16
\\picture me trollin...
 
2011-02-01 12:33:57 PM

DarnoKonrad: If you want to use public roads, you must buy insurance.


Depends on which state your drivers' license is from. States also aren't prohibited from flat fines, as the Federal government is.

If you want to use the emergency room you're legally entitled to be admitted to,

A fully-private Emergency Room can deny you access, and that won't change with this law. Practically, there aren't very many who aren't compelled to treat everyone, because pretty much ever ER in the country accepts Medicare.

you must buy insurance.

See above. Or register for your stat's Medicaid, which exempts you from the fine.

But somehow, every American having access to 911 but not all of them being able to pay for it is Okay?

The HCR bill does little to lower costs.

You're already being 'forced' to subsides this shiat.

With a progressive tax, which this law doesn't provide for.
 
2011-02-01 12:34:12 PM
To all the people saying you need insurance to use an ER,

Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash. You know this, right?
 
2011-02-01 12:35:05 PM

maxximillian: Has the FDA ever taken a candy bar out of your pie hole?


MugzyBrown: This thread is a competition to see who can come up with the worst false equivalency.


Ha! So true. Plus it's the same thread with the same posters making the same arguments.

The Commerce Clause WAS probably enough authority but we have seen a shifty AWAY from the expansive interpretation during Rehnquist.

The "Gen Welfare" clause was probably authority enough thirty years ago to enact HCR but, again, we've seen a jurisprudential shift towards the earlier, less expansive interpretation.

When this goes to the SCOTUS it will be 5-4 for repeal of mandate, not severed. With Breyer being the swing vote. Again.

But, once the mandate dies the whole thing becomes an even bigger piece of crap.
 
2011-02-01 12:35:33 PM

mongbiohazard: I'm still wondering what the fact that he adopted a child has to do with anything... His history doesn't suggest that he's a blind ideologue & I'm not even sure how the adoption is supposed to fit in...


Maybe TFA is from a teenybopper magazine that's all about cute judges instead of cute Justin Bieber types?

OMG HE LURVES TEH FLOWARS HE IS SOOOOOOOOOO DREAMY
 
2011-02-01 12:35:38 PM

Thunderpipes: Solid decision. It makes sense, everyone here knows it. Not only is it indeed a slippery slope bill, but forcing someone to buy a private product is not what government should be doing. Big difference between this and auto insurance as well, for those who would use that.

Slippery slope is horrible. No reason if this passes, Obama could not say we all have to buy a Prius, whether or not we drive.


Ya but correct me if I'm wrong, the health care system is crumbling because people are getting insurance only after they become sick. There is no way the system can work like that. People need to pay their whole lives for it work properly. Either that, or we just stop helping those who can't pay, and that's not the America I'm willing to live in. Nor do I think it will happen.

We all know the illegal immigrants are not the problem (the CBO has a study you can go look at).
 
2011-02-01 12:36:27 PM

DarnoKonrad: maxximillian: Did you eat lead paint flakes as a child? When DarnoKonrad said healthy food that meant food that is nutritious as opposed to unhealthy food like candy and soda. Not healthy as in food that must pass health inspections. Has the FDA ever taken a candy bar out of your pie hole?

Says you. The FDA does regulate healthy food, as in, it won't harm you -- as it once did before the FDA came into existence.

What's the damned difference between regulating lead content and trans-fat content in food?


That's not what he means. What this law sets precedence for is the government forcing you to buy certain food. Congress could pass a law saying we all had to buy 20 pounds of Brussels Sprouts a year. This case could be used as precedence to affirm such a law. What if you don't want to eat them? Tough shiat.
 
2011-02-01 12:36:28 PM
He believes the government cannot force you to do something because it's good for you and those around you.
That doesn't strike me as a particularly right wing or extreme idea.
 
2011-02-01 12:36:38 PM

Thunderpipes: Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash. You know this, right?


And yet many people don't pay at all.

You know who pays for them? You do. And you have been for years.

Don't you want these people to take responsibility for their healthcare and stop leeching off you?
 
2011-02-01 12:36:43 PM

sign_of_Zeta: No, what I mean is if you want to ride a bike to work every day but the Government forces you to purchase a car.


If there were millions of bikers on the road causing hundreds of thousands of accidents amounting to trillions of dollars, yea, the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.
 
2011-02-01 12:37:43 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Of course my tax liability would be lower if I had a home mortgage. I could get a deduction for the interest.


If you own a home your tax liability goes up, not down. The deduction is there to help with the dramatic increase in tax liability. Your arguments may work on kids in college who may or may not pay rent yet, but it fails in the real world.

Also, when choosing not to buy a home, you are not taxed for your decision to "opt-out".

Philip Francis Queeg: I never posted the car insurance analogy, you moronic lying sack of shiat.


You might as well. It holds as much water as this "argument" does.
 
2011-02-01 12:37:55 PM
The funny thing is that Republicans should like the most important provision of HCR.
Low-pay, low-skill workers who have traditionally gone without insurance now will get $8 instead of 10 per hour while their employer pays for health ins., and no longer will they be a burden on the state/system when they show up at an emergency room sick/injured.
The more privileged and financially secure will no longer be paying more to make up for those losses.
Thirty years from now we will look back on the opponents of HCR the same way we look at the opponents of civil rights in the 60s.
 
2011-02-01 12:38:07 PM
I'm wondering when this judge will rule that coastal property owners don't have to buy flood insurance, since that's clearly unconstitutional as well. They should have the right to own property on the beach without being forced to buy this insurance!
 
2011-02-01 12:38:16 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: maxximillian: Has the FDA ever taken a candy bar out of your pie hole?

MugzyBrown: This thread is a competition to see who can come up with the worst false equivalency.

Ha! So true. Plus it's the same thread with the same posters making the same arguments.

The Commerce Clause WAS probably enough authority but we have seen a shifty AWAY from the expansive interpretation during Rehnquist.

The "Gen Welfare" clause was probably authority enough thirty years ago to enact HCR but, again, we've seen a jurisprudential shift towards the earlier, less expansive interpretation.

When this goes to the SCOTUS it will be 5-4 for repeal of mandate, not severed. With Breyer being the swing vote. Again.

But, once the mandate dies the whole thing becomes an even bigger piece of crap.


Honestly, why do you think the commerce clause was enough? That is there to regulate interstate commerce, it is not there to create interstate commerce.
 
2011-02-01 12:38:18 PM

DarnoKonrad: What's the damned difference between regulating lead content and trans-fat content in food?


Trans-fats are delicious. Lead is just so-so.

Thunderpipes: Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash.


These are libbos you're addressing. They don't have cash, checks or credit cards.

They have Magic: The Gathering cards. Not credit cards.
 
2011-02-01 12:38:40 PM

hartzdog: He believes the government cannot force you to do something because it's good for you and those around you.
That doesn't strike me as a particularly right wing or extreme idea.


That's the crazy thing. I don't disagree it'd be better if everyone was forced to buy health insurance. I just don't agree that it's right or constitutional. They're different things.
 
2011-02-01 12:39:12 PM
"If this is constitutional, then Republicans should turn around and mandate all citizens be forced to purchase a gun and a Bible."
-- Ann Coulter

/Quoted for lulz
//Of course, Republicans would end up in a huge shoot-out while debating which translation of the Bible to use. . .
 
2011-02-01 12:39:23 PM

Jester6641: Honest question, is it still capitation if the tax has a floor but varies after that (say $600+ or 2.5% or income, whichever is greatest)?


I'm sure they could make that work with deductions, but probably not worded exactly the way you put it. You'd probably have to tailor it based on Social Security tax paid.

\capitation is Article 1, sec 9, not Amendment 16

Yes, when taking the Census; Sixteenth prohibits them outright.
 
2011-02-01 12:39:48 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: No, it's spot on.

Car insurance is required on the state level.
Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.
Car insurance is only required while driving on public roadways.
Penalties for not having car insurance are levied through fines, not taxes.

They're completely farking different.


There is no mandate to buy auto insurance in my state and it's much cheaper here. Go Figure.
 
2011-02-01 12:40:31 PM

Thunderpipes: To all the people saying you need insurance to use an ER,

Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash. You know this, right?


Heck if you are poor enough you don't need either.

/charity care for those that can't get medicaid
 
2011-02-01 12:40:33 PM

DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: No, what I mean is if you want to ride a bike to work every day but the Government forces you to purchase a car.

If there were millions of bikers on the road causing hundreds of thousands of accidents amounting to trillions of dollars, yea, the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.


I think you're intentionally trying to miss the point.
 
2011-02-01 12:40:51 PM
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.
 
2011-02-01 12:41:21 PM

sign_of_Zeta: That's not what he means. What this law sets precedence for is the government forcing you to buy certain food. Congress could pass a law saying we all had to buy 20 pounds of Brussels Sprouts a year. This case could be used as precedence to affirm such a law. What if you don't want to eat them? Tough shiat.




Which is called begging the question, or "assuming the initial conditions."

HCR does NOT mandate the purchase of insurance. It mandates one must be covered. Which includes all public programs at the state and federal level that meet min. requirements -- that are set at the state level regulatory system.

So, no, this law doesn't even come close to forcing you buy brussel sprouts.

It mandates you must, like the FDA, eat safe food and you're complaining the market mostly offers brussel sprouts.

That's not the same thing by a long shot.
 
2011-02-01 12:42:24 PM
Something I have been thinking if this whole health care law is deemed unconstitutional. If SCOTUS says its unconstitutional then:

1. Is Social Security unconstitutional? If the govt can not force me to buy health insurance, then it can not force me to buy a retirement plan.

2. Is Medicare / Medicaid unconstitutional? If the govt can not force me to buy health insurance, then it can not force me to buy this one too.

I hope the Republicans see the Pandora's box they are opening on this one. Someone / some group could easy take this thought and try to push it all the way to SCOTUS. If the court rules that one service can not be a forced on its citizens, then none of them can. Then again, many Republicans want these programs to go away so maybe its their end game plan.
 
2011-02-01 12:42:48 PM

DarnoKonrad: the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.


The Fed could only mandate that cars that are manufactured have seat belts (which falls firmly under interstate commerce). Actually mandating people wear those seatbelts is beyond the Fed's control, and is instead mandated on a state by state basis.
 
2011-02-01 12:42:50 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: They have Magic: The Gathering cards. Not credit cards.


Bullsh*t. I've got my PETA credit card:
i291.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-01 12:43:53 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Thunderpipes: Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash. You know this, right?

And yet many people don't pay at all.

You know who pays for them? You do. And you have been for years.

Don't you want these people to take responsibility for their healthcare and stop leeching off you?


How the hell will this bill do that? It will actually increase my costs, and give even more free health care to those who don't pay now. How is giving more free stuff to people "making them take responsibility for their health care"?

You really think 32 million (or whatever the latest number is) Americans are all of a sudden going to start paying for their own health care?

Besides the semantics and pushy crap, 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. It punishes me by increasing my family's health care costs. It will increase the deficit drastically. Why would I want this?

We already have too small a percentage of Americans paying all the bills. This just shrinks that number even more and shifts the costs to those remaining.
 
2011-02-01 12:43:54 PM

sign_of_Zeta: DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: No, what I mean is if you want to ride a bike to work every day but the Government forces you to purchase a car.

If there were millions of bikers on the road causing hundreds of thousands of accidents amounting to trillions of dollars, yea, the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.

I think you're intentionally trying to miss the point.




No you are. It's called compelling interest. You keep trying to equate *any situation* with one that amounts to 1/6th of GDP.

Some hypothetical about cars is not the same thing as the real costs of health care on the economy -- an economy congress has the explicit power to regulate.
 
2011-02-01 12:44:36 PM

Thunderpipes: Honestly, why do you think the commerce clause was enough?


There is a huge compendium of cases where the pre-Rehnquist Court allowed the Commerce clause to be, ahem, "expanded" mostly to effectuate the civil rights cause but also to promote the occupational, highway and food safety legislation that marked the sixties. Heart of ATL, Ollies BBQ, spring to mind. Contrast with Lopez.
 
2011-02-01 12:45:43 PM

DarnoKonrad: No you are. It's called compelling interest. You keep trying to equate *any situation* with one that amounts to 1/6th of GDP.

Some hypothetical about cars is not the same thing as the real costs of health care on the economy -- an economy congress has the explicit power to regulate.


It only explicitly has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Again, can you tell me how my personal choice to have insurance is applicable to the interstate commerce clause?
 
2011-02-01 12:45:49 PM
I fail to understand how for the first time in several decades, Judge Vinson saw justification to throw out the entire law instead of just the portion he ruled unconstitutional.
 
2011-02-01 12:46:18 PM

Thunderpipes: How the hell will this bill do that? It will actually increase my costs, and give even more free health care to those who don't pay now. How is giving more free stuff to people "making them take responsibility for their health care"?

You really think 32 million (or whatever the latest number is) Americans are all of a sudden going to start paying for their own health care?


We already pay for their healthcare. Except they get it in the most inefficient way possible.
 
2011-02-01 12:46:37 PM

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.
 
2011-02-01 12:46:52 PM

Hobodeluxe: the argument that if they did this then the govt could require you to buy clothes or food is preposterous.
very reaching. this judge is out of touch with the common man.


If you do not feed your children, they are taken away from you. If you do not feed yourself and the proper people catch wind of this in time, you can be committed to a mental health facility and force-fed for being a danger to yourself.

If you do not clothe your children, they will be taken from you. If you are not clothed in public, you will be arrested in many places for indecent exposure.

I'd say we're already have a de facto requirement to buy food and clothing today.
 
2011-02-01 12:47:03 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: the Fed could tell you to stop riding bikes on public roads or take a public subsidy to buy a car -- as sure as it can mandate all cars must have seat belts.

The Fed could only mandate that cars that are manufactured have seat belts (which falls firmly under interstate commerce). Actually mandating people wear those seatbelts is beyond the Fed's control, and is instead mandated on a state by state basis.



Congress isn't saying you have to use coverage once you acquire it either. You can still die cheaply at home if you so choose -- if you want to use that analogy.
 
2011-02-01 12:47:18 PM

dogdaze: Remember. It's not judicial activism when the right does this nonsense.
/is the Florida tag on vacation today?


Yeah, following the constitution is sure "activism". If want to do health care pass a constitutional amendment. Following the rules sure is hard isn't libtards. Whenever they are enforced you guys always yell racism, sexism, homophobia, islamaphobia or whatever victimhood complex is all the rage.
 
2011-02-01 12:47:23 PM

jntaylor63: Something I have been thinking if this whole health care law is deemed unconstitutional. If SCOTUS says its unconstitutional then:

1. Is Social Security unconstitutional? If the govt can not force me to buy health insurance, then it can not force me to buy a retirement plan.

2. Is Medicare / Medicaid unconstitutional? If the govt can not force me to buy health insurance, then it can not force me to buy this one too.

I hope the Republicans see the Pandora's box they are opening on this one. Someone / some group could easy take this thought and try to push it all the way to SCOTUS. If the court rules that one service can not be a forced on its citizens, then none of them can. Then again, many Republicans want these programs to go away so maybe its their end game plan.


There is one MAJOR difference between PPACA and SS/Medicare.

SS/Medicare relies on the "tax and spend" clause of the Constitution. It taxes workers, and then spends that tax revenue on the program.

PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product." If it was set up as a payroll tax that serviced a government run insurance program, it would have more constitutional basis. The way it is written is a travesty.
 
2011-02-01 12:48:56 PM

sign_of_Zeta: It only explicitly has the power to regulate interstate commerce.


Let me quote it for you, as you seem to be operating under a common misnomer:

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

"among" You are among the states.
 
2011-02-01 12:49:24 PM
Now that I know that judge is bad, I love having to pay insurance companies to live!
 
2011-02-01 12:49:53 PM

DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: (they're forcing people to engage in it).

Failure to have insurance is not inaction. It has a calculable economic impact on everybody else. And it's huge.


is it also consitutional for the government to force everyone who buy's a car to buy a gm? declining to buy a gm car has a calcuable economic impact on everyone else in this country. what about forcing everyone to buy $500 worth of shoes this year. the fact that you didn't buy $500 worth of shoes last year had a calculable economic impact on this country.
 
2011-02-01 12:49:56 PM

MikeBoomshadow: I fail to understand how for the first time in several decades, Judge Vinson saw justification to throw out the entire law instead of just the portion he ruled unconstitutional.


The way Congress wrote it, without the entire bill, the rest of it isn't valid.

/DRTFD...well, most of it....was getting sleepy last night.
//Don't agree with it, but, I understand why he did what he did; not nearly as convincing as Judge Hudson's in EDVA.
 
2011-02-01 12:50:58 PM

DarnoKonrad: Congress isn't saying you have to use coverage once you acquire it either. You can still die cheaply at home if you so choose -- if you want to use that analogy.


You brought up an idiotic analogy, used it wrong, and I debunked it. I don't want to use that analogy, but your idiocy needs to be quarantined before it spreads.

DarnoKonrad: "The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"


Like this. "Among" is not "within", much like "with foreign Nations" doesn't mean we can pass laws for other nations.
 
2011-02-01 12:51:05 PM

Fine Varmint: I paid $16.40 for a 7 lb 11 oz baby when I was active military. (do the math for me would ya?)

Shiat I had to do the labor too.


My brother paid $50 for a pair (about 10 lbs total). Next time, go for the volume discount.
 
2011-02-01 12:51:36 PM

YoMammaObama: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!


You have to add something perfectly reasonable to something constitutional. But something being perfectly reasonable does not automatically equal constitutionality.
 
2011-02-01 12:52:42 PM

DarnoKonrad: HCR does NOT mandate the purchase of insurance. It mandates one must be covered.


And this. Insurance is not sold across state lines. Risk is not shared across state lines. Interstate commerce does not farking apply.
 
2011-02-01 12:52:59 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product."


You know that's not true.

A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food, and you're complaining that most of the safe food to eat *in the market* is turnips -- while the fed might offer some bread -- and a few different menu options among the states.

The law does not say anything about buying particular products.
 
2011-02-01 12:53:32 PM

dittybopper: Lawyer charged us $1,000 to handle our adoption, but that was for a half Asian, half Caucasian child.

