NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Blide]

Targeting employers doesn't stop illegal immigration per se since many will still come over only to find they can't work. Like Europe has the issue of people from Africa just setting up camps in the woods since they can't participate in the real economy. They might be able to do a bit of work under the table but that's not enough to live off of. It's also not enough money to return home so they just remain there as a transient population.

So while making it less beneficial for employers to hire illegal immigrants solves some problems, it creates others. It also does nothing to address issues stemming from the 14th Amendment.

 

[btrage]

Targeting employers doesn't stop illegal immigration per se since many will still come over only to find they can't work. Like Europe has the issue of people from Africa just setting up camps in the woods since they can't participate in the real economy. They might be able to do a bit of work under the table but that's not enough to live off of. It's also not enough money to return home so they just remain there as a transient population.

So while making it less beneficial for employers to hire illegal immigrants solves some problems, it creates others. It also does nothing to address issues stemming from the 14th Amendment.

We need to be actively encouraging immigration as a way to help repopulate some of our urban core cities. Michigan Governor Snyder has suggested the same for Detroit. This influx of popluation will push many urban areas' densities over the tipping point where mass transit becomes imminently more feasible, especially between major urban areas.

 

[boiker]

I brought this exact point up with Senator Grassley a few years ago. I said that all we needed to do was to make the penalties for hiring undocumented workers large enough that violators' businesses would be threatened if a large number were found on the payroll. Kill the demand kill the problem. His answer? "I agree, but that would make us look anti-business".

I noticed this provision in the AZ immigration bill. It required employers to validate legal status but issued no penalty if illegal's were "unknowingly" hired. If we can close a business for knowingly or unknowingly failing to pay taxes, why not with regard to employees?

The bill goes on with very firm enforcement against the illegal, but not against those enabling.

 

[michaelskis]

In some ways, I think it is too hard to become a US Citizen today... but in other ways, I think it is too easy. I think that the process needs to be changed to focus more on background checks and making sure that the person can effectively interact in society, and less on stuff that I think most of us would not even know, or could be up for argument. For example, how many amendments are in the constitution. Does it include the 18th since it has been repealed (THANK GOODNESS) or not?

I also think that we need to have stricter standards with illegal immigrants. It is as simple as if you are here illegally and caught, you are sent home. If you commit a crime and you are here illegally, you don't have the same protections as US citizens. I personally do not understand why someone would come to the US illegally instead of going through the proper channels. I know about 6 people who where not born in the US and came here as adults, went through the process, and are now US Citizens. Most of them know more about US history than most of the people born here.

As for the AZ immigration bill, I keep going back and forth on this one. On one hand, if the federal government secured the border, I don't think that AZ would have to deal with it as much. On the other hand, what would happen if it was some other federal crime and a local officer had reason to suspect something was wrong.

 

[ofos]

I personally do not understand why someone would come to the US illegally instead of going through the proper channels.

Go to El Paso. Look at what is on each side of the Rio Grande. Then think about people who aren't even as well off as those on the Mexican side. If I was in their place, I'd be looking to get across the border as soon as I could, no matter the risk. Do I like having all the illegal/undocumented people in my city? No. Do I understand why they come? You betcha!

 

[Blide]

Yeah, if you ever lived in a border state or have worked with people from Central America, you'd understand very quickly why they come over. They basically have no economic opportunities over there. Having a crap job illegally in the US is often far better than anything they'd find in Central America. Often times they're trying to support their families back home as well.

My biggest gripes with our current immigration policy involve the 14th Amendment and Cuba. I feel no one should have an inherent advantage in getting into the US just based on where they're from.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Go to El Paso. Look at what is on each side of the Rio Grande. Then think about people who aren't even as well off as those on the Mexican side. If I was in their place, I'd be looking to get across the border as soon as I could, no matter the risk. Do I like having all the illegal/undocumented people in my city? No. Do I understand why they come? You betcha!

All immigration from Mexico goes through the consulate in Juarez. The consulate has bullet holes in it.

Here's a good story, and the "Monica Bosquez" mentioned in the article is a former co-worker and good friend of mine. Apparently when you try to make an immigration situation "right" again, you are severely punished.

A Death in Juarez

 

[Hink]

Mandate upheld in most part... although it seems CNN went another direction.....

 

[Suburb Repairman]

View attachment 4937

Mandate upheld in most part... although it seems CNN went another direction.....

Oops! Guess they got a little quick-triggered with their website update. Real-time news = fail.

I find it interesting that Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Everyone talks about Kennedy, but I'm beginning to think Roberts is more of a swing vote. I'm very interested to read the actual opinions--apparently 110 pages:-o.

 

[Blide]

Of course Republicans are going to say Obama raised taxes now but they've been saying that all along. Bet they now regret crying wolf for the last 3 and a half years.

 

[michaelskis]

Well, it is not the first time the US Supreme court has ruled on something that I don't agree on. Heck, they did not even agree among themselves. :-c

 

[Hink]

Oops! Guess they got a little quick-triggered with their website update. Real-time news = fail.

I find it interesting that Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Everyone talks about Kennedy, but I'm beginning to think Roberts is more of a swing vote. I'm very interested to read the actual opinions--apparently 110 pages:-o.

I think Roberts realized that if he kept the pace of his conservative court, it would be looked at in the future as one of the most partisan courts ever. He didn't want his name attached to another controversial partisan opinion (i.e. Citizens United) that was decided on ideology and not law.

