Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It can mean SO many things.[/QUOTE]

Eh... one could argue that it would "promote the general welfare" to, say, exterminate all people infected with HIV/AIDS. I mean, it's the perfect way to cure the country of AIDS, right?

It would "promote the general welfare" to, say, force all citizens to give 100% of their earnings to the State and let the State decide how to use the money, right?

Less extreme - it would "promote the general welfare" to force all able-bodied citizens to exercise for an hour a day. Would you be okay with that?

Besides, the accepted legal definition of the "General Welfare Clause", as determined by the Supreme Court, is that it allows Congress to spend Federal dollars to "promote the general welfare" - and that is it. It doesn't give Congress the power to set speed limits or force citizens to buy certain services.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Eh... one could argue that it would "promote the general welfare" to, say, exterminate all people infected with HIV/AIDS.[/quote]

Yes... But then one could be trying to derail any chance at a serious discussion with wanton buffoonery.

Besides, the accepted legal definition of the "General Welfare Clause", as determined by the Supreme Court, is that it allows Congress to spend Federal dollars to "promote the general welfare" - and that is it. It doesn't give Congress the power to set speed limits or force citizens to buy certain services.
Click to expand...

Now perhaps if you would allow me to be Bobesque for one moment, what would a constitutional provision for healthcare have looked like in the Founders day?

A laudanum subsidy? Free leeches for the poor?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"stare decrisis."[/quote]
Now that I've seen it both ways, it should have the r. Definitely.

[quote name='UncleBob'] It doesn't give Congress the power to set speed limits or force citizens to buy certain services.[/QUOTE]
Certain services like those provided by a massive army? You just tax them and then spend it on certain services. The entire government is built on that principle. Just because you don't like certain services doesn't somehow put them on shaky constitutional ground.
It would "promote the general welfare" to, say, force all citizens to give 100% of their earnings to the State and let the State decide how to use the money, right?
Click to expand...
How about thinking about in in reverse. With every libertarian I've ever debated, sooner or later you find the nerve that they're willing to allow government to control. For most baby libertarians it's defense, as they get older and bitchier it's roads, or police, or fire. For the really stuck-on-stupid Randians you just go with the simple act of taxation, which even they at a base level understand is necessary.

But how much is too much tax Bob? 1/10th of 1 percent? OMG YOURE A GODDAMN COMMUNIST AND YOU SHOULD BE SENT TO SOVIET CHINA WITH THE GULAGS AND POLISH.

That's not really a reasonable position from which to engage someone in debate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you're really confused. Congress provides funding for the "massive army" (which is, of course, part of the Executive Branch).

I'm not arguing the idea that Congress doesn't have a right to impose taxes and spend the money. But that's not what a health insurance mandate is. It's buy *this* service or we'll penalize you with a tax.

Be 100% honest with me. If the "General Welfare Clause" goes beyond allowing Congress to allocate federal spending (even though that is what the Supreme Court has upheld), what could Congress *not* do under the guise of "promoting the general welfare"?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I think you're really confused.[/quote]

Heh.

Congress provides funding for the "massive army" (which is, of course, part of the Executive Branch).
Click to expand...

You obviously noticed he put the qualifier "massive" in there since you put quote marks around it for no discernible reason (are you gonna even pretend our military isn't enormous and costly?). The difference being that there is no doubt the founders would have abhorred the set up we have now, there are lots of references against "large standing armies" and don't forget Jefferson and his warning against entangling alliances.

Yet, as it has been pointed out "defense" budgets never have to be justified in any almost any way.

I'm not arguing the idea that Congress doesn't have a right to impose taxes and spend the money. But that's not what a health insurance mandate is. It's buy *this* service or we'll penalize you with a tax.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the Necessary and Proper Clause is pretty clear on the matter, but by all means continue the struggle against Wagner's Law.

Be 100% honest with me. If the "General Welfare Clause" goes beyond allowing Congress to allocate federal spending (even though that is what the Supreme Court has upheld), what could Congress *not* do under the guise of "promoting the general welfare"?
Click to expand...

1) Why would you ask someone to be something you never ask of your self?