Asshole still farked it up, and I had to continue the case pro se or it would have been thrown out by the judge and we would have had to start it all over again.


Hey you could have gotten my cousin's baby for court cost. Well she is half black and you might not have wanted that. The lawyer that got her put her in dance/song classes and put her in overseas commercials. Made dirty money.

i990.photobucket.com

Kid is doing great today..now that she is back with the real family.
 
2011-02-01 12:54:11 PM

Scerpes: Nabb1: That's a pretty good bargain. Dude must have had some good connections.

That was in '54. Baby didn't fetch as much cash then.


I heard there was a boom of babies.
 
2011-02-01 12:54:56 PM

LordJiro: That's why we need single payer


Interestingly enough, single payer may be more likely if PPACA gets struck down.

People aren't going to want to go back to the days where you could get denied because of pre-existing conditions, get your policy retroactively canceled (with no refund) because you didn't disclose teenage acne treatment, get sold an insurance plan with a $10K lifetime maximum benefit, etc.

Medicare's already survived challenges to its constitutionality. Expand its eligibility to everyone (and increase the Medicare tax accordingly), and Bob's your uncle. The bill could probably be less than 10 pages (cue the "OMG 2000 PAGEZ!!!" derpers).

Don't like what Medicare covers? Buy supplemental private insurance (as current Medicare recipients do/can).
 
2011-02-01 12:55:03 PM

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?
 
2011-02-01 12:55:18 PM
OK, so the GOP clearly has a hard-on for repealing Obamacare, but have they said anything about what they plan to replace it with? Or, are we just going back to where I can get turned down for coverage due to my pre-existing condition?
 
2011-02-01 12:55:55 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: DarnoKonrad: What's the damned difference between regulating lead content and trans-fat content in food?

Trans-fats are delicious. Lead is just so-so.

Thunderpipes: Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash.

These are libbos you're addressing. They don't have cash, checks or credit cards.

They have Magic: The Gathering cards. Not credit cards.


I'm a liberal with credit cards and magic the gathering cards so I'm getting a kick out of your reply.
 
2011-02-01 12:55:59 PM

sprawl15: Interstate commerce


*facepalm*
 
2011-02-01 12:57:31 PM

DarnoKonrad: A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food


There's the stupid analogies! The FDA regulates safe foods sold across state lines. If you grow/catch/hunt your own food, or choose to starve yourself, there is no regulation to purchase food that the FDA has inspected.

DarnoKonrad: The law does not say anything about buying particular products.

The Constitution

does not say anything about buying particular products, which is why the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
 
2011-02-01 12:57:59 PM

Bendal: I'm wondering when this judge will rule that coastal property owners don't have to buy flood insurance, since that's clearly unconstitutional as well. They should have the right to own property on the beach without being forced to buy this insurance!


Any chance it is the (Federally protected) bank providing the loan that requires the insurance? You may want to look into NFIP guidelines if you think that the owners are "required" to by law... Cause it's the lenders that require it. And if you don't understand the difference, then you don't understand the law. Or finance. Or home ownership. Pick one or all.
 
2011-02-01 12:58:56 PM

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: YoMammaObama: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!

Do we need to add a provision protecting the right of individuals to own guns? No, that's covered by the 2nd.

Ditto free expression (the 1st) and the right to privacy (the 4th).

So it's not necessary to "add" protections to the Constitution that already exist (as decided by the impartial Judiciary).

Right. So since there is no right for the government to mandate commerce (the thing that doesn't exist in the constitution) it should be added if you want it to be "constitutional". Or you can try and pretend that it really is there and we just need Supreme Court Justice Indiana Cage to cover the document in invisible ink to find it for us...


DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: It only explicitly has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Let me quote it for you, as you seem to be operating under a common misnomer:

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

"among" You are among the states.


Or is health care no longer ZOMG 1/6 of GDP!!!
 
2011-02-01 01:00:20 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product."

You know that's not true.

A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food, and you're complaining that most of the safe food to eat *in the market* is turnips -- while the fed might offer some bread -- and a few different menu options among the states.

The law does not say anything about buying particular products.


No, the law states that you must maintain minimum essential coverage from one of a few options.

1. Government sponsored programs:
a. Medicare
b. Medicaid
c. CHIP
d. Tricare
e. Veteran's health care
f. Peace Corps health program

2. Employer sponsored plan
3. Plans in the individual market
4. Grandfathered health plan

What category(s) do you think most Americans fall into?
 
2011-02-01 01:00:41 PM

Freakman: YoMammaObama: Freakman: It is perfectly reasonable. But perfectly reasonable =/= constitutional.

In fact, the constitution recommends that you add something perfectly reasonable to it. If it is in fact perfectly reasonable you won't have any problem with that amendment process. Then perfectly reasonable = constitutional! Imagine that!

You have to add something perfectly reasonable to something constitutional. But something being perfectly reasonable does not automatically equal constitutionality.


I couldn't agree more. What you are saying is the very heart of the 9th amendment.

So if you (Not you specifically, the universal "You") believe the constitution should be changed to give everyone heathcare and unicorns and rainbows... GO FOR IT! Nobody is stopping you. But if you want to pretend the right to mandate commerce exists in the constitution, you'll lose. It isn't.
 
2011-02-01 01:00:59 PM

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.


As a duly self-appointed representative of Liberal America, I'd like to point out that we don't care as much about that distinction as you people.

Some of us actually follow State and local politics, so we know that local governments are usually MORE corrupt and inefficient than State, and likewise State governments are usually more corrupt and inefficient than the Federal government. Something's not necessarily made more or less moral by changing the level of government at which it is implemented.

Some of you seem to have the current USA confused with the CSA or the Articles-of-Confederation-era USA.
 
2011-02-01 01:01:42 PM

sprawl15: If you grow/catch/hunt your own food, or choose to starve yourself, there is no regulation to purchase food that the FDA has inspected.


Indeed, and you are more than welcome to start your own insurance company to cover yourself to comply with the law -- or lobby your state for a program there -- or start the "save the sprawl15" foundation.



sprawl15: The Constitution does not say anything about buying particular products, which is why the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.


derp. The law says you must be covered. That includes many things besides private issuance.
 
2011-02-01 01:02:33 PM

DarnoKonrad: DozeNutz: If they can make you buy health insurance they can make you buy anything.

No they can't. Not everything amounts to 1/6th of GDP. There is a clear public interest involved here. The job of government is to work in the public interest within it's assigned powers.


so what part of Article 1 Section 8 says they have the power to make you buy insurance?
 
2011-02-01 01:02:59 PM

Dr Dreidel: DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: It only explicitly has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Let me quote it for you, as you seem to be operating under a common misnomer:

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

"among" You are among the states.

Or is health care no longer ZOMG 1/6 of GDP!!!


I'm curious why you copied me on this Dre. Were you quoting the bolded line above? If so, could you tell me the difference between the words "Regulate" and "Mandate"? Or is it your opinion that they are synonyms?
 
2011-02-01 01:03:32 PM

Zerochance: OK, so the GOP clearly has a hard-on for repealing Obamacare, but have they said anything about what they plan to replace it with? Or, are we just going back to where I can get turned down for coverage due to my pre-existing condition?


If you wanted a truly fair system, you should have to pay more for pre-existing conditions. It is not fair to make a healthy 30 year old who works out, watches what they eat, to pay for a hugely expensive policy to subsidize other people. Sucks if someone has something they could not prevent, but that is life.

In all other forms of insurance, this applies. Bad driving record? You pay higher rates. Bad heart? Life insurance becomes much more expensive. Why should health insurance be one price for all?

The worst part is, it gives no incentive for poor/unhealthy people to ever get a better job and pony up. It makes more sense for them to stay poor and get free care, when you consider how stupid expensive health care costs are.

My wife just had her policy get changed, works for the town here. I am on her policy. We lost chiropractic care. So now I have to go through incredible hoops and the only possible fix is surgery, which when you factor in surgical costs, MRI, all that jazz, is massively expensive. HSA so 4500 from us and 4500 from employer for a deductible as well, so not like we were getting free care before.

Its a mess. Businesses all over are cutting plans and increasing costs. How could Obamacare help the average person?
 
2011-02-01 01:03:40 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product."

You know that's not true.

A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food, and you're complaining that most of the safe food to eat *in the market* is turnips -- while the fed might offer some bread -- and a few different menu options among the states.

The law does not say anything about buying particular products.

No, the law states that you must maintain minimum essential coverage from one of a few options.

1. Government sponsored programs:
a. Medicare
b. Medicaid
c. CHIP
d. Tricare
e. Veteran's health care
f. Peace Corps health program

2. Employer sponsored plan
3. Plans in the individual market
4. Grandfathered health plan

What category(s) do you think most Americans fall into?


#1 or #2
 
2011-02-01 01:03:41 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product."

You know that's not true.

A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food, and you're complaining that most of the safe food to eat *in the market* is turnips -- while the fed might offer some bread -- and a few different menu options among the states.

The law does not say anything about buying particular products.

No, the law states that you must maintain minimum essential coverage from one of a few options.

1. Government sponsored programs:
a. Medicare
b. Medicaid
c. CHIP
d. Tricare
e. Veteran's health care
f. Peace Corps health program

2. Employer sponsored plan
3. Plans in the individual market
4. Grandfathered health plan

What category(s) do you think most Americans fall into?




Don' say no and then agree with me. And you forgot states that can opt out by starting their own programs.
 
2011-02-01 01:04:09 PM

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: Interstate commerce

*facepalm*


You may personally not believe the interstate commerce clause is an interstate commerce clause, but hundreds of years of Supreme Court decision don't give a flying fark what you believe in your magic fantasy land.

DarnoKonrad: Indeed, and you are more than welcome to start your own insurance company to cover yourself to comply with the law -- or lobby your state for a program there -- or start the "save the sprawl15" foundation.


How do you seriously not understand how "You must buy/be covered with X" is different than "If you do X, you have to do Y"? I'm really at a loss as to how you can be so disconnected from cause and effect (or reality in general).

DarnoKonrad: derp. The law says you must be covered. That includes many things besides private issuance.


That covers the whole gamut of insurance options for the vast majority of the population like "private insurance" and...nothing.
 
2011-02-01 01:04:12 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Bullsh*t. I've got my PETA credit card:


I've never heard of "PETA".

Does it stand for Penis-Eating, Total A-holes? Petulant, Elderly Transvestite Atheists? Pudenda Excoriating Tree Appendage?
 
2011-02-01 01:04:12 PM

Zerochance: OK, so the GOP clearly has a hard-on for repealing Obamacare, but have they said anything about what they plan to replace it with? Or, are we just going back to where I can get turned down for coverage due to my pre-existing condition?


They're making hand-wavy noises about replacement but actually have no plan (unless you count Ryan's Roadmap plan to abolish Medicare). So yes it'll go back to the days of pre-existing-condition exclusions, arbitrary recissions, etc.

We who are unhealthy and not filthy rich should apparently go be poor somewhere else.
 
2011-02-01 01:04:22 PM

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: Interstate commerce

*facepalm*


DK, you seemed to use a test for consitutionality that looks to see whether declining to buy a product has a measurable economic impact. of course everytime someone decides not buy something there is a measurable economic impact, so is it your assertion that governemnt can make you buy anything? can the government force new car buyers this year to buy a gm? can they force everyone to buy a gallon of skim milk once a month?
 
2011-02-01 01:05:00 PM

Dr Dreidel: Fine Varmint: I paid $16.40 for a 7 lb 11 oz baby when I was active military. (do the math for me would ya?)

Shiat I had to do the labor too.

My brother paid $50 for a pair (about 10 lbs total). Next time, go for the volume discount.


Guddamn you and math. I think I got the better deal and a fine daughter.

But the math. The math is off.
 
2011-02-01 01:05:01 PM
Can someone tell me how

"Buy insurance or pay a tax" is legally different than literally ANY tax break that currently exists.

- Buy a hybrid car and pay less tax
- Buy an Energy Star furnace and pay less tax
- Have a child and pay less tax

Logically, the statements are equivalent. Each year, the population is broken into two groups, those who purchased a particular product, and those who paid a bit more tax.

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?
 
2011-02-01 01:07:10 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Zerochance: OK, so the GOP clearly has a hard-on for repealing Obamacare, but have they said anything about what they plan to replace it with? Or, are we just going back to where I can get turned down for coverage due to my pre-existing condition?

They're making hand-wavy noises about replacement but actually have no plan (unless you count Ryan's Roadmap plan to abolish Medicare). So yes it'll go back to the days of pre-existing-condition exclusions, arbitrary recissions, etc.

We who are unhealthy and not filthy rich should apparently go be poor somewhere else.


You could start paying your own goddamn way, take some responsibility for yourselves. Ever think of that?

I want another big-screen TV. How would you like to pay for it? I don't want to work any more. Sounds fair.
 
2011-02-01 01:07:32 PM

Jack31081: "Buy insurance or pay a tax" is legally different than literally ANY tax break that currently exists.


Because tax breaks are incentives applied to a Constitutionally enumerated income tax. They are modifications of the tax that is levied as a percentage of your income. The tax breaks are secondary to the constitutionality of the tax itself. The mandate is a tax that is direct, levied per head, and not constitutional.

You're mixing tax breaks with the tax itself, much like the health care mandate justification.
 
2011-02-01 01:08:42 PM

hurdboy: Whether the Republicans will get that through the House is another matter, altogether


"Whether the Republicans will get that through the House is another matter."
 
2011-02-01 01:08:49 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: PPACA relies on "spend your after tax money on a private product."

You know that's not true.

A close analogy is the FDA mandates safe food, and you're complaining that most of the safe food to eat *in the market* is turnips -- while the fed might offer some bread -- and a few different menu options among the states.

The law does not say anything about buying particular products.

No, the law states that you must maintain minimum essential coverage from one of a few options.

1. Government sponsored programs:
a. Medicare
b. Medicaid
c. CHIP
d. Tricare
e. Veteran's health care
f. Peace Corps health program

2. Employer sponsored plan
3. Plans in the individual market
4. Grandfathered health plan

What category(s) do you think most Americans fall into?



Don' say no and then agree with me. And you forgot states that can opt out by starting their own programs.


I'm saying that most individuals are part, or will become part of #2 and #3. That means paying for a private product. Yes, there are some alternatives, but they are no different than the alternatives that existed without PPACA. Anyone who was eligible for any of the government programs now would have qualified beforehand. The folks that will be affected by the mandate will fall into category #3, which means buying a plan on the individual market.
 
2011-02-01 01:09:55 PM

sprawl15: How do you seriously not understand how "You must buy/be covered with X" is different than "If you do X, you have to do Y"? I'm really at a loss as to how you can be so disconnected from cause and effect (or reality in general).


You're just not thinking.

You have about as much of a choice not to eat as you have in not getting sick.

In both cases you have options to take care of it for yourself -- even if in both cases it's highly unlikely.

In both cases the subject has certain federal mandates -- like safe food or having coverage.

In both cases you have congress telling private entities what they can and cannot do within that market.
 
2011-02-01 01:10:29 PM
OK, There are some farkers taking exception to my comment that this is judicial activism. You would have a point if these lawsuits were from states of both colors but no. Each and every one is from a red state. Is this a coincidence or is this an orchestrated effort from the right to turn a national crisis into a political football and ignore the need to rein in the cost of health care in this country?
 
2011-02-01 01:12:09 PM

DarnoKonrad: In both cases you have options to take care of it for yourself -- even if in both cases it's highly unlikely.


Food is sold across state lines. Insurance is not sold across state lines. What don't you get about this?

DarnoKonrad: In both cases you have congress telling private entities what they can and cannot do within that market.


Ah, you don't get that the scale of the market is the important part when it comes to constitutionality of laws.
 
2011-02-01 01:12:35 PM

bongmiester: Now there's people - and I know 'em - who'll pay a lot more than $25,000 for a healthy baby. Why, I myself fetched $30,000 on the black market. And that was in 1954 dollars.


t1.gstatic.com
I said, "Healthy white baby? Five Years? What else ya got?"
 
2011-02-01 01:12:39 PM
Boy there's a lot of retards on the right.

ERs are not allowed to turn you down. The consequence of this is that underinsured or uninsured people have the burden of their cost passed on to those of us that do pay.

This law helps solve that problem.

The analogy to car insurance is identical. You want to have access to government funded facilities (most hospitals are), then you are required to be able to pay for the cost of those services if bad things happen.

There's no counter argument, and healthcare will not be repealed. Just farking deal with it you idiots. We're helping you even if you can't understand it because you're too dumb or bias.
 
2011-02-01 01:14:03 PM

Thunderpipes: Why should health insurance be one price for all?


To mandate that insurers actually pool risk, as they are supposed to.

Without such a rule, insurers could just charge each individual enrollee their statistically expected health care costs, plus profit. In that case the insurer is providing no service at all (except maybe loan-sharking).

Thunderpipes: it gives no incentive for poor/unhealthy people to ever get a better job and pony up


Studies have shown that as deductibles etc. increase, people just use less health care, regardless of need. So this has a counter-productive effect; people forgo their medicines, preventive care, etc. then end up needing expensive emergency care.

Thunderpipes: Its a mess. Businesses all over are cutting plans and increasing costs.


As has been happening every single year at least ever since I've been in the workforce (1998), and probably significantly longer.

That's the real problem - medical inflation. Some of that is rising insurer profit, some is rising hospital etc. profit, some is a proliferation of expensive procedures/tests/machinery, etc. Front-line doctors have more-or-less stagnant income.

If we don't get medical inflation under control somehow, both the Federal budget (unless we abolish Medicare/Medicaid), and society as a whole, are completely boned. With the status quo by 2050 it'd cost 11% of GDP to set a broken leg.

I happen to think the best way to slow the cost growth is to go single-payer, and use the resulting monopsony power to cut costs. (Plus it eliminates insurer profit, and having one set of paperwork/rules will cut providers' administrative overhead).
 
2011-02-01 01:14:24 PM

dogdaze: OK, There are some farkers taking exception to my comment that this is judicial activism. You would have a point if these lawsuits were from states of both colors but no. Each and every one is from a red state. Is this a coincidence or is this an orchestrated effort from the right to turn a national crisis into a political football and ignore the need to rein in the cost of health care in this country?


Liberals don't care about the Constitution, that is why liberal states are not contesting it. Obama could pass a "burn all churches down" bill and you guys would celebrate in joy, regardless of whether or not it is legal or right.

I have yet to ever hear a single argument as to how the commerce clause can force people to engage in commerce.

"And ignore the need to rein in cost"? Liberals would not even discuss that in the creation of this monster bill. That was never a goal.
 
2011-02-01 01:14:52 PM

Thunderpipes: Zerochance: OK, so the GOP clearly has a hard-on for repealing Obamacare, but have they said anything about what they plan to replace it with? Or, are we just going back to where I can get turned down for coverage due to my pre-existing condition?

If you wanted a truly fair system, you should have to pay more for pre-existing conditions. It is not fair to make a healthy 30 year old who works out, watches what they eat, to pay for a hugely expensive policy to subsidize other people. Sucks if someone has something they could not prevent, but that is life.

In all other forms of insurance, this applies. Bad driving record? You pay higher rates. Bad heart? Life insurance becomes much more expensive. Why should health insurance be one price for all?

The worst part is, it gives no incentive for poor/unhealthy people to ever get a better job and pony up. It makes more sense for them to stay poor and get free care, when you consider how stupid expensive health care costs are.

My wife just had her policy get changed, works for the town here. I am on her policy. We lost chiropractic care. So now I have to go through incredible hoops and the only possible fix is surgery, which when you factor in surgical costs, MRI, all that jazz, is massively expensive. HSA so 4500 from us and 4500 from employer for a deductible as well, so not like we were getting free care before.

Its a mess. Businesses all over are cutting plans and increasing costs. How could Obamacare help the average person?


Is there anything in the law that says insurance companies can't charge higher premiums for those with pre existing conditions? I think it just says they can't deny coverage or drop them.

And the argument about rate going up and businesses dropping coverage is ridiculous. If you are as knowledgable on the current trends in insurance as you claim, then you are well aware of the fact insurance companies were raising rates years before the new healthcare law was even on the table. Businesses were already cutting back on plans and given insurance to fewer employees. To blame it on the new law is to ignore history.
 
2011-02-01 01:15:58 PM

relcec: DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: Interstate commerce

*facepalm*

DK, you seemed to use a test for consitutionality that looks to see whether declining to buy a product has a measurable economic impact. of course everytime someone decides not buy something there is a measurable economic impact, so is it your assertion that governemnt can make you buy anything? can the government force new car buyers this year to buy a gm? can they force everyone to buy a gallon of skim milk once a month?


Exactly. The problem with saying the commerce clause justifies this law because of indirect commerce means you can basically justify any law the government writes simply because everything has an economic component to it.
 
2011-02-01 01:16:15 PM

DozeNutz: so what part of Article 1 Section 8 says they have the power to make you buy insurance?


The libbo creep lawyers say it's their tax and spend authority. Which is rich since they bent over backwards to avoid characterizing it as a tax during the debate.

The fact of the matter is this: The Dems took a HUGE election night hit because of HCR. The business world is preparing for new expenses (See Chili's article, WSJ) and "red-tape" (See Obama's pledge to "fix" the paperwork requirements) which will inevitably raise the price of things. The general dissatisfaction with HCR combined with the predictable effects ObamaCare will have on the economy should just about erase all the Dem gains made on the heels of the Bush presidency.

Pissed away.

Gaseous Anomaly: We who are unhealthy and not filthy rich should apparently go be poor somewhere else.


Now you're on to something. I hear Canada is nice this time of year. Nice and cold, that is.
 
2011-02-01 01:16:33 PM

sprawl15: Food is sold across state lines. Insurance is not sold across state lines. What don't you get about this?



The FDA regulates your ham sandwich whether it leaves state lines or not. What do you not understand about this? Your interpretation of the commerce clause reads like a bad libertarian blog.
 
2011-02-01 01:17:10 PM
Thunderpipes: hillbillypharmacist: Thunderpipes: Umm, you can write a check or use a credit card, heck, even pay cash. You know this, right?

And yet many people don't pay at all.

You know who pays for them? You do. And you have been for years.

Don't you want these people to take responsibility for their healthcare and stop leeching off you?

How the hell will this bill do that? It will actually increase my costs, and give even more free health care to those who don't pay now. How is giving more free stuff to people "making them take responsibility for their health care"?

You really think 32 million (or whatever the latest number is) Americans are all of a sudden going to start paying for their own health care?

Besides the semantics and pushy crap, 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. It punishes me by increasing my family's health care costs. It will increase the deficit drastically. Why would I want this?

We already have too small a percentage of Americans paying all the bills. This just shrinks that number even more and shifts the costs to those remaining.


Thunderpipes: Zerochance: OK, so the GOP clearly has a hard-on for repealing Obamacare, but have they said anything about what they plan to replace it with? Or, are we just going back to where I can get turned down for coverage due to my pre-existing condition?

If you wanted a truly fair system, you should have to pay more for pre-existing conditions. It is not fair to make a healthy 30 year old who works out, watches what they eat, to pay for a hugely expensive policy to subsidize other people. Sucks if someone has something they could not prevent, but that is life.

In all other forms of insurance, this applies. Bad driving record? You pay higher rates. Bad heart? Life insurance becomes much more expensive. Why should health insurance be one price for all?

The worst part is, it gives no incentive for poor/unhealthy people to ever get a better job and pony up. It makes more sense for them to stay poor and get free care, when you consider how stupid expensive health care costs are.


Not getting too many replies huh? Only argument is that your way isn't isn't fair to poor people and do poor children not deserve health care because of their parents piss poor decisions?
 
2011-02-01 01:17:15 PM
FYI

Col Bud Day in the article was a guest at the Hanoi Hilton with John McCain.
 
2011-02-01 01:17:26 PM

Thunderpipes: Gaseous Anomaly: Zerochance: OK, so the GOP clearly has a hard-on for repealing Obamacare, but have they said anything about what they plan to replace it with? Or, are we just going back to where I can get turned down for coverage due to my pre-existing condition?

They're making hand-wavy noises about replacement but actually have no plan (unless you count Ryan's Roadmap plan to abolish Medicare). So yes it'll go back to the days of pre-existing-condition exclusions, arbitrary recissions, etc.

We who are unhealthy and not filthy rich should apparently go be poor somewhere else.

You could start paying your own goddamn way, take some responsibility for yourselves. Ever think of that?

I want another big-screen TV. How would you like to pay for it? I don't want to work any more. Sounds fair.


In another post you've mentioned being covered by your wife's employer-based insurance plan. Your health-care costs are being shared with all the other employees at that company.

Why can't YOU just pay YOUR own way, you commie deadbeat? Instead it's just easier to let all your wife's co-workers pay for your lazy ass.
 
2011-02-01 01:17:45 PM

justtray: Boy there's a lot of retards on the right.

ERs are not allowed to turn you down. The consequence of this is that underinsured or uninsured people have the burden of their cost passed on to those of us that do pay.

This law helps solve that problem.

The analogy to car insurance is identical. You want to have access to government funded facilities (most hospitals are), then you are required to be able to pay for the cost of those services if bad things happen.

There's no counter argument, and healthcare will not be repealed. Just farking deal with it you idiots. We're helping you even if you can't understand it because you're too dumb or bias.


pot meet kettle.. seriously.

//wishes the government would set up free clinics for people that cannot pay so other citizens don't have to pick up their costs through their insurance premiums.

///would gladly pay the taxes associated with the said clinics/hospitals.

////still wants an option to pay a premium for non-rationed excellent care that private institutions can provide.
 
2011-02-01 01:17:56 PM

FTFA:

In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.
DarnoKonrad:
Yea, and it's called the FDA.

The guy didn't lay out a constitutional rationale, just a slippery slope fallacy.
The FDA cannot (thus far) penalize you for eating unhealthy or even poisonous foods. It mandates the labeling of food sold commercially.

Of course, the constitutionally of the Drug War is questionable, but the SCotUS doesn't seem to see that. :P
 
2011-02-01 01:18:20 PM

sign_of_Zeta: Exactly. The problem with saying the commerce clause justifies this law because of indirect commerce means you can basically justify any law the government writes simply because everything has an economic component to it.


for the last time, no it doesn't (new window)
 
2011-02-01 01:20:33 PM

relcec: can they force everyone to buy a gallon of skim milk once a month?


They can force you to do anything. The idea that this is somehow a gov't "of the people" is vaporous.
 
2011-02-01 01:20:44 PM

relcec: can they force everyone to buy a gallon of skim milk once a month?


They already do this, via farm subsidies. Certain people (of course mostly agricultural megacorps) are paid, by the government, to NOT raise dairy cows, pigs, grow corn, etc, as a price support mechanism.

/been thinking of getting into the not-raising-chickens business
 
2011-02-01 01:21:01 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Thunderpipes: Why should health insurance be one price for all?

To mandate that insurers actually pool risk, as they are supposed to.

Without such a rule, insurers could just charge each individual enrollee their statistically expected health care costs, plus profit. In that case the insurer is providing no service at all (except maybe loan-sharking).

Thunderpipes: it gives no incentive for poor/unhealthy people to ever get a better job and pony up

Studies have shown that as deductibles etc. increase, people just use less health care, regardless of need. So this has a counter-productive effect; people forgo their medicines, preventive care, etc. then end up needing expensive emergency care.

Thunderpipes: Its a mess. Businesses all over are cutting plans and increasing costs.

As has been happening every single year at least ever since I've been in the workforce (1998), and probably significantly longer.

That's the real problem - medical inflation. Some of that is rising insurer profit, some is rising hospital etc. profit, some is a proliferation of expensive procedures/tests/machinery, etc. Front-line doctors have more-or-less stagnant income.

If we don't get medical inflation under control somehow, both the Federal budget (unless we abolish Medicare/Medicaid), and society as a whole, are completely boned. With the status quo by 2050 it'd cost 11% of GDP to set a broken leg.

I happen to think the best way to slow the cost growth is to go single-payer, and use the resulting monopsony power to cut costs. (Plus it eliminates insurer profit, and having one set of paperwork/rules will cut providers' administrative overhead).


Single payer...ugh....

Which has more fraud, private insurance, or government run programs? When we currently have 90 billion a year in medicare fraud, I am really hesitant to jump on the hate private insurance bandwagon. Private insurers have incentive to run correctly, government programs have no incentive to run properly, because they have unlimited funding and answer to nobody in practical means.

To mandate that insurers actually pool risk, as they are supposed to.

Without such a rule, insurers could just charge each individual enrollee their statistically expected health care costs, plus profit. In that case the insurer is providing no service at all (except maybe loan-sharking).


That would be a fantastic idea, and it is one they should be doing. That is pooling risk. Pooling risk does not mean everyone pays equally, rather that the group as a whole is lumped together for risk purposes. Life and auto insurance are good examples of risk pooling with variable rates.

Statistically, I will be low maintenance and will die suddenly from a heart attack at a fairly young age. All the males in my family do. We have no cancer anywhere. I would be a better bet for a health insurer than a smoker whose family lives longer lives and has a history of cancer, would I not? I won't linger, I will just stop living.
 
2011-02-01 01:21:31 PM
obamacare is toast.

justtray: Just farking deal with it you idiots.

 
2011-02-01 01:22:05 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: The idea that this is somehow a gov't "of the people" is vaporous.


As someone who runs a polling place, those are fighting words.
 
2011-02-01 01:22:08 PM

DarnoKonrad: The FDA regulates your ham sandwich whether it leaves state lines or not. What do you not understand about this? Your interpretation of the commerce clause reads like a bad libertarian blog.


It's not "my interpretation", you first said the fed mandates you buy car insurance, then said the fed mandates you wear seatbelts, then said the ability to create your own health insurance company means a mandate to purchase health insurance isn't a mandate. The trade of food is regulated under the commerce clause, and the requirement for equal protection requires regulations that apply across state lines to apply to food sold within state lines.

If parrying your idiotic assertions is libertarianism, I may have to stop calling them idiots every chance I get.

Seriously, this has to be trolling, there's no way somebody can be this farking ignorant about everything.
 
2011-02-01 01:24:58 PM

stevarooni: The FDA cannot (thus far) penalize you for eating unhealthy or even poisonous foods.



Congress has seen it necessary to guarantee the nation's food supply through mandates. It's doing the same thing with the nation's health care.

Which private entity the mandate applies to is not really a constitutional issue.

The commerce clause doesn't specify which private actors it applies to.

Is it less popular to apply it to consumers rather than the suppliers? Sure. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
 
2011-02-01 01:28:33 PM

sprawl15: you first said the fed mandates you buy car insurance,


no I didn't. I said the analogy is apt.

sprawl15: Then said the fed mandates you wear seatbelts


No I didn't, I said it mandated them to be purchased and installed by car manufacturers.

sprawl15: Seriously, this has to be trolling, there's no way somebody can be this farking ignorant about everything.


Right back at your illiterate ass. I used to like your posts too. Sad day. You're a moran.
 
2011-02-01 01:31:34 PM

DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: Exactly. The problem with saying the commerce clause justifies this law because of indirect commerce means you can basically justify any law the government writes simply because everything has an economic component to it.

for the last time, no it doesn't (new window)


that's a link to strict scrutiny review. are you saying that you would limit this new government power by saying that choosing to engage in commerce or not is a fundamental right and thus the government law must pass strict scrutiny?
 
2011-02-01 01:33:35 PM
The irony of all the FARK Libs whining about simply paying taxes is that Obama specifically said that this individual mandate WASN'T A TAX AT ALL!...everyone conveniently forgot that. So is he lying now or are all of you being disingenuous?
Also, Medicaid/Medicare are taxes that are federal and payroll in nature and are collected by the govt and redistributed...Obamacare is a mandate to buy a product from private enterprise. And since we are at it, lets all examine how wasteful and overbudget Medicaid/Medicare are even after stealing from the Social Security slush funds to balance its books...we are talking billions in IOU's that the govt owes itself. The US govt spends more money in Medicare/Medicaid fraud, than private insurance companies make in a year.
Allowing the govt to force private consumers to do anything is a dangerous precedent (and please stop trying to equate it to car insurance...that's mandated by states for the purpose of reimbursing aomeone else who's car you damaged)
If Obamacare is so great, why has the Obama administration already allowed for over 700 exemptions to mostly union groups and democrat special interests. Obama and Sebelius have lied thru their teeth about this plan and its coming back to bite them in their asses
 
2011-02-01 01:35:07 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: The FDA regulates your ham sandwich whether it leaves state lines or not. What do you not understand about this? Your interpretation of the commerce clause reads like a bad libertarian blog.

It's not "my interpretation", you first said the fed mandates you buy car insurance, then said the fed mandates you wear seatbelts, then said the ability to create your own health insurance company means a mandate to purchase health insurance isn't a mandate. The trade of food is regulated under the commerce clause, and the requirement for equal protection requires regulations that apply across state lines to apply to food sold within state lines.

If parrying your idiotic assertions is libertarianism, I may have to stop calling them idiots every chance I get.

Seriously, this has to be trolling, there's no way somebody can be this farking ignorant about everything.


Actually you're the huge retard. Just letting you know because you seem to be under some dillusion about healthcare brought upon by your ignorance mixed with political bias.

If you actually want to learn how the healthcare system works and why this mandate is a wonderful idea, I'll happily educate you with any questions you may have. Until then please shut up with the semantic non-arguments. They just make you look even more stupid than you already are, which is tough.
 
2011-02-01 01:35:43 PM

Thunderpipes: Private insurers have incentive to run correctly

cheaply

FTFY

Thunderpipes: government programs have no incentive to run properly, because they have unlimited funding and answer to nobody in practical means.


Except the half or so of the electorate that's constantly calling for lower taxes and budget cuts? What are they, chopped liver?

Thunderpipes: Life and auto insurance are good examples of risk pooling with variable rates.


Usually those are heavily regulated with respect to which conditions they can consider, and how much the rates can vary, otherwise they'd just degenerate into cost-plus.
 
2011-02-01 01:36:35 PM

relcec: DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: Exactly. The problem with saying the commerce clause justifies this law because of indirect commerce means you can basically justify any law the government writes simply because everything has an economic component to it.

for the last time, no it doesn't (new window)

that's a link to strict scrutiny review. are you saying that you would limit this new government power by saying that choosing to engage in commerce or not is a fundamental right and thus the government law must pass strict scrutiny?


No.

How about your right to be uninsured ends at my wallet. There is a pretty clear compelling public interest with regards to the uninsured.
 
2011-02-01 01:37:03 PM

justtray: sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: The FDA regulates your ham sandwich whether it leaves state lines or not. What do you not understand about this? Your interpretation of the commerce clause reads like a bad libertarian blog.

It's not "my interpretation", you first said the fed mandates you buy car insurance, then said the fed mandates you wear seatbelts, then said the ability to create your own health insurance company means a mandate to purchase health insurance isn't a mandate. The trade of food is regulated under the commerce clause, and the requirement for equal protection requires regulations that apply across state lines to apply to food sold within state lines.

If parrying your idiotic assertions is libertarianism, I may have to stop calling them idiots every chance I get.

Seriously, this has to be trolling, there's no way somebody can be this farking ignorant about everything.

Actually you're the huge retard. Just letting you know because you seem to be under some dillusion about healthcare brought upon by your ignorance mixed with political bias.

If you actually want to learn how the healthcare system works and why this mandate is a wonderful idea, I'll happily educate you with any questions you may have. Until then please shut up with the semantic non-arguments. They just make you look even more stupid than you already are, which is tough.


What a great and erudite response.

"You're stupid. I'd tell you why you're stupid, but you're probably too stupid to understand the complex things only I can know."
 
2011-02-01 01:37:50 PM

DarnoKonrad: relcec: DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: Exactly. The problem with saying the commerce clause justifies this law because of indirect commerce means you can basically justify any law the government writes simply because everything has an economic component to it.

for the last time, no it doesn't (new window)

that's a link to strict scrutiny review. are you saying that you would limit this new government power by saying that choosing to engage in commerce or not is a fundamental right and thus the government law must pass strict scrutiny?

No.

How about your right to be uninsured ends at my wallet. There is a pretty clear compelling public interest with regards to the uninsured.


And which of your fundamental rights is being infringed by my decision not to buy healthcare?
 