2) I am still waiting for the answer to my Bobesque question.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I think you're really confused. Congress provides funding for the "massive army" (which is, of course, part of the Executive Branch).[/quote]
*facepalm*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

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;

I'm not arguing the idea that Congress doesn't have a right to impose taxes and spend the money. But that's not what a health insurance mandate is. It's buy *this* service or we'll penalize you with a tax.
Click to expand...
Anyone can say that about any program. Anyone. Anything. Why is this (and you) special?
Be 100% honest with me. If the "General Welfare Clause" goes beyond allowing Congress to allocate federal spending (even though that is what the Supreme Court has upheld), what could Congress *not* do under the guise of "promoting the general welfare"?
Click to expand...
This circle jerk for the sake of it grows tired.
 
[quote name='speedracer']*facepalm*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

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;[/quote]

Yeah, I'm not really arguing that Congress doesn't have the power to tax. I'm not sure where anything gives Congress the power to use taxes as a penalty for not buying specific services, however. You've yet to show that. Anywhere.

Anyone can say [It's buy *this* service or we'll penalize you with a tax] about any program. Anyone. Anything. Why is this (and you) special?
Click to expand...

Name me one single other Federal program where Congress gets to force individuals to choose to either buy a service or pay an extra tax. Any program.

This circle jerk for the sake of it grows tired.
Click to expand...
Then quit replying. It's not like you're adding much anyway.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Then quit replying. It's not like you're adding much anyway.[/QUOTE]

You have a startling lack of self awareness.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, I'm not really arguing that Congress doesn't have the power to tax. I'm not sure where anything gives Congress the power to use taxes as a penalty for not buying specific services, however. You've yet to show that. Anywhere.[/quote]
That's not how it works dude. You're rigging the test. Congress doesn't say "Thou shalt make the drinking age 21". They say "If you make the drinking age 21, we'll hand you a bag of cash". And then all the states jump to get the money. We can pretend to exist in this unicorn land you're conjuring where the Feds never drop mandates on the states, but that's not reality man. At all.
Name me one single other Federal program where Congress gets to force individuals to choose to either buy a service or pay an extra tax. Any program.
Click to expand...
This makes the Civics Panda sad.
Then quit replying. It's not like you're adding much anyway.
Click to expand...
wat
 
[quote name='speedracer']That's not how it works dude. You're rigging the test. Congress doesn't say "Thou shalt make the drinking age 21". They say "If you make the drinking age 21, we'll hand you a bag of cash". And then all the states jump to get the money. We can pretend to exist in this unicorn land you're conjuring where the Feds never drop mandates on the states, but that's not reality man. At all.
[/QUOTE]

Do "this" and I'll give you money is a completely different ball game than do (or don't do) "this" and I'll make you pay money.

Name me any existing Federal program where the Federal government forced individuals to purchase a service or pay an additional tax.
 
[quote name='speedracer']wat[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that is just Bob code for not letting him derail the discussion.

As if there is some unspoken agreement to constantly indulge him.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Name me any existing Federal program where the Federal government forced individuals to purchase a service or pay an additional tax.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess in unicorn world it would be unfair to say unemployment fits since it's a state program, though that's bull and it's federally supplemented and supported (but we're playing the "What Unclebob demands instead of what's reality" game).

I guess you're going to drop to some nugget on why SS is different because I don't see it.

[quote name='Msut77']Yeah, that is just Bob code for not letting him derail the discussion.

As if there is some unspoken agreement to constantly indulge him.[/QUOTE]
I'm waiting for this to make sense but I think it's just the H1Thust1 illness. Read the Constitution (or at least part of it amirite?). Do nothing more in the way of scholarship to increase one's understanding of the document (does reading the first 10 federalist papers count?). Willfully ignore 250 years of case law modifications. Act completely contemptuous against anything that's socially stabilizing under the guise of faux-Randian intentional ignorance. Require the counter party to do your Constitutional homework for you to continue to make the debate even marginally interesting and then attack the sources with sheer ignorance of their impact in practical terms. Restate original position as if nothing has been said. Rinse. Repeat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']I'm waiting for this to make sense.[/QUOTE]

It never, ever will.

I haven't read the back and forth all that carefully and it seems to be semantics on calling it a premium or a tax.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Well I guess in unicorn world it would be unfair to say unemployment fits since it's a state program, though that's bull and it's federally supplemented and supported (but we're playing the "What Unclebob demands instead of what's reality" game).

I guess you're going to drop to some nugget on why SS is different because I don't see it.[/QUOTE]

Okay, let's say you're talking to a complete moron here (there, I gave that one to you).