2011-02-01 01:38:17 PM
We do NOT need single payer or a public option...

We do NOT need health insurance as it stand either...

Here's what i'm OK with and here's what im not...

I AM ok with kids under 18 getting healthcare using tax dollars. And don't give me this "why should i have to pay for some drug baby's medical expense" cause my answer is "Really? Seriously? you think it's OK for children to die because the parents can't cover? Cause THAT makes you a board certified death panelist..."

I am NOT OK with the general working public getting free healthcare (and i don't have medical benefits through my employer).

I am NOT OK with how the insurance companies currently offer coverage plans. In a lot of cases you only get 2 free doctor's visits per year, after that you have to pay for doctor's visits until your deductable ($1000-$7500 depending on the plan) is paid, THEN you will have a co-pay of $25.

Here's my alternative:
For Continued policies:
Legislation needs to pass that requires insurance companies to offer a basic preventative plan at a MINIMAL cost per year for unlimited basic doctor visits and prescription fills. This shouldn't be more than $50/month.

Comprehensive coverage (like auto insurance) can be bought that would include hospitalization and emergency. They can throw a deductible in on this, im ok with that.

Plan for IF the gov't MUST get involved:
First off only coverage for children, i think that's not asking too much here guys, and i will say it to your face that you're a damned vile and murderous douchenozzle that needs to be cremated alive if you don't think children deserve coverage giving them a chance of survival.

Now if the gov't wants to get involved, they need to start a premed education initiative. Offer federal bonuses to schools that have a certified pre-nursing course taught to juniors and seniors who want to get involved in medicine. The idea being these classes provide the requisites to be a nurses aide when completed.

Second, give contracts to companies to build medical clinics in every city accross the nation or give tax breaks to companies that start or build a clinic (walgreens, wal-mart, kroger, etc.) in cities across the nation.

third, reduce the cost of medical education. Remove the "elitist" titles away from being a doctor. That's a victorian era title and needs to die with the victorian age. With the rise of the nurse practitioner, Doctor's only serve as a level 2+ medical triage administrator anyway. Family doctors do not need to be 300K+/year elitists, since all they really do is triage a symptom and prescribe a pill for it or pass it along to a specialist these days anyway.

Fourth, give medical students the same option they give law students: if they work for 10 years in as a public servant only (defender for lawyer, clinical physician for doctors) then your student loans are written off. My wife's friend is going through this process as a law graduate and as long as she remains a dedicated public defender (pay shiat though) for 10 years, her 200K student loan bills will be paid off by the gov't.

fifth, regulate prices in the clinics to $35*
*basic office visit with prescription, testing and proceedures extra

this is how they do it in places like india where medical education is cheap because healthcare is desperately needed there... It's just too bad they all get educated then come over here and make enough money as a doctor here to pay off their loan in a year from there.
 
2011-02-01 01:38:59 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: I've never heard of "PETA".


That's it. Now I *know* you are trolling.
 
2011-02-01 01:40:58 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: relcec: can they force everyone to buy a gallon of skim milk once a month?

They already do this, via farm subsidies. Certain people (of course mostly agricultural megacorps) are paid, by the government, to NOT raise dairy cows, pigs, grow corn, etc, as a price support mechanism.

/been thinking of getting into the not-raising-chickens business


they can obiously tax me and buy it themselves, or they can pay people to not engage in a specific behavior with my tax money. but this fines me if I don't personally buy something. there is a difference there.
 
2011-02-01 01:41:31 PM

CeroX: I AM ok with kids under 18 getting healthcare using tax dollars. And don't give me this "why should i have to pay for some drug baby's medical expense" cause my answer is "Really? Seriously? you think it's OK for children to die because the parents can't cover? Cause THAT makes you a board certified death panelist..."


Even setting the moral dimension aside, getting good prenatal nutrition, childhood nutrition, and childhood healthcare makes kids grow into healthier, smarter, more productive adults. It's good for the economy and CHEAPER than letting them starve / be sick.
 
2011-02-01 01:41:46 PM

dwrash: wishes the government would set up free clinics for people that cannot pay so other citizens don't have to pick up their costs through their insurance premiums.


You have one at 1430 Dekalb Street, Norristown - (610) 278-5117.

And another at 364 King Street, Pottstown, PA 610) 970-5040. There's also a communicable diseases office of the MCHD at Abington Hospital to get AIDS, lead and tupaculosis screening.

You can also get free mammograms at Abington or at my house by appointment only.

Your free clinics are funded as follows: Taxes collected in county: $353,275. Fed and State Grants (including WIC, Teen Pregnancy Services, etc. ) $2,114,583. Fees (mostly inspection fees): $414,524. Interest: $41,456.

Go get ya some health care. This one's on me. Tell 'em Francisco Bizzarro sent you.
 
2011-02-01 01:42:31 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: DarnoKonrad: relcec: DarnoKonrad: sign_of_Zeta: Exactly. The problem with saying the commerce clause justifies this law because of indirect commerce means you can basically justify any law the government writes simply because everything has an economic component to it.

for the last time, no it doesn't (new window)

that's a link to strict scrutiny review. are you saying that you would limit this new government power by saying that choosing to engage in commerce or not is a fundamental right and thus the government law must pass strict scrutiny?

No.

How about your right to be uninsured ends at my wallet. There is a pretty clear compelling public interest with regards to the uninsured.

And which of your fundamental rights is being infringed by my decision not to buy healthcare?


BTW: you're only satisfying one prong of a successful strict scrutiny challenge. You still have the narrowly tailored and least restrictive means tests to leap.

I'd say that PPACA is neither narrowly tailored (considering it covers all Americans and does little to address costs, also known as being under-inclusive), nor is it the least restrictive means.
 
2011-02-01 01:42:34 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: No, it's spot on.

Car insurance is required on the state level.


Nonetheless, the public policy analysis is similar. It is no more "tyranny" for the federal government to require the purchase of health insurance than it is for the state government to require the purchase of liability insurance.

Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.
Car insurance is only required while driving on public roadways.


Rightists seem to be under some misapprehension that the government is obliged to tax people in a manner that permits them to avoid paying taxes by refraining from some conduct. This is not true. The federal government could impose a head tax if it wanted to, obliging people to give money to the government regardless of any activity whatsoever.

Penalties for not having car insurance are levied through fines, not taxes.

Big deal. This is of no legal consequence, except to show that the "penalties" for not buying health insurance under ACA are really taxes. That in fact the health insurance "mandate" is really nothing more than a tax increase of 2%, coupled with an offsetting tax credit for those who buy qualifying health insurance.

They're completely farking different.

The chief difference is that states have elected to mandate the purchase of car insurance via the imposition of criminal penalties, whereas the federal government has opted to use its tax power as an incentive to urge people to buy health insurance.
 
2011-02-01 01:42:54 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And which of your fundamental rights is being infringed by my decision not to buy healthcare?


Representation? We have a market that takes my money and I don't even get an electoral say it -- at least, until now.

The point is, *not any economic argument* justifies any use of the commerce clause. You need a rational basis for it.

Something the original poster I was replying to kept ignoring.
 
2011-02-01 01:43:13 PM

gilgigamesh: FranciscoBizzaro: I've never heard of "PETA".

That's it. Now I *know* you are trolling.


He could just be setting up this joke: "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals".

/card-carrying member
 
2011-02-01 01:44:14 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: dwrash: wishes the government would set up free clinics for people that cannot pay so other citizens don't have to pick up their costs through their insurance premiums.

You have one at 1430 Dekalb Street, Norristown - (610) 278-5117.

And another at 364 King Street, Pottstown, PA 610) 970-5040. There's also a communicable diseases office of the MCHD at Abington Hospital to get AIDS, lead and tupaculosis screening.

You can also get free mammograms at Abington or at my house by appointment only.

Your free clinics are funded as follows: Taxes collected in county: $353,275. Fed and State Grants (including WIC, Teen Pregnancy Services, etc. ) $2,114,583. Fees (mostly inspection fees): $414,524. Interest: $41,456.

Go get ya some health care. This one's on me. Tell 'em Francisco Bizzarro sent you.


Yet they show up at hospitals that cannot refuse or refer them... that is the problem.. another unfunded government mandate that needs to be absorbed by the private sector. Why don't they just tax us instead of this stupid sham they run.
 
2011-02-01 01:44:16 PM

captain_heroic44: Nonetheless, the public policy analysis is similar. It is no more "tyranny" for the federal government to require the purchase of health insurance than it is for the state government to require the purchase of liability insurance.


Given that the Federal government does not enjoy police powers, it is, in fact, more of a "tyranny" on the part of the Federal government.
 
2011-02-01 01:45:19 PM
It is always exciting when lower courts decide to ignore previous SC decisions. Wickard settled this over 60 years ago, not that the current Supreme Court gives a flip for settled law.
 
2011-02-01 01:45:26 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: does little to address costs


also not true. There's a pilot program for just about every single idea out there. Even bad ones like tort reform.

The law has lots of tools. But we're not using them. We arguing over something that was originally dreamed up in libertarian think tanks -- the individual mandate.
 
2011-02-01 01:45:36 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And which of your fundamental rights is being infringed by my decision not to buy healthcare?

Representation? We have a market that takes my money and I don't even get an electoral say it -- at least, until now.

The point is, *not any economic argument* justifies any use of the commerce clause. You need a rational basis for it.

Something the original poster I was replying to kept ignoring.


Wait, I want to get this right before we continue.

You are saying that the very fact of me not being insured infringes on your fundamental right to representation in government?
 
2011-02-01 01:46:30 PM

DarnoKonrad: You need a rational basis for it.


Also, now you've moved from the most strict level of judicial review to the least strict.
 
2011-02-01 01:46:45 PM
Desperate much?

Honest Approach:

Analyze the ruling and state with reasons why the ruling was incorrect.

Dishonest Approach:

Find a way to attack a persons character because they said or did something you don't like.
 
2011-02-01 01:46:57 PM
I disagree with being forced by the government to buy health insurance, but I find it hard to get enraged about it since my wife and kids already require me to buy it, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 
2011-02-01 01:47:27 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Given that the Federal government does not enjoy police powers, it is, in fact, more of a "tyranny" on the part of the Federal government.


It doesn't need police powers. It needs either a tax power or a commerce power. If only it had one of those...
 
2011-02-01 01:49:04 PM
Hehe, so it begins...

Link (new window)

A group of South Dakota lawmakers has introduced a bill that would require almost everyone in their state to buy a gun once they turn 21.

Turns out it's not a serious attempt. Rather, the lawmakers are trying to make a point about the new health care law -- that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, whether it requires everyone to buy health insurance or, in South Dakota's case, a firearm.

Rep. Hal Wick, one of five co-sponsors, told The Argus Leader newspaper that he expects the bill to fail.

"Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance," he said.

The South Dakota proposal would require anyone over 21 to purchase a firearm by Jan. 1, 2012, provided they are not legally disqualified from owning one. It would extend a six-month grace period for residents who turn 21 after the beginning of 2012.

"Each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of 21 years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense," the bill states.
 
2011-02-01 01:49:22 PM

captain_heroic44: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Given that the Federal government does not enjoy police powers, it is, in fact, more of a "tyranny" on the part of the Federal government.

It doesn't need police powers. It needs either a tax power or a commerce power. If only it had one of those...


And if only they had used the right one to begin with, instead of the one on shaky constitutional ground.
 
2011-02-01 01:50:09 PM

dwrash: Yet they show up at hospitals that cannot refuse or refer them... that is the problem.. another unfunded government mandate that needs to be absorbed by the private sector.


It's been argued that EMTALA (the Reagan-era law you refer to) is in fact the start of a slippery slope to single-payer, for just that reason.

dwrash: Why don't they just tax us instead of this stupid sham they run.


They already do it for old people. Start lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65, start covering infants and raising that age, gradually increase the Medicare tax to compensate, eventually the eligibility ages meet in the middle and everyone is covered, without forcing anyone to fork over cash to a for-profit private business.

You're welcome.
 
2011-02-01 01:50:33 PM

Thunderpipes: Hehe, so it begins...


I'd like to see that one pass. Maybe it'll be constitutional based on militia laws.
 
2011-02-01 01:50:58 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You are saying that the very fact of me not being insured infringes on your fundamental right to representation in government?


The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, now you've moved from the most strict level of judicial review to the least strict.




Man. Stop taking my argument out of context. There are other constitutional issues that surround the use of the commerce clause than what sign_of_Zeta was allowing for.

It's a general argument to address a general assertion on his part.
 
2011-02-01 01:51:29 PM

randomjsa: Desperate much?

Honest Approach:

Analyze the ruling and state with reasons why the ruling was incorrect.

Dishonest Approach:

Find a way to attack a persons character because they said or did something you don't like.



I took the headline as more of a dig at the article which sounded like the reporter was throwing in random facts about the judge as filler. Did you know that Vinson loves camellia flowers?
 
2011-02-01 01:51:48 PM

Thunderpipes: Hehe, so it begins...

Link (new window)

A group of South Dakota lawmakers has introduced a bill that would require almost everyone in their state to buy a gun once they turn 21.

Turns out it's not a serious attempt. Rather, the lawmakers are trying to make a point about the new health care law -- that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, whether it requires everyone to buy health insurance or, in South Dakota's case, a firearm.

Rep. Hal Wick, one of five co-sponsors, told The Argus Leader newspaper that he expects the bill to fail.

"Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance," he said.

The South Dakota proposal would require anyone over 21 to purchase a firearm by Jan. 1, 2012, provided they are not legally disqualified from owning one. It would extend a six-month grace period for residents who turn 21 after the beginning of 2012.

"Each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of 21 years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense," the bill states.


Funny. I'm capable of disagreeing with that law as a matter of public policy without screeching that it is tyranny, or even making up some bogus argument that it is unconstitutional. It's a bad idea, and sensible legislators shouldn't vote for it. But I'm aware of no credible argument that such a law violates any constitutional prohibition.

Why aren't conservatives capable of that?
 
2011-02-01 01:53:48 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You are saying that the very fact of me not being insured infringes on your fundamental right to representation in government?

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, now you've moved from the most strict level of judicial review to the least strict.



Man. Stop taking my argument out of context. There are other constitutional issues that surround the use of the commerce clause than what sign_of_Zeta was allowing for.

It's a general argument to address a general assertion on his part.


What extra context is there behind the answer you gave to the question I asked? I asked which of your fundamental rights was being infringed solely based on my decision to not purchase insurance. You brought it up with the strict scrutiny link, so I asked you to back up your statement. You came back with "representation" which is so laughable I have to assume that you made it up on the spot. Then you start your crabwalk back from strict scrutiny to rational basis review, because it appears that you got busted.
 
2011-02-01 01:54:11 PM

Thunderpipes: "Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance," he said.


I don't know. Usually the anti-mandate argument rests on federalism grounds, saying the Federal government lacks that power. But I think even the Rand-iest libertarian believes State government power has no legal limits, except for explicit violations of the US or that State's Constitution.

So a State requiring its citizens to buy firearms would not fall afoul of the US Constitution (since there's no prohibition of such there), and likely not their State constitution (do any States specifically constitutionally prohibit such things? I doubt it.)
 
2011-02-01 01:55:49 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: But I think even the Rand-iest libertarian believes State government power has no legal limits, except for explicit violations of the US or that State's Constitution.


You'd be hard pressed to find one that thinks state governments can prevent you from leaving that state.
 
2011-02-01 01:56:48 PM
So does this mean Ohio's law requiring all drivers in the state of ohio (residential or not) to carry auto insurance is also unconstitutional?
 
2011-02-01 01:56:58 PM

justtray: Actually you're the huge retard. Just letting you know because you seem to be under some dillusion about healthcare brought upon by your ignorance mixed with political bias.


What political bias do you think I have?

If you actually want to learn how the healthcare system works and why this mandate is a wonderful idea,

I think it's a great idea but that has no bearing on its constitutionality. I've been advocating a single payer system for a long time specifically to avoid this kind of constitutional nonsense, but Washington couldn't pull the lobbyist's dick out of their mouths and do the right thing.
 
2011-02-01 01:57:04 PM
It cost over $38k for my son (he was a month early, came via emergency c-section, stayed 10 days in the hospital because he wouldn't feed on the hospital's schedule). Is this guy suggesting that people can afford to pay in cash for that if they don't have insurance? Is he suggesting that if I couldn't pay that, I should've just had my son at home and both of us probably would've died?

Otherwise, his anecdote is a quaint reminiscence of the 50's and not applicable to the current situation. Even if you were to do a conversion to 1950's dollars, my son cost about $5k. How many people would've been able to afford that then?
 
2011-02-01 01:57:43 PM
"Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not


I wonder if this guy actually believes this? He's wrong. The state can require people to purchase firearms. Or auto insurance. Or health insurance.
 
2011-02-01 01:58:12 PM

altinos: Thunderpipes: Hehe, so it begins...

I'd like to see that one pass. Maybe it'll be constitutional based on militia laws.


Why not based on commerce clause (state must have something)? It doesn't say where they have to buy the gun, could buy it out of state. Makes as much sense as health care provision in theory. Not sure what the state has for laws, but must have laws regulating commerce within the state, and laws applying to interstate commerce?
 
2011-02-01 01:58:18 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: As someone who runs a polling place, those are fighting words.


Sorry, but it's true.

dwrash: Yet they show up at hospitals that cannot refuse or refer them... that is the problem..


Uh. No. I looked at a sample of 500 municipal hospitals in the US and over 90% had less than an avg. 8% write down for bad debts over five years. Why? Because the people who come to ER's are eligible for medicaid/care retroactively through the presumptive eligibility clauses.

I know you libbo creeps drank the kool-aid with the "uninsured driving up costs" rhetoric but the data doesn't bear it out. Same with the notion that a doc in an ER is somehow more expensive than seeing a doc in an office. Regardless of the venue the same number of people, insured and uninsured, will neglect themselves until they need an ER visit. This is just the nature of humans, accidents and illness.
 
2011-02-01 01:59:34 PM

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: "The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

"among" You are among the states.

Or is health care no longer ZOMG 1/6 of GDP!!!

I'm curious why you copied me on this Dre. Were you quoting the bolded line above? If so, could you tell me the difference between the words "Regulate" and "Mandate"? Or is it your opinion that they are synonyms?


The mandate to buy (or the yadda yadda tax refund yadda yadda) is a regulation. So long as Wickard and Raich are still valid precedent, there are no teeth in that amendment anyway - the government can control what you do with your own resources if they affect inter- (or even intra-) state commerce (you can't grow your own wheat on your own land with your own sweat and work and you can't do it with Mary Jane, either if the Feds say so).

I'm not thrilled that this is the end result - they could have killed lots of these headaches by making Medicare opt-in and they wouldn't have had these Constitutional questions.
 
2011-02-01 02:00:00 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: What extra context is there behind the answer you gave to the question I asked? I asked which of your fundamental rights was being infringed solely based on my decision to not purchase insurance. You brought it up with the strict scrutiny link, so I asked you to back up your statement. You came back with "representation" which is so laughable I have to assume that you made it up on the spot. Then you start your crabwalk back from strict scrutiny to rational basis review, because it appears that you got busted.




No guy, you're just ignoring what I was replying to. And I put my reply to you with a question mark:

DarnoKonrad: Representation?


Because I'm not real sure what you want to argue about.

Again, there are other constitutional issues surrounding the justification for using the commerce clause -- regardless if you or I think they apply to HCR.
 
2011-02-01 02:02:25 PM
When the government stops forcing me to pay it a percentage of money I have earned, then, and only then, will I give any creedence to the arguments that 'the gub'mint can't force us to do this.'

Get rid of the federal income tax first. Then talk to me about this.
 
2011-02-01 02:03:28 PM

Kali-Ma: It cost over $38k for my son (he was a month early, came via emergency c-section, stayed 10 days in the hospital because he wouldn't feed on the hospital's schedule). Is this guy suggesting that people can afford to pay in cash for that if they don't have insurance? Is he suggesting that if I couldn't pay that, I should've just had my son at home and both of us probably would've died?

Otherwise, his anecdote is a quaint reminiscence of the 50's and not applicable to the current situation. Even if you were to do a conversion to 1950's dollars, my son cost about $5k. How many people would've been able to afford that then?


That is a legit gripe. However, there is also a legit counter argument. It was your choice to have a kid. I think you would have made sure you had insurance beforehand to take care of that possibility, right? Surely nobody would have children without making sure they could afford the potential problems, either out of pocket or with proper insurance?

Sounds like you had insurance, which is good. If you could not afford insurance, the right option would be to delay having a child until you could afford insurance and the support of a child. Sound harsh? My wife is pregnant, so this is relevant to my interests.
 
2011-02-01 02:04:17 PM
Folks and Farkers, I'm tired of reading half-ass explanations of the car insurance "mandate", the whole point of mandated car insurance is "proof of financial responsibility" for anyone or anything YOU might damage while driving on public streets, not including yourself or your things. You never have to buy "insurance" to cover your car or yourself like Obamacare, insurance for YOU, not someone you might bite and infect. You do have to have proof of financial responsibility for something OTHER THAN YOURS that you might damage. Insurance is the easy way. A document showing that you have set aside a million dollars in an escrow account for the sole use of making someone you damaged "whole" is just as good as insurance. Some people are actually "self-insured".

For the conspiracy types, the passage of Obamacare does in fact open the door for the government requiring you and me to buy certain other things that we may not want to buy, good or bad, we just don't want to. But the precedence is set and accepted if the bill stands. The bill must be cleaned up and compliant constitutionally. It has many good aspects but it also has many bad aspects. Start over!

Obama hisself said the problem with the constitution is that it is a list of things the gubmint cannot do, well duh mofo. That is its purpose. Protect and defend as you pledged to. Don't circumvent please.
 
2011-02-01 02:04:20 PM

altinos: Gaseous Anomaly: But I think even the Rand-iest libertarian believes State government power has no legal limits, except for explicit violations of the US or that State's Constitution.

You'd be hard pressed to find one that thinks state governments can prevent you from leaving that state.


Forgot that, thanks. OTOH the Federal government doesn't prohibit anyone from leaving the USA, either. (Whether some other nation will let them in is another matter, but not particularly the USA's problem).

/except of course for imprisonment, probation, etc.
 
2011-02-01 02:05:36 PM

sprawl15: I think it's a great idea but that has no bearing on its constitutionality. I've been advocating a single payer system for a long time specifically to avoid this kind of constitutional nonsense, but Washington couldn't pull the lobbyist's dick out of their mouths and do the right thing


What I want to know is how it's unconstitutional for Congress to levy a tax.
 
2011-02-01 02:06:52 PM

GhostWing: When the government stops forcing me to pay it a percentage of money I have earned, then, and only then, will I give any creedence to the arguments that 'the gub'mint can't force us to do this.'

Get rid of the federal income tax first. Then talk to me about this.


How is the income tax unconstitutional? The power of Congress to levy tax is right there. It's not even an amendment. It's an article.
 
2011-02-01 02:07:31 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: What extra context is there behind the answer you gave to the question I asked? I asked which of your fundamental rights was being infringed solely based on my decision to not purchase insurance. You brought it up with the strict scrutiny link, so I asked you to back up your statement. You came back with "representation" which is so laughable I have to assume that you made it up on the spot. Then you start your crabwalk back from strict scrutiny to rational basis review, because it appears that you got busted.



No guy, you're just ignoring what I was replying to. And I put my reply to you with a question mark:

DarnoKonrad: Representation?

Because I'm not real sure what you want to argue about.

Again, there are other constitutional issues surrounding the justification for using the commerce clause -- regardless if you or I think they apply to HCR.


So you aren't real sure which of your rights is being infringed upon, other than to say that my right to be uninsured ends at your wallet. So you wanted strict scrutiny applied to challenges, which is the hardest to satisfy. You even went on to say that the government has a compelling interest, which is a prong of strict scrutiny. Then you backtrack and say that the government only has to show a rational basis, which is the lowest level of judicial review and the easiest to satisfy.

If you want strict scrutiny to be applied, then answer the question about which of your fundamental rights is being infringed upon. That you either can't or won't doesn't do anything to help your cause here.
 
2011-02-01 02:07:48 PM

worthlessjuan: or anyone or anything YOU might damage while driving on public streets,


What exactly do you think happens when an uninsured person incurs medical costs? They evaporate into the aether?
 
2011-02-01 02:08:54 PM
100 dollars in 54 was like a brazillion today wasn't it? About what it cost Obama for his trip to Iraq
 
2011-02-01 02:08:59 PM

GhostWing: When the government stops forcing me to pay it a percentage of money I have earned, then, and only then, will I give any creedence to the arguments that 'the gub'mint can't force us to do this.'

Get rid of the federal income tax first. Then talk to me about this.


You mean get rid of the most vehemently protected government power that was approved through a constitutional amendment and is the root of its explosive growth, leverage over state governments and best way to reward its favorite children? Yeah... I'll do that for you as soon as you bring me the Golden Fleece.
 
2011-02-01 02:10:33 PM

Dr Dreidel: The mandate to buy (or the yadda yadda tax refund yadda yadda) is a regulation.


No, it isn't. Or yadda yadda just cause you say it, doesn't make it so yadda yadda.

Dr Dreidel: (you can't grow your own wheat on your own land with your own sweat and work and you can't do it with Mary Jane, either if the Feds say so).


So why do you support this type of legislation? You don't have to. Really, you don't.

Dr Dreidel: I'm not thrilled that this is the end result - they could have killed lots of these headaches by making Medicare opt-in and they wouldn't have had these Constitutional questions.


Or they could go full in and admit to being socialists and try to make the amendments needed to give us the rainbows and unicorns we are being promised. While you're at it, make it a constitutional right for the government to own all profits from the oil companies and any other energy companies... Maybe take all the profits from Hollywood too. Can you imagine all of the free shiat those two industries could buy us? We really could have constitutionally provided Humvees and hdtvs, amirite?
 
2011-02-01 02:10:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: I think it's a great idea but that has no bearing on its constitutionality. I've been advocating a single payer system for a long time specifically to avoid this kind of constitutional nonsense, but Washington couldn't pull the lobbyist's dick out of their mouths and do the right thing

What I want to know is how it's unconstitutional for Congress to levy a tax.


Do you believe that Congress can levy any tax it wants, and it would be perfectly constitutional to do so?
 
2011-02-01 02:10:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GhostWing: When the government stops forcing me to pay it a percentage of money I have earned, then, and only then, will I give any creedence to the arguments that 'the gub'mint can't force us to do this.'

Get rid of the federal income tax first. Then talk to me about this.

How is the income tax unconstitutional? The power of Congress to levy tax is right there. It's not even an amendment. It's an article.


It is most certainly an amendment. You're wrong.
 
2011-02-01 02:12:21 PM

Dr Dreidel: So long as Wickard and Raich are still valid precedent, there are no teeth in that amendment anyway -


The cases under Rehnquist hint that the SCOTUS is no longer a fan because it creates a de facto, general police power in the federal gov't which is prohibited by federalism.

His words in LOPEZ:

To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.


There's also a four prong test but I'm not about to witness the fark liberals trying to bend Obamacare into them so I will decline to reprint it here.
 
2011-02-01 02:12:23 PM

catpuncher: GhostWing: When the government stops forcing me to pay it a percentage of money I have earned, then, and only then, will I give any creedence to the arguments that 'the gub'mint can't force us to do this.'

Get rid of the federal income tax first. Then talk to me about this.

You mean get rid of the most vehemently protected government power that was approved through a constitutional amendment and is the root of its explosive growth, leverage over state governments and best way to reward its favorite children? Yeah... I'll do that for you as soon as you bring me the Golden Fleece.


I got the fleece ... and one really pissed-off Olympian. So I need you to take this and take it fast.
 
2011-02-01 02:13:00 PM

YoMammaObama: Or they could go full in and admit to being socialists and try to make the amendments needed to give us the rainbows and unicorns we are being promised. While you're at it, make it a constitutional right for the government to own all profits from the oil companies and any other energy companies... Maybe take all the profits from Hollywood too. Can you imagine all of the free shiat those two industries could buy us? We really could have constitutionally provided Humvees and hdtvs, amirite


What is that logical fallacy wherein you take an opponent's argument out to an absurd extreme to disprove it?
 
2011-02-01 02:13:38 PM

catpuncher: cameroncrazy1984: GhostWing: When the government stops forcing me to pay it a percentage of money I have earned, then, and only then, will I give any creedence to the arguments that 'the gub'mint can't force us to do this.'

Get rid of the federal income tax first. Then talk to me about this.

How is the income tax unconstitutional? The power of Congress to levy tax is right there. It's not even an amendment. It's an article.

It is most certainly an amendment. You're wrong.


Actually no. The power to tax lies within Article 1, Section 8. The 16th amendment provided no new power to Congress. It simply removed the apportionment requirement when dealing with income taxes.
 
2011-02-01 02:14:30 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you aren't real sure which of your rights is being infringed upon, other than to say that my right to be uninsured ends at your wallet.


Deep down, I knew it would be a mistake to entertain relcec begging the question of my original more limited point to a different Farker about the general use of the commerce clause. Yes.

No I'm not making a particular argument about HCR. But yes it is true, that the scope of its impact on GDP, health care costs, and individual premium burdens is a part of the Congress' rationale -- both legally and politically.

You deny that?
 
2011-02-01 02:16:13 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you aren't real sure which of your rights is being infringed upon, other than to say that my right to be uninsured ends at your wallet.

Deep down, I knew it would be a mistake to entertain relcec begging the question of my original more limited point to a different Farker about the general use of the commerce clause. Yes.

No I'm not making a particular argument about HCR. But yes it is true, that the scope of its impact on GDP, health care costs, and individual premium burdens is a part of the Congress' rationale -- both legally and politically.

You deny that?


I don't deny that Congress' rationale was based on several things, not the least of which includes what you mentioned.

I don't, however, understand what this has to do with the conversation we've been having.
 
2011-02-01 02:16:24 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Actually no. The power to tax lies within Article 1, Section 8. The 16th amendment provided no new power to Congress. It simply removed the apportionment requirement when dealing with income taxes.


You might also say it added a power to tax income without regard to apportionment.
 
2011-02-01 02:17:00 PM

HighOnCraic: I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled . . .


*clappingJoker.jpg*
 
2011-02-01 02:19:03 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And which of your fundamental rights is being infringed by my decision not to buy healthcare?

Representation? We have a market that takes my money and I don't even get an electoral say it -- at least, until now.

The point is, *not any economic argument* justifies any use of the commerce clause. You need a rational basis for it.

Something the original poster I was replying to kept ignoring.


so you meant to link rational basis review, not strict scrutiny. fair enough.
you realize of course that this is an extremely easy standard for the govenrment to meet.
so again, can the government require you to buy shampoo and toothpaste each month? could it require you to buy $500 worth of american made consumer electronics products each month during a recession?
why don't you just say, "yes! the government can force you to buy an ipod. the governemnt has an interest in creating a strong economy. forcing citizens to increase demand for consumer electronic products rationally relates to the governmental interest of stimulating the economy. not buying an ipod has a calculable economic impact on the economy and thus constiutional congressional action under the ICC. the government can force you to buy an ipod!"
 
2011-02-01 02:21:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: YoMammaObama: Or they could go full in and admit to being socialists and try to make the amendments needed to give us the rainbows and unicorns we are being promised. While you're at it, make it a constitutional right for the government to own all profits from the oil companies and any other energy companies... Maybe take all the profits from Hollywood too. Can you imagine all of the free shiat those two industries could buy us? We really could have constitutionally provided Humvees and hdtvs, amirite

What is that logical fallacy wherein you take an opponent's argument out to an absurd extreme to disprove it?


You mistake my purpose. I'm not trying to disprove it. I'm trying to claim that if the government can mandate commerce now by shouting "Commerce Clause", it should also take the profits of industries and create an income stream to pay for all of our bankrupting entitlements. Just shoe-horn it into the "Interstate commerce clause. In fact, you convinced me that no constitutional amendment is needed. Congress can just "Regulate" that 90% of all profits from the sale of entertainment (like movies, music, etc.) or Energy (Like oil or coal)... It's the way socialism and all the entitlements that come along with it would actually work.

That's the problem with you pussy leftys. It's impossible for you to think big.
 
2011-02-01 02:23:01 PM

relcec: so you meant to link rational basis review, not strict scrutiny. fair enough.


No, my only point is to illustrate this is incorrect:



sign_of_Zeta: commerce means you can basically justify any law the government writes simply because everything has an economic component to it.

 
2011-02-01 02:24:07 PM
Wow, an entire article dedicated to argumentum ad hominem?
 
2011-02-01 02:24:15 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: catpuncher: cameroncrazy1984: GhostWing: When the government stops forcing me to pay it a percentage of money I have earned, then, and only then, will I give any creedence to the arguments that 'the gub'mint can't force us to do this.'

Get rid of the federal income tax first. Then talk to me about this.

How is the income tax unconstitutional? The power of Congress to levy tax is right there. It's not even an amendment. It's an article.

It is most certainly an amendment. You're wrong.

Actually no. The power to tax lies within Article 1, Section 8. The 16th amendment provided no new power to Congress. It simply removed the apportionment requirement when dealing with income taxes.


What you've just said is that the income tax was unconstitutional and that the constitution was to amended to allow for it. So actually yes, the income tax was indeed an amendment. The waters were a little muddied by your equating income taxes with the general power to tax.
 
2011-02-01 02:25:26 PM

relcec: could it require you to buy $500 worth of american made consumer electronics products each month during a recession?


i.imgur.com

Does it have a good reason?
 
2011-02-01 02:27:35 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: Gaseous Anomaly: As someone who runs a polling place, those are fighting words.

Sorry, but it's true.

dwrash: Yet they show up at hospitals that cannot refuse or refer them... that is the problem..

Uh. No. I looked at a sample of 500 municipal hospitals in the US and over 90% had less than an avg. 8% write down for bad debts over five years. Why? Because the people who come to ER's are eligible for medicaid/care retroactively through the presumptive eligibility clauses.

I know you libbo creeps drank the kool-aid with the "uninsured driving up costs" rhetoric but the data doesn't bear it out. Same with the notion that a doc in an ER is somehow more expensive than seeing a doc in an office. Regardless of the venue the same number of people, insured and uninsured, will neglect themselves until they need an ER visit. This is just the nature of humans, accidents and illness.


Correct me if I am wrong, but only actual costs are allowed to be written off as 'bad debt'.. so your comparision has no merit.. because it doesn't take into account lost revenue and other issues.
 
2011-02-01 02:27:52 PM

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: The mandate to buy (or the yadda yadda tax refund yadda yadda for anyone who buys a qualifying plan) is a regulation.


Better?

Dr Dreidel: (you can't grow your own wheat on your own land with your own sweat and work and you can't do it with Mary Jane, either if the Feds say so).

So why do you support this type of legislation? You don't have to. Really, you don't.


I'll not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. PPACA's a (small) step in the right direction - we got rid of some of the more onerous games InsurCos play, and hopefully, the order coming out of the present chaos will set the stage for even better reforms.

Governments act slowly. If I had my choice (and a job waiting), I'd move to one of them socialist paradises like Canada or Sweden.

Dr Dreidel: I'm not thrilled that this is the end result - they could have killed lots of these headaches by making Medicare opt-in and they wouldn't have had these Constitutional questions.

Or they could go full in and admit to being socialists and try to make the amendments needed to give us the rainbows and unicorns we are being promised. While you're at it, make it a constitutional right for the government to own all profits from the oil companies and any other energy companies... Maybe take all the profits from Hollywood too. Can you imagine all of the free shiat those two industries could buy us? We really could have constitutionally provided Humvees and hdtvs, amirite?


wat is this i don't even

// really? you think I'm an anarchist "Burn the corporations down" hippie? I mean, I'm close, but I don't know how to make a bomb

FranciscoBizzaro: Dr Dreidel: So long as Wickard and Raich are still valid precedent, there are no teeth in that amendment anyway -

The cases under Rehnquist hint that the SCOTUS is no longer a fan because it creates a de facto, general police power in the federal gov't which is prohibited by federalism.

His words in LOPEZ:

To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.

There's also a four prong test but I'm not about to witness the fark liberals trying to bend Obamacare into them so I will decline to reprint it here.