Explain to me how either Social Security or Unemployment is the Federal Government saying "Buy this service or else we'll penalize you with an extra tax." What service can I opt into buying to get out of paying into the Social Security fund?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Explain to me how either Social Security or Unemployment is the Federal Government saying "Buy this service or else we'll penalize you with an extra tax." What service can I opt into buying to get out of paying into the Social Security fund?[/QUOTE]

I am not sure if SS in its role as retirement insurance is making whatever point you think you are making.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Explain to me how either Social Security or Unemployment is the Federal Government saying "Buy this service or else we'll penalize you with an extra tax." What service can I opt into buying to get out of paying into the Social Security fund?[/QUOTE]
I think what you're asking for and what the "solution" would be aren't really in your ideological best interests are they? For the government to satisfy your criteria, they would have to require public option insurance and then you could supplement on top of it, a la SS.

As far as has something like what you're describing happened before? I don't think so, but it's not so horrendously removed from everything else to be particularly interesting. I guess some think this question is a big one. Would it pass Supreme Court muster? Probably. Would it pass our suddenly resurgent strict interpretation POV muster? No, but virtually nothing does so no one loses sleep over it.

Maybe if you could come at it the other way. Is there some part of the Constitution you feel this violates?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I haven't followed this thread or had my coffee this morning - are we really having a tenther argument in here?

Jesus fucking christ.[/QUOTE]

I didn't see anybody arguing that health care costs outpacing the growth of income for the last 40 years are because of lazy states. Then again, I miss some things.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I haven't followed this thread or had my coffee this morning - are we really having a tenther argument in here?

Jesus fucking christ.[/QUOTE]
It hasn't been said yet, but yes. I tried to head it off with the tax and spend clause and my "decrisis" post citing the case law that shows that it doesn't apply but didn't go over. I was trying to get us there with the Article 1 section 8 quote, hoping to move it to section 9, but we hadn't gotten there yet. I figured that by just coming out and asking in my last post what would make it unconstitutional, we'd just get it out there and answer it directly. I think this whole line of thinking is the newest angle for arguing against it.

This page pretty much nails it.

In Mr. Bob's defense, it's an entirely reasonable position to take if you're unfamiliar with this stuff. I used to be solidly in that camp.. until I read the case law. I was a huge tenther for a long time. The tubes are really good at producing docs that cite the 10th without context and confusing the issue. Thrust does it on purpose because he's a jerk, but I think Mr. Bob's position was in earnest.

I'll stop rambling now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']I think what you're asking for and what the "solution" would be aren't really in your ideological best interests are they? For the government to satisfy your criteria, they would have to require public option insurance and then you could supplement on top of it, a la SS. [/quote]

Actually, I would very much prefer it. Every time the government raises taxes, someone stops and thinks - if only for a moment - about the people we keep sending to Washington.

Maybe if you could come at it the other way. Is there some part of the Constitution you feel this violates?
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=9566
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Actually, I would very much prefer it. Every time the government raises taxes, someone stops and thinks - if only for a moment - about the people we keep sending to Washington.[/QUOTE]

So is your gripe du jour about people being taxed or people being "forced to buy a service"?

Do you even know or care any more?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The senate bill going forward has some form of a public option that state's can opt out of if they come up with an alternative.

Also, going back to the Budget Office discussion earlier--the bill goes to them to get a price tag put on it before going back to congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/26/health.care/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9BIVFK00[/QUOTE]

That is... hopeful.

I sincerely doubt any state will opt out though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/economy/10charts.html
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Also, going back to the Budget Office discussion earlier--the bill goes to them to get a price tag put on it before going back to congress.[/QUOTE]

From a common sense stand-point though, this just doesn't make sense. The bill they looked at and put a price tag on isn't going to be the same bill that gets enacted.

Shouldn't the price tag be put on the final bill?

It's like if a car salesman tells you the car is going to cost $25,000. You go home, talk it over with your wife, then come back and agree to buy the car. Then, the car salesman throws in the XM Radio, 12 disc-CD changer, custom paint job, sunroof, etc., etc... and tells you the car now costs $45,000. But you've already agreed to get it, so it's too late to change your mind.
 
As I understand it they're sending a couple different bills to the budget office to get price tags put on them for the purpose of the congressmen having those estimates when debating between the options etc.