Well, hey. I agree with the cited passage. The decision in that case gave WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much authority/leeway to the Feds under the 10th. I'd love it if SCOTUS took these anti-PPACA cases and decided to roll back either Lopez or Wickard (or both) to make the repeal effort work. Ideally, we get a real public option or single payer system as a result, but it's probably likely that we'd get another set of half-assed "reforms" and more sops to InsurCos.

My point is simply that if those decisions are still controlling, PPACA falls in line with the powers affirmed to the Feds.
 
2011-02-01 02:28:56 PM

captain_heroic44: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Actually no. The power to tax lies within Article 1, Section 8. The 16th amendment provided no new power to Congress. It simply removed the apportionment requirement when dealing with income taxes.

You might also say it added a power to tax income without regard to apportionment.


Winner.

To fully quote the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The Amendment was ratified Feb. 3, 1913. It was at that point that the federal governmment said it could take something of yours (the money you earned), and take it by whatever force the government felt justified in using.

Is the health care law overreaching? It's 98 years too late to justify that argument.
 
2011-02-01 02:29:04 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Do you believe that Congress can levy any tax it wants, and it would be perfectly constitutional to do so


Do you have a citation on the qualifiers in the Constitution? I thought Article II was pretty clear.
 
2011-02-01 02:32:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: What I want to know is how it's unconstitutional for Congress to levy a tax.


The limits and allowances on taxes are specifically laid out in the Constitution. Specifically:

Article 1, section 8 allows Congress to lay taxes:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Article 1, Section 9 sets limitations on direct taxes:
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


This was later modified by the 16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


There's a few specific terms in here that are very important. A direct tax is a tax that is paid by the person to the federal government. Your income tax is an example, your money goes straight to the fed. Prior to the 16th amendment, the constitutional capacity of the government to levy income taxes was extremely questionable, and the few that were allowed were very restricted in scope. Apportionment is the requirement to go through the states per census data or population, and is largely a relic from slave times (when the southern states were concerned about a 'per head' tax costing them significantly more than northern states per household).

The only taxes allowed, then (to be admittedly simplistic), are apportioned by population, levies/excises, and income taxes. Note that the constitution also states taxes shall be raised specifically for the purpose of paying debts and providing services. The reason this is considered by judges to not be a "tax" proper is because the purpose of the tax is not to raise money, but to enact change in people's behavior.
 
2011-02-01 02:34:24 PM

catpuncher: The_Six_Fingered_Man: catpuncher: cameroncrazy1984: GhostWing: When the government stops forcing me to pay it a percentage of money I have earned, then, and only then, will I give any creedence to the arguments that 'the gub'mint can't force us to do this.'

Get rid of the federal income tax first. Then talk to me about this.

How is the income tax unconstitutional? The power of Congress to levy tax is right there. It's not even an amendment. It's an article.

It is most certainly an amendment. You're wrong.

Actually no. The power to tax lies within Article 1, Section 8. The 16th amendment provided no new power to Congress. It simply removed the apportionment requirement when dealing with income taxes.

What you've just said is that the income tax was unconstitutional and that the constitution was to amended to allow for it. So actually yes, the income tax was indeed an amendment. The waters were a little muddied by your equating income taxes with the general power to tax.


So what you're trying to say is that, before the 16th amendment, Congress was powerless to levy a tax on income? That's what you are going with?

cameroncrazy1984: Do you have a citation on the qualifiers in the Constitution? I thought Article II was pretty clear.


Well, let's see. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Unapportioned direct taxes are unconstitutional. Non-uniform excise taxes are unconstitutional.

I'll give you a pass on the confusion about Articles, but Article II is about the Executive Branch, not the Legislative one.
 
2011-02-01 02:34:27 PM
Heh... all the dittoheads who are calling into Rush's show today are masturbating furiously (and are apparently skilled at dialing one-handed) at the notion that Obama will be arrested and flung into prison for contempt of court because he's ignoring the declaratory judgment or something.

I am sure these are the very same people screaming "traitor" at (and sending death threats to) the trial judge who sentenced Scooter Libby for obstructing the Plame investigation.
 
2011-02-01 02:36:33 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: Gaseous Anomaly: As someone who runs a polling place, those are fighting words.

Sorry, but it's true.

dwrash: Yet they show up at hospitals that cannot refuse or refer them... that is the problem..

Uh. No. I looked at a sample of 500 municipal hospitals in the US and over 90% had less than an avg. 8% write down for bad debts over five years. Why? Because the people who come to ER's are eligible for medicaid/care retroactively through the presumptive eligibility clauses.

I know you libbo creeps drank the kool-aid with the "uninsured driving up costs" rhetoric but the data doesn't bear it out. Same with the notion that a doc in an ER is somehow more expensive than seeing a doc in an office. Regardless of the venue the same number of people, insured and uninsured, will neglect themselves until they need an ER visit. This is just the nature of humans, accidents and illness.


Ignorance really is bliss for you. Listen, I work in healthcare, directly, and have worked at over a dozen hospitals across the country. When they "write-off" their bad debts, they still have to makeup that money. The government isn't going, "here, this is what you lost, keep it." And even if they were, you ARE STILL PAYING FOR IT INDIRECTLY IN BOTH CASES.

It's not hard for intelligent, logical people to understand. Your costs are, without any doubt, going up because of uninsured people in the ER.

And ER visits at the doctor cost more because you're demanding emergency services, and frankly, because they can charge you it and get away with it. If insurance companies didn't exist you would never agree to much of the healthcare you get stuck with.

Finally, uninsured individuals pay more than insured individuals FOR THE SAME SERVICE. The reason? The insurance companies collude and agree to rates with the hospital. The government, using force of size of medicare pays the least in reimbursements. This is a direct reduction in costs to the consumer, in this case being paid for by the government.

Six Fingered Man - Yes, you're a farking idiot. You made invalid deflections over and over and never address anyone's point. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing and that's even more pathetic than the worst troll. Either argue against my logic or kind STFU you piece of crap. You disgust me.
 
2011-02-01 02:37:27 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Well, let's see. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Unapportioned direct taxes are unconstitutional. Non-uniform excise taxes are unconstitutional


But taxes on income are not (due to the 16th amendment), correct? And since the tax for not having health insurance is a tax on income how is it then unconstitutional?
 
2011-02-01 02:38:18 PM

justtray: Six Fingered Man - Yes, you're a farking idiot. You made invalid deflections over and over and never address anyone's point. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing and that's even more pathetic than the worst troll. Either argue against my logic or kind STFU you piece of crap. You disgust me.


It doesn't matter how good an idea the health care bill is. It has to be Constitutional to be allowable. It's not. Sorry.
 
2011-02-01 02:39:04 PM
DarnoKonrad [recently expired TotalFark] Quote 2011-02-01 02:07:48 PM
worthlessjuan: or anyone or anything YOU might damage while driving on public streets,

What exactly do you think happens when an uninsured person incurs medical costs? They evaporate into the aether?


They are taken care of by the present system which is humane and generous. It is not the same thing as creating a risk (you/me driving) that is not necessary unless we want a particular lifestyle. People get sick, get in accidents, always get care with the present system. Insurance does not matter, care matters. Everyone can get the care they need, but if you are a normal wage earning person the costs may destroy your savings, that is what insurance is for, not for getting care, for preserving your personal wealth. The person who gets care on the public dime likely will not be bothered by the actual cost of their care.

The concept of medical insurance is pretty much farked up. It pretty much should be only for protecting your personal wealth (car, house, savings) from the cost of catastrophic events (cancer, heart problems, bad car wrecks, smoking) and me and you should be paying out-of-pocket for routine care (check-ups, broken arm cast, Viagra, STDs). That would go a long way towards people being responsible for themselves and reducing costs except for a few pleasurable vices (sky-diving, snow skiing, motorcycles, mountain climbing, having children, alcohol, smoking, sugar, prime beef) none of which anyone has to do but just decide to do.

And "aether" is a weird variant of "ether", you're not from here are you? [Here being the US of A]
 
2011-02-01 02:40:29 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So what you're trying to say is that, before the 16th amendment, Congress was powerless to levy a tax on income? That's what you are going with?


Powerless? Congress is never powerless. But I am asserting that it was unconstitutional for Congress to levy the modern tax on all income. Yes, that's what I'm going with. You're awful transparent and your next step is to start narrowing the definition of income.
 
2011-02-01 02:42:23 PM

sprawl15: The reason this is considered by judges to not be a "tax" proper is because the purpose of the tax is not to raise money, but to enact change in people's behavior.


Yeah. No.

A protective tariff is no less a tax because its purpose is to change buying behavior to favor domestically produced goods, and not to raise money.
 
2011-02-01 02:42:45 PM

sprawl15: Constitutional to be allowable. It's not. Sorry.


Obviously it is. We get screened at the airport because it's deemed necessary and you have to have insurace to drive on public roads. Hospitals are partially publically funded. Why are you so stupid?

I mean really? You're going with constitutionally not allowed? Of course it is.

This is America. If one person ruins it, everyone has to pay. Time to pay for all those who abuse the system and don't.
 
2011-02-01 02:43:13 PM

GhostWing: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The Amendment was ratified Feb. 3, 1913. It was at that point that the federal governmment said it could take something of yours (the money you earned), and take it by whatever force the government felt justified in using.


that was a great day in progressive history. will you be celebrating day after tomorrow?
 
2011-02-01 02:44:23 PM

Dr Dreidel: Or they could go full in and admit to being socialists and try to make the amendments needed to give us the rainbows and unicorns we are being promised. While you're at it, make it a constitutional right for the government to own all profits from the oil companies and any other energy companies... Maybe take all the profits from Hollywood too. Can you imagine all of the free shiat those two industries could buy us? We really could have constitutionally provided Humvees and hdtvs, amirite?

wat is this i don't even

// really? you think I'm an anarchist "Burn the corporations down" hippie? I mean, I'm close, but I don't know how to make a bomb


what is response... not even... where did I say "Bomb" or "Burn down" or "Anarchy!!"? See my response to cam...
 
2011-02-01 02:45:03 PM

worthlessjuan: And "aether" is a weird variant of "ether"


Aether is closer to the way he used it (æther, for sky/oblivion) than ether which commonly refers to the drug.

worthlessjuan: The concept of medical insurance is pretty much farked up.


It's worse than that. Health insurance does not play ball with free market assumptions. It has no incentive to actually help the people it plays with, the requirement for large risk pooling is absolutely a gate to allowing small players, and it's nearly required considering our health care costs. The information disparity between consumer and insurance company is unbelievably huge. On top of all that, even if you have insurance, it doesn't really do what people assume it does, since more than half the medical bankruptcies filed are by people who already have health insurance.

The whole concept of health insurance needs to be scrapped entirely and a single payer system needs to be put into place. I was hoping this HCR bill wouldn't pick some stupid place to put the first step, but sadly it looks like another huge fight will have to happen.
 
2011-02-01 02:46:38 PM

sprawl15: justtray: Six Fingered Man - Yes, you're a farking idiot. You made invalid deflections over and over and never address anyone's point. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing and that's even more pathetic than the worst troll. Either argue against my logic or kind STFU you piece of crap. You disgust me.

It doesn't matter how good an idea the health care bill is. It has to be Constitutional to be allowable. It's not. Sorry.


Just to elaborate. I'm not allowed to not carry insurance even though I can afford to pay for an accident. Same exact thing holds true in medical care. You don't know if you're going to require open heart surgery, but you need to be covered if something happens and you need it.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Even a child can understand the concept. Spoiler answer - You're too rigid to consider you're completely wrong. Good luck with that. I'm sure your expertise is in medicine and you know exactly how it works. Don't bother listening to someone who has worked in the industry their entire adult life at more hospitals than you'll ever visit.
 
2011-02-01 02:46:54 PM
I'm as liberal as the next fool, but I think it's simply ridiculous to require people to give money to big corporations/health insurance companies. I differ from the right-wing opponents because I think there should be universal health care.

We are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on insurance company profits, insurance company operations, medical billing, etc., when none of this is needed to treat an ailing person. Our money could be better spent. I still have not heard a good reason why we shouldn't have universal health care.

/works for a (very good) health insurance company
//would lose my job if universal health care were implemented
 
2011-02-01 02:47:34 PM

dwrash: Correct me if I am wrong, but only actual costs are allowed to be written off as 'bad debt'..


What do you think they use to treat the uninsured? Monopoly money? Instruments borrowed from their kid's "OPERATION" game?

"Bad debt" is precisely what it says: The hospital provided a service/goods for which payment is specifically or tacitly promised yet not receivable in the tax year. Or ever in most cases.
 
2011-02-01 02:48:42 PM

Thunderpipes: dogdaze: OK, There are some farkers taking exception to my comment that this is judicial activism. You would have a point if these lawsuits were from states of both colors but no. Each and every one is from a red state. Is this a coincidence or is this an orchestrated effort from the right to turn a national crisis into a political football and ignore the need to rein in the cost of health care in this country?

Liberals don't care about the Constitution, that is why liberal states are not contesting it. Obama could pass a "burn all churches down" bill and you guys would celebrate in joy, regardless of whether or not it is legal or right.

I have yet to ever hear a single argument as to how the commerce clause can force people to engage in commerce.

"And ignore the need to rein in cost"? Liberals would not even discuss that in the creation of this monster bill. That was never a goal.


Contrary to what you've heard, ALL Liberals do not want to burn down your church or decapitate your unborn babies. Unfortunately, many on the right (you would be the example for this particular comment)have allowed themselves to funneled into such a narrow window to retrieve News, Politics and basically how to think that they can no longer see, or are incapable of interpreting the world events in any other manner than Liberal Bad, Republican good.

So sad.
 
2011-02-01 02:49:25 PM

FranciscoBizzaro: dwrash: Correct me if I am wrong, but only actual costs are allowed to be written off as 'bad debt'..

What do you think they use to treat the uninsured? Monopoly money? Instruments borrowed from their kid's "OPERATION" game?

"Bad debt" is precisely what it says: The hospital provided a service/goods for which payment is specifically or tacitly promised yet not receivable in the tax year. Or ever in most cases.


Yes, and they pay for that by making you pay $1000 for your CT instead of $750. Stop being a retard, your point is invalid and irrelevant.
 
2011-02-01 02:49:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Well, let's see. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Unapportioned direct taxes are unconstitutional. Non-uniform excise taxes are unconstitutional

But taxes on income are not (due to the 16th amendment), correct? And since the tax for not having health insurance is a tax on income how is it then unconstitutional?


The penalty is assessed as a percentage of adjusted gross income, but it is not a tax derived from an income producing event. In fact, you can avoid the penalty entirely, regardless of the amount of taxable income you make. It's a direct tax, and it's unapportioned.
 
2011-02-01 02:50:36 PM

AlphaTwin: Contrary to what you've heard, ALL Liberals do not want to burn down your church or decapitate your unborn babies.


I will cede you that if you'll admit that SOME liberals do.
 
2011-02-01 02:50:59 PM
Butthurt has a liberal bias.
 
2011-02-01 02:51:16 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: No, it's spot on.

Car insurance is required on the state level.
Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.
Car insurance is only required while driving on public roadways.
Penalties for not having car insurance are levied through fines, not taxes.

They're completely farking different.


There is one basic difference. Driving is optional and living isn't.

However, there is one difference which favours the health insurance mandate. Basic emergency care cannot be denied any individual.

To my knowledge, it is the only service in the US in which the supplier is required to help you at no cost. Imagine if you could go into a restaurant, book store, body shop or electronics store and say "I can't pay" but you have to give me a burger and a DVD player.

Basic health is atypical that way. So although driving is optional, emergency health care is not.

/single-payer would have been so much simpler & smarter
 
2011-02-01 02:51:24 PM

sprawl15: The whole concept of health insurance needs to be scrapped entirely and a single payer system needs to be put into place.




No thanks. I like high quality medicine.

You can move to Canada though, they have the mediocre single payer system you dream of.
 
2011-02-01 02:51:53 PM

colon_pow: GhostWing: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The Amendment was ratified Feb. 3, 1913. It was at that point that the federal governmment said it could take something of yours (the money you earned), and take it by whatever force the government felt justified in using.

that was a great day in progressive history. will you be celebrating day after tomorrow?


-1/10
Your Troll-Fu is off today.
 
2011-02-01 02:52:06 PM

captain_heroic44: Yeah. No.

A protective tariff is no less a tax because its purpose is to change buying behavior to favor domestically produced goods, and not to raise money.


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".

justtray: Obviously it is. We get screened at the airport because it's deemed necessary and you have to have insurace to drive on public roads. Hospitals are partially publically funded. Why are you so stupid?


The car insurance analogy again? Really? Sigh. Please, read the thread before ranting at people for being stupid.
 
2011-02-01 02:53:16 PM

AlphaTwin: Liberal Bad, Republican good.

So sad.




It is not the "liberals" who are bad, it is the "leftists" who are. There is a difference.
 
2011-02-01 02:54:20 PM
what's your point tardmitter?
 
2011-02-01 02:55:14 PM

justtray: Just to elaborate. I'm not allowed to not carry insurance even though I can afford to pay for an accident.


I'll do this simply: who do you think is the agency that requires you to purchase car insurance when driving a car on a public road way?

Phil Herup: You can move to Canada though, they have the mediocre single payer system you dream of.


Did you ever find out what awards you expect a non-mediocre student from Columbia to have? I don't expect an answer, you've run away pissing yourself after throwing out a few non-sequiturs every time I've asked.
 
2011-02-01 02:58:47 PM

sprawl15: Protective tariffs are only required to be uniform throughout the United States


The health insurance excise is uniform throughout the United States as well. It doesn't apply differently to Maine than it does Texas.
 
2011-02-01 02:59:18 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: The penalty is assessed as a percentage of adjusted gross income, but it is not a tax derived from an income producing event


Are income taxes apportioned?
 
2011-02-01 03:02:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: The penalty is assessed as a percentage of adjusted gross income, but it is not a tax derived from an income producing event

Are income taxes apportioned?


No, by virtue of the 16th amendment.

Which doesn't have much to do with the fact that you still believe that the penalty is a tax on income.
 