Perhaps once they have a final bill to vote on it will get another budget office price tag put on it before the vote? I'm not sure how it works.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Actually, I would very much prefer it. Every time the government raises taxes, someone stops and thinks - if only for a moment - about the people we keep sending to Washington.[/quote]
Well I'm probably not the target audience because my dream setup would be a mandatory minimum coverage with a public option available along with "buy-up" coverage available to those willing to purchase it, similiar to the minimum car insurance requirements that I buy along with additional coverage. I'd vote for anyone that pressed that in a heart beat. I get your point though.

I take a couple of issues with the articles you posted.
Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care.
Click to expand...
I disagree 1000%. Uninsured people are uninsured because they can't afford it. No one is trying to save that buck unless they're certifiably insane. And if a damn 27 year hospital manager can get duped, do you or I really have a chance here, not to mention the good old fashioned proletariat that maybe isn't as sharp as our beloved resident libertarians?
The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly.
Click to expand...
Friends, that's putting it mildly. And using a court case (Lopez) from 10 years prior to Raich isn't going to gain the necessary traction. The predictable parties will vote predictably partisan regardless of prior votes (Scalia, I'm looking at you, Mr. Insane With The Raich Opinion), and Kennedy will almost certainly side with the liberals.
Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.
Click to expand...
Slippery slope arguments make the baby jesus cry and more importantly, does nothing for the SC jurists. See Raich, Bush v. Gore (oh yes I did just go there *snap* *snap*).

The second article seems pretty spot on to me (go Chemerinsky! I love that guy). But the reality is it's 4-4 with Kennedy as the tie breaker and I'd put solid odds on him going liberal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='elprincipe']http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/a-70-percent-tax-on-work[/QUOTE]

"From January 2001 to May 2004, Mr. Capretta served as the Bush administration’s top budget official for health care, Social Security and pensions, education, and labor policy. He was the lead official in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all aspects of Medicare and Medicaid reform policy development and implementation as well as for the development of the President’s other important domestic policy initiatives in education and labor."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/james-capretta
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"From January 2001 to May 2004, Mr. Capretta served as the Bush administration’s top budget official for health care, Social Security and pensions, education, and labor policy. He was the lead official in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all aspects of Medicare and Medicaid reform policy development and implementation as well as for the development of the President’s other important domestic policy initiatives in education and labor."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/james-capretta[/QUOTE]

I expect better from you (i.e. evidence disproving or at least arguing against his arguments, instead of just attempting to discredit them by saying "but he was in the Bush administration!!11!").
 
The argument is ludicrous. It's calling the declining rate of entitlements offered to people as they move up the income scale "taxes." That's patently fucking absurd.

The wealthy are taxed more because, as you move up the income ladder, you see that the dollar amount of food stamp entitlements decline. This in turn is an implicit tax on the wealthy.

What is the slightest bit sensible about what he's arguing? I won't even bother getting into how his math is a shitshow that only further confounds his beyond absurd premise.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The argument is ludicrous. It's calling the declining rate of entitlements offered to people as they move up the income scale "taxes." That's patently fucking absurd.

The wealthy are taxed more because, as you move up the income ladder, you see that the dollar amount of food stamp entitlements decline. This in turn is an implicit tax on the wealthy.

What is the slightest bit sensible about what he's arguing? I won't even bother getting into how his math is a shitshow that only further confounds his beyond absurd premise.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you that the rhetoric of "lost handouts=tax increase" is absurd. But please enlighten me (really!) as to where you think the central argument is wrong. The guy is arguing that if you put in place enough disincentives for work (i.e. for every $1 more you earn, 70 cents goes to the government), especially when considering people who are less likely to have a strong work ethic (i.e. those at or below poverty level), you are going to see less work coming from this group. This is what I was interested to see if someone had a rebuttal to.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I agree with you that the rhetoric of "lost handouts=tax increase" is absurd. But please enlighten me (really!) as to where you think the central argument is wrong. The guy is arguing that if you put in place enough disincentives for work (i.e. for every $1 more you earn, 70 cents goes to the government), especially when considering people who are less likely to have a strong work ethic (i.e. those at or below poverty level), you are going to see less work coming from this group. This is what I was interested to see if someone had a rebuttal to.[/QUOTE]

Meh. That first dollar earned might have a tax rate of 10% after FICA and other social programs take a bite.

Once federal taxes can kick in, they only take hold if there are no deductions such as kids or a house.