2011-02-01 03:02:32 PM

DarnoKonrad: The health insurance excise is uniform throughout the United States as well. It doesn't apply differently to Maine than it does Texas.


It's not a protective tariff. It's a tax. It's closer to Kevin Bacon than a protective tariff.

cameroncrazy1984: Are income taxes apportioned?


As I showed earlier, income taxes are - specifically and clearly - the only direct taxes allowed to not be apportioned.
 
2011-02-01 03:02:40 PM
sprawl15:justtray: Obviously it is. We get screened at the airport because it's deemed necessary and you have to have insurace to drive on public roads. Hospitals are partially publically funded. Why are you so stupid?

The car insurance analogy again? Really? Sigh. Please, read the thread before ranting at people for being stupid.

Maybe you need to reread it. From 4-5 posts up...

mrshowrules "There is one basic difference. Driving is optional and living isn't.

However, there is one difference which favours the health insurance mandate. Basic emergency care cannot be denied any individual.

To my knowledge, it is the only service in the US in which the supplier is required to help you at no cost. Imagine if you could go into a restaurant, book store, body shop or electronics store and say "I can't pay" but you have to give me a burger and a DVD player.

Basic health is atypical that way. So although driving is optional, emergency health care is not.

/single-payer would have been so much simpler & smarter
"

But no, you'd rather insist you're right that consider you could be wrong. I bid you good day sir.
 
2011-02-01 03:04:49 PM

justtray: Maybe you need to reread it.


So...you don't know who mandates the purchase of car insurance?

justtray: But no, you'd rather insist you're right that consider you could be wrong.


You're arguing that the health care system is farked up. I agree with this. You're saying that because the health care system is farked up, constitutionality of the law does not matter. I disagree with this.

Either show me how it's constitutional, or stop farking whining.
 
2011-02-01 03:05:33 PM

mrshowrules: sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: No, it's spot on.

Car insurance is required on the state level.
Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.
Car insurance is only required while driving on public roadways.
Penalties for not having car insurance are levied through fines, not taxes.

They're completely farking different.

There is one basic difference. Driving is optional and living isn't.

However, there is one difference which favours the health insurance mandate. Basic emergency care cannot be denied any individual.

To my knowledge, it is the only service in the US in which the supplier is required to help you at no cost. Imagine if you could go into a restaurant, book store, body shop or electronics store and say "I can't pay" but you have to give me a burger and a DVD player.

Basic health is atypical that way. So although driving is optional, emergency health care is not.

/single-payer would have been so much simpler & smarter



they don't have to unless they have an ER and take medicare iirc. so it's not quite like burger king. they can opt out. many do.
 
2011-02-01 03:08:22 PM

sprawl15: Did you ever find out what awards you expect a non-mediocre student from Columbia to have?



He did not get any of these....? (new window)

Surely even as a transfer he could have received some award at some point as he was a student so brilliant he was accepted to Harvard law on his merits alone.

Why do you ask stupid questions?



sprawl15: I don't expect an answer, you've run away pissing yourself after throwing out a few non-sequiturs every time I've asked.



No I just never though you actually expected an answer to such an obvious question.
 
2011-02-01 03:09:00 PM

sprawl15: So...you don't know who mandates the purchase of car insurance?


That's irrelevant. The rationale for requiring insurance is the same. Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.

The fact one of the markets isn't even voluntary to participate in strengthens the point.
 
2011-02-01 03:10:02 PM

relcec: they don't have to unless they have an ER and take medicare iirc. so it's not quite like burger king. they can opt out. many do.


I believe they legally have to regardless of medicare, and on top of that there's no tort protection (nor will/should there ever be) for a hospital and doctors who let a person die because they can't pay. Then there's the issue of the doctor losing their license for going against everything that their profession demands.

Either we need to go balls out and let sick people die on the streets, or we need to wipe out health insurance entirely and go single payer. There really is no sustainable middle ground.
 
2011-02-01 03:11:36 PM

relcec: they don't have to unless they have an ER and take medicare


And you don't have to acquire coverage if you live as a bohemian either -- which is the social equivalent to going to some backwater hospital that specializes in snake handling and blood letting that shuns all federal funding.
 
2011-02-01 03:12:32 PM

justtray: sprawl15: justtray: Six Fingered Man - Yes, you're a farking idiot. You made invalid deflections over and over and never address anyone's point. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing and that's even more pathetic than the worst troll. Either argue against my logic or kind STFU you piece of crap. You disgust me.

It doesn't matter how good an idea the health care bill is. It has to be Constitutional to be allowable. It's not. Sorry.

Just to elaborate. I'm not allowed to not carry insurance even though I can afford to pay for an accident. Same exact thing holds true in medical care. You don't know if you're going to require open heart surgery, but you need to be covered if something happens and you need it.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Even a child can understand the concept. Spoiler answer - You're too rigid to consider you're completely wrong. Good luck with that. I'm sure your expertise is in medicine and you know exactly how it works. Don't bother listening to someone who has worked in the industry their entire adult life at more hospitals than you'll ever visit.


yes you are, in some places anyway. it's called self insuring, but it's not insuring really, it's just having a big pile of money somehwere.

Link (new window)
 
2011-02-01 03:14:45 PM

DarnoKonrad: That's irrelevant. The rationale for requiring insurance is the same. Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.


It is absolutely relevant. The Constitution specifically restricts what the federal government can do. It does not have anywhere near as strong of restrictions on the states. If someone is going to say "But the states can force you to purchase car insurance if you choose to operate a vehicle on public roads," they have to know what the fark they're talking about. There's about 5 steps removed between that and the health care mandate. They're not the same thing.

DarnoKonrad: Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.


You're mixing moral justification with constitutional justification. Again, they are not the same thing.

Phil Herup: Surely even as a transfer he could have received some award at some point as he was a student so brilliant he was accepted to Harvard law on his merits alone.


The ones you harp on over and over again are restricted to students that attended more than 2 years. The ones you are just now bringing up by scrambling for research are not publicly released and would be within the records that are sealed. Produce some evidence to justify your assertion. Difficulty: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
2011-02-01 03:16:39 PM

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: wat is this i don't even

// really? you think I'm an anarchist "Burn the corporations down" hippie? I mean, I'm close, but I don't know how to make a bomb

what is response... not even... where did I say "Bomb" or "Burn down" or "Anarchy!!"?


A bit of snark, me bred'ren. It looked like you were implying that I'm the kind of guy who'd rather we looted all the corporations and give their shiat to the poor. While I'm more in favor of that than letting the corporations run roughshod over the American Dream, we've got a long way to go before those are our only two options.

See my response to cam:

You mistake my purpose. I'm not trying to disprove it. I'm trying to claim that if the government can mandate commerce now by shouting "Commerce Clause", it should also take the profits of industries and create an income stream to pay for all of our bankrupting entitlements. Just shoe-horn it into the "Interstate commerce clause. In fact, you convinced me that no constitutional amendment is needed. Congress can just "Regulate" that 90% of all profits from the sale of entertainment (like movies, music, etc.) or Energy (Like oil or coal)... It's the way socialism and all the entitlements that come along with it would actually work.

That's the problem with you pussy leftys. It's impossible for you to think big.


I'm still not sure what to make of this. You're upset with how broadly the 10th is applied? Welcome to the club.

I don't think the slippery slope really applies. The types of regulation you're worried about (that you hypothesize might happen) would likely apply to specific companies (which wouldn't be allowed because of the "no bills of attainder" business) or to entire industries (which have armies of lobbyists to ensure their continued existence).

Health insurance, as an industry, is not going anywhere soon. It's still largely private (and PPACA doesn't change that), they'll still act as middlemen between patients and health care centers' billing departments, and their revenue stream is largely untouched.

The problems the president mentioned in the SoTU are with the records-keeping part of the law and some of the funding - that doesn't really affect InsurCos - and I agree, fix the shiat out of them.

Funny that the industries you mentioned (entertainment and energy) are two industries that have gotten INSANE benefit from government intervention/regulation (extension of copyright laws from 17 years post-author's-death to 99 years; subsidies to energy companies).
 
2011-02-01 03:18:10 PM

relcec: yes you are, in some places anyway. it's called self insuring, but it's not insuring really, it's just having a big pile of money somehwere.


New Hampshire, for example, doesn't have a requirement to have insurance to drive.
 
2011-02-01 03:21:56 PM

relcec: mrshowrules: sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: No, it's spot on.

Car insurance is required on the state level.
Car insurance is not required simply by being alive.
Car insurance is only required while driving on public roadways.
Penalties for not having car insurance are levied through fines, not taxes.

They're completely farking different.

There is one basic difference. Driving is optional and living isn't.

However, there is one difference which favours the health insurance mandate. Basic emergency care cannot be denied any individual.

To my knowledge, it is the only service in the US in which the supplier is required to help you at no cost. Imagine if you could go into a restaurant, book store, body shop or electronics store and say "I can't pay" but you have to give me a burger and a DVD player.

Basic health is atypical that way. So although driving is optional, emergency health care is not.

/single-payer would have been so much simpler & smarter


they don't have to unless they have an ER and take medicare iirc. so it's not quite like burger king. they can opt out. many do.


A hospital can refuse treating a person with a critical injury? Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that all State laws require medical professionals to provide emergency care if the situation presents itself. The hippocratic oath requires it also. If the hospital doesn't operate an ER, the entrance to the building would be sufficient.
 
2011-02-01 03:22:43 PM

sprawl15: relcec: they don't have to unless they have an ER and take medicare iirc. so it's not quite like burger king. they can opt out. many do.

I believe they legally have to regardless of medicare, and on top of that there's no tort protection (nor will/should there ever be) for a hospital and doctors who let a person die because they can't pay. Then there's the issue of the doctor losing their license for going against everything that their profession demands.

Either we need to go balls out and let sick people die on the streets, or we need to wipe out health insurance entirely and go single payer. There really is no sustainable middle ground.


this may have changed, but I kind of doubt it.

"EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals[citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]"

Link (new window)

so hospitals can get out of it, theoretically anyway. maybe a plastic surgery hospital could make a go of it.
 
2011-02-01 03:25:27 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: That's irrelevant. The rationale for requiring insurance is the same. Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.

It is absolutely relevant. The Constitution specifically restricts what the federal government can do. It does not have anywhere near as strong of restrictions on the states. If someone is going to say "But the states can force you to purchase car insurance if you choose to operate a vehicle on public roads," they have to know what the fark they're talking about. There's about 5 steps removed between that and the health care mandate. They're not the same thing.

DarnoKonrad: Because being uninsured in that particular market is a liability on other god damned people.

You're mixing moral justification with constitutional justification. Again, they are not the same thing.

Phil Herup: Surely even as a transfer he could have received some award at some point as he was a student so brilliant he was accepted to Harvard law on his merits alone.

The ones you harp on over and over again are restricted to students that attended more than 2 years. The ones you are just now bringing up by scrambling for research are not publicly released and would be within the records that are sealed. Produce some evidence to justify your assertion. Difficulty: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I believe Phil is actually a 6 year squirrel monkey trained by the Kato institute to post in threads base on a simple database script.

Until he provides proof to the contary, this is what I believe.
 
2011-02-01 03:27:04 PM

relcec: "EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals[citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]"

Link (new window)

so hospitals can get out of it, theoretically anyway. maybe a plastic surgery hospital could make a go of it.


Ah, that's a bit different than what I thought you were saying (they don't have to period). Looks like it's kind of a de facto requirement, if not de jure.

Interesting bit from that article: "More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes." Farking tragic.
 
2011-02-01 03:27:37 PM

sprawl15: You're mixing moral justification with constitutional justification. Again, they are not the same thing.


No I'm not. You're the one attaching qualifiers to the rationale of why congress wants to regulate health insurance is the same for why states want to regulate car insurance. To put bring the liability and cost into alignment.

But answer this:

How cann you be for single payer and claim the current reform is unconstitutional?

Single payer would scrap all state regulations and replace it with a federal insurance program -- whereas, under the current law, states still regulate insurance at the state level.

If it has the authority to scrap the system, why doesn't have the right to tweak the current system? On what constitutional basis?

This makes no sense.
 
2011-02-01 03:27:55 PM

sprawl15: The ones you are just now bringing up by scrambling for research are not publicly released and would be within the records that are sealed. Produce some evidence to justify your assertion.



If he got them he would release the records. That is evidence enough. You have to agree with me on this. The only reason they are sealed is due to his performance.

I'd rather end this threadjack for another place and time, and now discuss the biatchslap of ObamaCare
 
2011-02-01 03:31:20 PM

justtray: Yes, and they pay for that by making you pay $1000 for your CT instead of $750.


No. Do the math.

MRI: Price $750
100 MRI's: Anticipated revenue $75,000.
100 MRI's: Actual revenue $69,000 ($75k minus avg. 8% uncollectable)
100 MRI's Internal subsidy required: $6000
Internal Subsidy per MRI $60.
Total Cost per MRI including bad debt: $810.

Not $1000. And not a "crisis" as you've been told. Right about in line with other businesses.
 
2011-02-01 03:34:09 PM

DarnoKonrad: How cann you be for single payer and claim the current reform is unconstitutional?


I've explained it over and over again. The mandate is nominally a capitation, and is not an income tax. That makes the tax unconstitutional on its face. In addition, it's not actually a tax, since the goal of it is not to raise money, but a different beast entirely which puts its justification solely on the interstate commerce clause. Health insurance cannot be sold across state lines, and mandating purchase of a product as a requirement for living in the country is a completely new concept.

On the other hand, a single payer system would increase your income taxes (constitutional) to provide for the general welfare (constitutional) and provide the people with a service. Tax wise, it would function constitutionally much like Social Security functions now. Health insurance companies would be relegated to the luxury they should be.

DarnoKonrad: You're the one attaching qualifiers to the rationale of why congress wants to regulate health insurance is the same for why states want to regulate car insurance. To put bring the liability and cost into alignment.


And, for maybe the 10th time this thread, I'm saying the car insurance argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to the HCR bill.

mrshowrules: I believe Phil is actually a 6 year squirrel monkey trained by the Kato institute to post in threads base on a simple database script.


He used to be entertaining. But he's no longer snarky and distantly amused, he's just bitter and whiny. It's kind of saddening to see an amusing troll go sour.
 
2011-02-01 03:36:06 PM

Phil Herup: If he got them he would release the records. That is evidence enough.


sprawl15: Difficulty: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


You haven't yet said in this thread that you don't molest farm animals. If you didn't molest farm animals, you would have said so, that's a pretty important thing for people to know you don't do. That's evidence enough, goat farker.
 
2011-02-01 03:46:07 PM

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: How cann you be for single payer and claim the current reform is unconstitutional?

I've explained it over and over again. The mandate is nominally a capitation, and is not an income tax. That makes the tax unconstitutional on its face. In addition, it's not actually a tax, since the goal of it is not to raise money, but a different beast entirely which puts its justification solely on the interstate commerce clause. Health insurance cannot be sold across state lines, and mandating purchase of a product as a requirement for living in the country is a completely new concept.

On the other hand, a single payer system would increase your income taxes (constitutional) to provide for the general welfare (constitutional) and provide the people with a service. Tax wise, it would function constitutionally much like Social Security functions now. Health insurance companies would be relegated to the luxury they should be.

DarnoKonrad: You're the one attaching qualifiers to the rationale of why congress wants to regulate health insurance is the same for why states want to regulate car insurance. To put bring the liability and cost into alignment.

And, for maybe the 10th time this thread, I'm saying the car insurance argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to the HCR bill.

mrshowrules: I believe Phil is actually a 6 year squirrel monkey trained by the Kato institute to post in threads base on a simple database script.

He used to be entertaining. But he's no longer snarky and distantly amused, he's just bitter and whiny. It's kind of saddening to see an amusing troll go sour.




He was cheerful when Obama's popularity was dropping. Now that they are rising again, it is like someone is pissing in his Corn Flakes every morning.
 
2011-02-01 03:51:30 PM

Dr Dreidel: Funny that the industries you mentioned (entertainment and energy) are two industries that have gotten INSANE benefit from government intervention/regulation (extension of copyright laws from 17 years post-author's-death to 99 years; subsidies to energy companies).


I wasn't kidding when I said that I was proposing a way for socialism to work. I was, and still am. Socialism does not work at all if there is no income stream for the government other than taxation.

Dr Dreidel: A bit of snark, me bred'ren. It looked like you were implying that I'm the kind of guy who'd rather we looted all the corporations and give their shiat to the poor. While I'm more in favor of that than letting the corporations run roughshod over the American Dream, we've got a long way to go before those are our only two options.


But that is just it... I was naming a middle ground. Or was I naming a starting point? It is hard to tell, I agree. I suppose once the government owned Hollywood and Haliburton, the national treasure of VIVID and the rest of the porn industry should not be too far behind, amirite? You know... for national economic security... besides, none of the people I listed really earn their money and it would be better spent helping the waitress next door, comrade.
 
2011-02-01 03:51:56 PM

sprawl15: The mandate is nominally a capitation, and is not an income tax.


It's levied at income. If you don't have an income you don't pay it. But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.

sprawl15: On the other hand, a single payer system would increase your income taxes (constitutional) to provide for the general welfare (constitutional)


This law does the same thing. The taxes on various forms of compensation, like health insurance, are used to create subsidies for those that can't afford or can't acquire coverage.

No where in the Constitution does it say the benefit must be public provided. Which is even more ridiculous when you consider Pual Ryan is trying to do the same thing to Social Security as the Democrats just did with Health Insurance. Which is farking stupid, but it's not unconstitutional.

sprawl15: mandating purchase of a product as a requirement for living in the country is a completely new concept.


Not what the law says at all.


sprawl15: And, for maybe the 10th time this thread, I'm saying the car insurance argument is completely and utterly irrelevant to the HCR bill.


And you're quite wrong about that. The power to regulate commerce was given to congress, not the states. And the supremacy clause makes any state commerce law moot if congress is so moved.
 
2011-02-01 03:57:26 PM

DarnoKonrad: But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.


There are no excises to enforce the mandate.
 
2011-02-01 03:59:55 PM
Just wanted to add what I heard in my head when I finished reading this headline:

images.wikia.com

A-heh-huh-heh-huh-heh-huh-huh!
 
2011-02-01 04:01:48 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: DarnoKonrad: But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.

There are no excises to enforce the mandate.


The Dick Cheney style of argumentation. Repeat until true. Yes, there is. It in the 1986 internal revenue code
 
2011-02-01 04:01:59 PM

DarnoKonrad: It's levied at income. If you don't have an income you don't pay it. But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.


It is not levied at income, it's levied per head. Exemptions by income do not define or constitutionally enable the tax. If you have zero income, you still have to file your exemption from the mandate.

DarnoKonrad: Not what the law says at all.


That's the intent. Get insurance, or get fined. Calling the fine a tax does not make it so.

DarnoKonrad: And you're quite wrong about that. The power to regulate commerce was given to congress, not the states. And the supremacy clause makes any state commerce law moot if congress is so moved.


You're sort of right on the supremacy clause, but not in the way you think. The supremacy clause means the states can't overturn federal law locally, but that doesn't grant the fed jurisdiction over everything the states can do. Supremacy just means regulations that apply to the fed flow down.

Also, the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to the states. If the HCR bill allowed insurance to be sold across state lines, my concern about interstate commerce would disappear. My concern about the fed not being able to mandate purchase (or obtaining, if you want to continue being uselessly nitpicky about a tiny minority of cases) of a product would still remain
 
2011-02-01 04:03:19 PM

justtray: Boy there's a lot of retards on the right.

ERs are not allowed to turn you down. The consequence of this is that underinsured or uninsured people have the burden of their cost passed on to those of us that do pay.

This law helps solve that problem.

The analogy to car insurance is identical. You want to have access to government funded facilities (most hospitals are), then you are required to be able to pay for the cost of those services if bad things happen.

There's no counter argument, and healthcare will not be repealed. Just farking deal with it you idiots. We're helping you even if you can't understand it because you're too dumb or bias.


The problem with this is, there are probably Republicans and right wingers out there right now trying to figure out a way to get rid of the EMTALA law (that's the one that says an ER can't turn you away for care, even if you cannot pay). I get the feeling if they can figure out a way to destroy the only bit of major change we've had to healthcare in something like 25 years, they'll go whole hog.
 
2011-02-01 04:06:10 PM

meanmutton: Wow, an entire article dedicated to argumentum ad hominem?


Reminds me of a recent Onion segment where a watcher corrected the host about the date of the Alamo being built, so they stalked the women and pointed out all sorts of bad things about her. Again, the Onion was eerily too real this time.
 
2011-02-01 04:08:57 PM

DarnoKonrad: This law does the same thing. The taxes on various forms of compensation, like health insurance, are used to create subsidies for those that can't afford or can't acquire coverage.


Through an unconstitutional method. Payment for government rendered services by increasing your income tax is not the same thing as levying a capitation to incentivize people to purchase private services.

DarnoKonrad: No where in the Constitution does it say the benefit must be public provided.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

This provides restrictions on why you can tax, section 9 and the 16th Amendment provide restrictions on how you can tax.
 
2011-02-01 04:11:52 PM
disgusting. one doesn't need to dig through this judge's personal history to disagree with the ruling.

although i'm generally for the healthcare reform (and refuse to use the republican blame-name-game and call it obamacare), on a constitutional level i gotta agree a mandate to citizens to purchase a service is untested waters. but so was the federal reserve at one point, constitutionally speaking, when it was conceived.

the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest. which is completely untrue, he simply doesn't want to put the fair effort into something he disagrees with.
 
2011-02-01 04:12:49 PM

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: DarnoKonrad: But the excises to enforce the mandate is different than the mandate itself anyway.

There are no excises to enforce the mandate.

The Dick Cheney style of argumentation. Repeat until true. Yes, there is. It in the 1986 internal revenue code


Show me. Since Chapter 48 doesn't exist yet, I'm thinking you might have a hard time showing me using the IRC. So I'll even allow you to use the bill. Show me where in PPACA the word excise is used in conjunction with failing to maintain minimum essential coverage.
 
2011-02-01 04:14:05 PM

evilmousse: the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest. which is completely untrue, he simply doesn't want to put the fair effort into something he disagrees with.


Why do you think the mandate was important?
 
2011-02-01 04:14:46 PM

sprawl15: He used to be entertaining. But he's no longer snarky and distantly amused, he's just bitter and whiny. It's kind of saddening to see an amusing troll go sour.



I miss those times.

You can thank the "higher-ups" and "betters" in the ivory towers of FARKdom for that. Often my sense of humor was not appreciated by many.

But I am not bitter at all, or sour for that matter. I am very happy just being part of a small group of people here who are not blind lefty libs.
 
2011-02-01 04:20:29 PM
"Vinson's first major case was the 1985 trial of two young couples who were accused of bombing and conspiring to bomb three Pensacola-area abortion clinics. Jurors found the men guilty of bomb making, damaging buildings with bombs and conspiring to make bombs and the women guilty of conspiracy. Vinson allowed the four to remain free on bond for a month before he sentenced the men to 10 years in prison and the women to five years probation."

Blatant sexual discrimination from a judge? Welcome to Florida!
 
2011-02-01 04:23:44 PM

Phil Herup: You can thank the "higher-ups" and "betters" in the ivory towers of FARKdom for that. Often my sense of humor was not appreciated by many.


There's no fun in trolling by just being idiotic in every thread for two posts before bailing, or spouting ridiculous indefensible claims. I mean this in the nicest way: have some self respect. You're better than this.
 
2011-02-01 04:25:38 PM

evilmousse: disgusting. one doesn't need to dig through this judge's personal history to disagree with the ruling.

although i'm generally for the healthcare reform (and refuse to use the republican blame-name-game and call it obamacare), on a constitutional level i gotta agree a mandate to citizens to purchase a service is untested waters. but so was the federal reserve at one point, constitutionally speaking, when it was conceived.

the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest. which is completely untrue, he simply doesn't want to put the fair effort into something he disagrees with.


It is all in the way it is structured. Philosophically, the Government can compell a citizen to purchase a category of service. Building codes, safety regulations are an example of this.

Take the example of Bush's truck tax credit. It was structured properly, give a tax credit for buying a catergory of service. You cannot get that credit unless you buy what we tell you to. Nobody would argue that this was against the constitution even though it is compelling you to buy a particular item. In this case, the tax credit was much higher than the penalty imposes for not having insurance.

The solution is simple, raise taxes and give everyone a tax credit who has health insurance.

Alternately, restructure Medicare which most people buy into eventually. When you apply/buy into Medicare, add a discount for every year the applicants that were previously insured.

I'm not sure how Medicare works but let's say you charge $20K for the first year of a new subscriber instead of $10K (for instance).

However, if your were previously insured since HCR was implementented offer a $10K discount (10 years x $1,000). Someone never bothering to have insurance would have effectively lose a $10K discount.

Medicare is within the full mandate of the Government. There were many possible work-arounds but the law was very hard to pass with the roadblocking of the Republicans.
 
2011-02-01 04:27:09 PM

evilmousse: the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest.




I heard the Obama administration told the judge, on several occasions, that the individual mandate was a vital requirement for the entire law.

So it is really not a tiny part. Also, did the law not allow for separate sections to be eliminated? I think it did not.

All in all it was a very sloppy piece of legislation.. typical of the mess that was Congress at the time.
 
2011-02-01 04:28:39 PM

YoMammaObama: I suppose once the government owned Hollywood and Haliburton, the national treasure of VIVID and the rest of the porn industry should not be too far behind, amirite?


That made my mind produce this phrase: "Government Porn"

sciencefun.files.wordpress.com

// I'll thank you to never send my mind in that direction again
 
2011-02-01 04:33:36 PM

Dr Dreidel: YoMammaObama: I suppose once the government owned Hollywood and Haliburton, the national treasure of VIVID and the rest of the porn industry should not be too far behind, amirite?

That made my mind produce this phrase: "Government Porn"

sciencefun.files.wordpress.com

// I'll thank you to never send my mind in that direction again


So "Government Porn" is scary, but "Government Healthcare" is not? That is confusing. But again I ask you: Why not take over energy and entertainment and porn like we did Amtrack? Think of the children!!!

Also, "Government Porn" brings me a whole new meaning to the phrase "Slippery Slope"... just sayin...
 
2011-02-01 04:33:46 PM

Phil Herup: I heard the Obama administration told the judge, on several occasions, that the individual mandate was a vital requirement for the entire law.

So it is really not a tiny part. Also, did the law not allow for separate sections to be eliminated? I think it did not.

All in all it was a very sloppy piece of legislation.. typical of the mess that was Congress at the time.


It's not just that, the law didn't have the standard boilerplate language that the various parts of the law are severable (where if one part gets overturned, it doesn't negate the rest). That's default language.

It makes sense when you think about some of it wouldn't be severable, though, since the extra costs to the insurance companies would have been made up via the mandate. Why portions of the bill that had nothing to do with that weren't severable is beyond me.

mrshowrules: The solution is simple, raise taxes and give everyone a tax credit who has health insurance.


The problem with this that I can see is that the people who don't have health insurance tend not to have large enough of a tax burden to have any possible tax incentive outweigh the cost of buying insurance. If you're only paying 900 in taxes a year, and insurance would cost you a grand a year, there's no way to properly incentivize that without additional money given to help people purchase the insurance. At that point, though, we're so close to single payer (constitutionally) that we might as well take that last step.

That method would bypass most of the constitutionality issues, but would be grossly impractical.
 
2011-02-01 04:38:57 PM
sprawl15: Why do you think the mandate was important?

evilmousse: the ridiculous part of this judge's decision to me is that he claims he cannot address the unconstitutionality of this tiny part of the law without invalidating the rest. which is completely untrue, he simply doesn't want to put the fair effort into something he disagrees with.


i'm not sure i understand the question. why do _i_ think the mandate was important? because allowing the government to mandate their citizens purchase another private citizen's service rubs me all the wrong ways, despite agreeing with the intentions. i'm only an armchair constitutional scholor, but i believe it boils down to whether you believe any rights & powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved to the people or the congress. if it's the people, then congress would have to amend the constitution to allow such a mandate before the law could be legal; if it's the congress, then they're free to make such a law so long as it doesn't run afoul of anything already present in the constitution. my personal opinion is that unenumerated powers rest with the people, but such thinking is contrary to the already-longtime-operational federal reserve.

but unlike the judge, i believe that once the constitutionality of the mandate is determined by people smarter than i, and then regardless to outcome, the issue can be addressed and corrected without invalidating the other 98% of the law. this judge is all to eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
2011-02-01 04:41:47 PM

evilmousse: i'm not sure i understand the question.


Maybe I should have been clearer. Do you think the mandate was added for practical reasons as well as moral (i.e., not "because more people with insurance is good")? If so, what do you think they are?
 
2011-02-01 04:41:56 PM
Actually, the law doesn't say you must buy health insurance or you will get jail time and a criminal record. It simply says that if you elect not to buy health insurance, you will be fined. (Possibly in order to make up for the burden you are placing on society as a whole.)

The government fines people all the time, for doing many different things, or failing to do many different things. To say this particular fine is "unconstitutional" is just asinine.

It doesn't say much for the supposed impartiality of our judiciary though when the two Federal judges appointed by Democrats don't have a problem with Obama's bill, and the two Republican federal judges do. They're all looking at the same constitution, right? It's kind of like the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that appointed Bush president back in 2000 - straight down party lines.

/ To paraphrase Jon Stewart, in the 2000 election conservative Supreme Court judges got the opportunity to vote for George W. Bush twice - the second time counted for more...
 
2011-02-01 04:43:31 PM

evilmousse: but unlike the judge, i believe that once the constitutionality of the mandate is determined by people smarter than i, and then regardless to outcome, the issue can be addressed and corrected without invalidating the other 98% of the law. this judge is all to eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I too am an armchair scholar, and you may be right about the judge, but I have also seen it in contract law where the entire contract is void because of a single issue. I imagine that concept may apply to deciding the validity of a law as well as contract law. So it is possible that he is just following protocol as he understands it.
 
2011-02-01 04:47:22 PM

JustTheTip: Actually, the law doesn't say you must buy health insurance or you will get jail time and a criminal record. It simply says that if you elect not to buy health insurance, you will be fined.


In fact, it specifically says that criminal prosecution is not allowed (like it would be if you didn't pay your income taxes): "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

JustTheTip: The government fines people all the time, for doing many different things, or failing to do many different things. To say this particular fine is "unconstitutional" is just asinine.


Fine for action is vastly different than fine for inaction. Every example of a similar situation shown so far has been on the state level. If you can find a similar Supreme Court ruling or federal level law that has not been overturned, please let me know. I've been looking for one in vain for a few days now.
 
2011-02-01 04:52:23 PM

catpuncher: Phil Herup: AlphaTwin: Liberal Bad, Republican good.

So sad.

It is not the "liberals" who are bad, it is the "leftists" who are. There is a difference.

AlphaTwin: Contrary to what you've heard, ALL Liberals do not want to burn down your church or decapitate your unborn babies.

I will cede you that if you'll admit that SOME liberals do.



Oh come on... you guys can do better than that.
 
2011-02-01 04:53:48 PM

YoMammaObama: I too am an armchair scholar, and you may be right about the judge, but I have also seen it in contract law where the entire contract is void because of a single issue. I imagine that concept may apply to deciding the validity of a law as well as contract law. So it is possible that he is just following protocol as he understands it.


From what I understand, there is almost always a severability provision in laws, and the HCR bill did not have this provision. If it did, there would need to be justification for overturning each part, but since there isn't, the whole thing can be thrown out in one go.
 
2011-02-01 04:53:58 PM
It is all in the way it is structured. Philosophically, the Government can compell a citizen to purchase a category of service. Building codes, safety regulations are an example of this.

you make a very interesting point, but i'm not sure it's fair to compare the regulations put upon voluntary actions to an inescapable one. someone can choose to not build a house, but it's unreasonable to call living a discretionary choice. the regulations you described are all tied to voluntary choices, like driving requires a drivers' license. i'd be similarly irritated if the government dictated we needed a license to live in the country.

Phil Herup
I heard the Obama administration told the judge, on several occasions, that the individual mandate was a vital requirement for the entire law.


and THIS is where i find myself potentially forced to agree with the judge's ruling. personally, i'd hope that the judges responsibility to gauge the intent of the lawmakers is in the context of what the law was intended to accomplish, and not so far as to accommodate the deal-making over key points that goes on between opposing legislative teams. but if the lawmakers were quoted repeatedly speaking about the inexorability of that aspect from the rest of the law while creating it, the judge is appropriate in considering that.

still, is the consideration of lawmakers' intent the paramount issue to be considering when deciding this? is their opinion all needs to be considered about the situation, or is there a matter of fact to be determined about how inexorable this clause is?
 
2011-02-01 04:55:04 PM

YoMammaObama: Dr Dreidel: YoMammaObama: I suppose once the government owned Hollywood and Haliburton, the national treasure of VIVID and the rest of the porn industry should not be too far behind, amirite?

That made my mind produce this phrase: "Government Porn"

sciencefun.files.wordpress.com

// I'll thank you to never send my mind in that direction again

So "Government Porn" is scary, but "Government Healthcare" is not? That is confusing. But again I ask you: Why not take over energy and entertainment and porn like we did Amtrack? Think of the children!!!


If I want something cookie-cutter, done the same way for everyone, and small variations don't matter, I don't mind government involvement. The DMV and IRS are great examples.

Where there is required a degree of artistic flourish, innovation, competition, and each product is different from the last, I don't really want government involved. Which is why I support NEArts grants in principle (not always in practice, but Piss Christ falls under the heading of "shiat I support funding"; we can talk about that later), and not Federal Government Art (is there such a thing?).

Generally speaking: Government should provide services. Government should not produce goods.

Also, "Government Porn" brings me a whole new meaning to the phrase "Slippery Slope"... just sayin...

files.effectsdatabase.com
 
2011-02-01 04:56:24 PM

sprawl15: YoMammaObama: I too am an armchair scholar, and you may be right about the judge, but I have also seen it in contract law where the entire contract is void because of a single issue. I imagine that concept may apply to deciding the validity of a law as well as contract law. So it is possible that he is just following protocol as he understands it.

From what I understand, there is almost always a severability provision in laws, and the HCR bill did not have this provision. If it did, there would need to be justification for overturning each part, but since there isn't, the whole thing can be thrown out in one go.


www.polytickle.com
 
2011-02-01 05:02:14 PM

Dr Dreidel: Generally speaking: Government should provide services. Government should not produce goods.


In a nutshell, this is why the socialism model will not work. If you have no income stream, you can't afford entitlements. (Taxing the people may be an income stream, but it is over extended and needs help badly.)

I wish the socialists would at least try to make the unicorn/rainbow package pay-go. Not that I think you are a socialist, mind you ... My lament is a universal one.
 
2011-02-01 05:05:56 PM
Maybe I should have been clearer. Do you think the mandate was added for practical reasons as well as moral

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.


I too am an armchair scholar, and you may be right about the judge, but I have also seen it in contract law where the entire contract is void because of a single issue. I imagine that concept may apply to deciding the validity of a law as well as contract law. So it is possible that he is just following protocol as he understands it.

indeed, and i think you're probably right. therein lies the limit of my armchairness, we'd need someone less armchair to get a real answer. i've heard of situations both ways, where whole contracts invalidated over one technicality, and others where corrections could be made. i'm not sure what makes for the key differences in those scenarios, nor how well contact law compares to constitutional. fun stuff to think about tho~
 
2011-02-01 05:10:41 PM

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.


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.
 
2011-02-01 05:20:03 PM

YoMammaObama: Not that I think you are a socialist, mind you ... My lament is a universal one.


I consider myself subscribing to many ideologies - socialism, libertarianism, democracy, capitalism, minarchism/propertarianism.

Some are for theoretical reasons (as in, "I think, ideally, a socialist government would be best; I recognize that you'd need to eliminate the greed and power motives to make it workable"), some are me coming to terms with realities ("So people are greedy assholes. Capitalism - a regulated free-ish market - lets them satisfy their greedy urges. And usually we get some cool shiat*, to boot").

If I could wave a magic wand and create a government, it'd probably look like Sweden - democratic socialism.

* 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
 
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 434 of 434 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report