By the time you start hitting a 30-40% tax rate, your job probably has perks like a company car or food unless you're single.
 
Yeah, and with ridiculous executive salaries etc., taxing the hell out of extremely high incomes is a way to discourage that. A progressive tax system with much higher taxes beyond 250,000, 1 million, 2 million etc. is probably a good strategy to get the absurd income inequality down some.

But, you're right in that they'll just get around it with other perks. Just as they already do despite not having enough high income tax brackets (IMO).
 
[quote name='willardhaven']The problem is that the poor are sustaining the rich to an exponentially higher degree than ever. What the hell do people need $100,000+ a year for?[/QUOTE]

Really? A $100,000 a year? Maybe a house, car, health care, a good school for their kids?
 
$100,000 isn't all that much money in an urban area with high cost of living. Particularly if that's the income for a family of 4 etc.

I don't have problems with high salaries in and of themselves. It's when the gap between executive salaries and workers salaries gets too high, and when executive salaries stay at absurd levels even when the companies are losing money and laying off employees etc. that I take exception with.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']You people must suck with money... If I earned 100,000 dollars a year I would be retired in roughly 5-10 years.[/QUOTE]

It depends.

If you're content with a paid for house, a modest amount of land and sending your kids to a public school and university, $100K is all you need.

Want more land? That's $10K per acre.

Want toys such as a boat? That's a good thousand or two a year to maintain the boat and a place to keep near another place to sail it.

Want to see the world without having to shoot the natives? Vacations cost some. Good vacations cost a lot.

Want your kids to go to a "good" university? http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/13263.html Say goodbye to $40K at a second tier school per year.
 
I have friends in really good graduate schools who went to State college with me which ran about $3,000 per semester for commuters.

I understand that $100,000/year is not rich, so I'll concede my point. Hearing people who make close to 200,000 and up complaining about taxes and whatnot just irks me. Defending multimillion dollar salaries is stupid, as a global community we could be doing a lot more with our limited resources than jetting around the world poppin' champagne. Maybe I'm in the wrong country.
 
$100,000/year salary is a decent amount but it is by no means a lot of money when you take into account the cost of education it would require to get a job that paid that much.
 
$100k a year for and individual would put you in the top 6-7% of the country. There are only a few places where that wouldn't be "enough" defined as being able to afford everything you need, a house, insurance, raise kids, etc. And very few if any where you wouldn't have plenty of extra money as an individual not raising a family. Chances are if you make that amount of money you won't be working/living in the cheapest environment though.

dopa's point about the cost is also good, but that also depends on how rich your family is as well. Most of the people who will have the opportunity to make that kind of money will come from a background where their parents are making a similar amount of money. So all of the burden of paying for the education might not be on the individual getting the education, but getting the education is definitely not going to be cheap.
 
Yeah, $100K for an single person is a nice chunk of change. For a family of 4 (or more) in a metro area with high cost of living and a lot of mouths to feed, college education to save up for etc. it is not much.

I should be making that or more in a decade or so assuming I bust ass and make full professor. I'll make at least $62K this first academic year--trying to get another month or two of summer salary lined up that would bump that up another $5-10K. So I'm doing pretty well for myself already.

But it's also hard to put a ton of extra money into retirement right now with student loan debt ($53K) a car payment etc. so it will be a while before I can start saving a lot extra. And of course you have to factor in the delayed entry into the job market. i.e. I'll be 31 next month and just started my career in August.

Thankfully my university has a good retirement plan already where I have to put 5% each paycheck and they put 9% in, so I'll at least have a decent amount in that while I'm paying off other debts and not able to channel much extra money into IRAs etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dopa345']$100,000/year salary is a decent amount but it is by no means a lot of money when you take into account the cost of education it would require to get a job that paid that much.[/QUOTE]

I personally know at least 5 people without higher education that make 6 figures. Several more that are very close. It really isn't that hard, especially if you teach yourself how to program.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I personally know at least 5 people without higher education that make 6 figures. Several more that are very close. It really isn't that hard, especially if you teach yourself how to program.[/QUOTE]

And got enough experience before the market imploded.

I got mad skillz. I just need a time machine now.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I personally know at least 5 people without higher education that make 6 figures. Several more that are very close. It really isn't that hard, especially if you teach yourself how to program.[/QUOTE]

Good for your friends, but they are the exception not the rule. Very few people with only a high school diploma make six figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top