He will be chastised by the right, and Obama and Biden voted against his nomination, but in the end it is pretty interesting.

I think it will be interesting to read the extremely partisan views of Scalia and Alito.

 

[michaelskis]

I think Roberts realized that if he kept the pace of his conservative court, it would be looked at in the future as one of the most partisan courts ever. He didn't want his name attached to another controversial partisan opinion (i.e. Citizens United) that was decided on ideology and not law.

He will be chastised by the right, and Obama and Biden voted against his nomination, but in the end it is pretty interesting.

I think it will be interesting to read the extremely partisan views of Scalia and Alito.

Maybe you can answer how they can find that the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to do this? Unless they are calling it a Tax (which President Obama said it wasn't) there is nothing in there regrading health care.

Please note that I am not trying to argue with you, but taking politics out of the situation, I am trying to understand why they can uphold it. It is something that the states can do, but I just don't understand how the feds can do it.

And yes, there are tons of things that the republican's have done that also in violation of the constitution too.

 

[Hink]

Maybe you can answer how they can find that the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to do this? Unless they are calling it a Tax (which President Obama said it wasn't) there is nothing in there regrading health care.

Please note that I am not trying to argue with you, but taking politics out of the situation, I am trying to understand why they can uphold it. It is something that the states can do, but I just don't understand how the feds can do it.

And yes, there are tons of things that the republican's have done that also in violation of the constitution too.

It is a tax. Roberts doesn't think the commerce clause holds, he went with the 3rd argument of the government which was tax.

From the opinion:

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

 

[boiker]

Well, it is not the first time the US Supreme court has ruled on something that I don't agree on. Heck, they did not even agree among themselves. :-c

They almost never agree among themselves. Hence the typical 5-4 splits.

 

[michaelskis]

It is a tax. Roberts doesn't think the commerce clause holds, he went with the 3rd argument of the government which was tax.

From the opinion:

Ahhhh... thanks for the clarification. Damn 16th amendment.

 

[michaelskis]

It is a tax. Roberts doesn't think the commerce clause holds, he went with the 3rd argument of the government which was tax.

From the opinion:
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio

Yep... our taxes just went up...

 

[Blide]

That's only true if you decide not to have health insurance.

 

[Hink]

Yep... our taxes just went up...

And some of the hidden costs of healthcare/ insurance went down.

 

[Gedunker]

[/I]
<snip>

Yep... our taxes just went up...

I'd gladly pay more to never hear the words 'pre-existing condition' again.:not:

 

[michaelskis]

I'd gladly pay more to never hear the words 'pre-existing condition' again.:not:

Oh, there are parts of the bill that did like and that was one of them. But it was in the wrong venue... it can be a state requirement, but I still believe that with the exception of the whole tax thing, it is a violation of the 10th amendment. The other is how are we all going to pay the $900 billion to $1.1 Trillion price tag when we have accumulated $10 trillion in new debt in the past 3 years.

There are some structural issues and the abortion part, but I do think that it was done with a good heart with the intent to help people.

 

[btrage]

Oh, there are parts of the bill that did like and that was one of them. But it was in the wrong venue... it can be a state requirement, but I still believe that with the exception of the whole tax thing, it is a violation of the 10th amendment. The other is how are we all going to pay the $900 billion to $1.1 Trillion price tag when we have accumulated $10 trillion in new debt in the past 3 years.

There are some structural issues and the abortion part, but I do think that it was done with a good heart with the intent to help people.

As an industry that makes up 18% of the national economy, I would prefer the Federal government have the mandate, so the individual states can't screw it up and continue to provide for a patchwork of coverages.

 

[wahday]

And some of the hidden costs of healthcare/ insurance went down.

Exactly. I also think its important to realize that healthcare is collectively going to cost roughly the same regardless of the healthcare bill. That number is just how much it costs to deliver those services regardless of the systems used to pay it (private healthcare companies, government program, etc). And its rising fast. The question is do we heap that burden onto individuals to pay outrageous premiums and risk a large number dropping coverage altogether (which will cost us more – tax dollars are used to reimburse states for healthcare delivered to people without coverage and cannot pay themselves)? Or, as the law intends, do we spread that burden around by having everyone pay a little, pooling the resources, and covering those costs. This helps reduce the number of people who end up in emergency situations because they have no coverage, no doctor, and have been getting sicker and sicker as the result of something that is entirely preventable. That, in turn, will bring down the total cost of healthcare delivery (and this has been done at the state level and through specific programs for at rick populations like the homeless with excellent results)

Personally, I am happy to pay taxes for services I feel save us all money in the long run. And while it may be uncomfortable to some, budgeting for an entity as large as the United States cannot take the view that they need to balance the books every single year. That is just unfeasible and would make so many of our great accomplishments like massive infrastructure development completely unviable. This is what bonds are for, afterall. That part I am not particularly bothered by.

 

[Mud Princess]

I also think its important to realize that healthcare is collectively going to cost roughly the same regardless of the healthcare bill. That number is just how much it costs to deliver those services regardless of the systems used to pay it (private healthcare companies, government program, etc). And its rising fast. The question is do we heap that burden onto individuals to pay outrageous premiums and risk a large number dropping coverage altogether (which will cost us more – tax dollars are used to reimburse states for healthcare delivered to people without coverage and cannot pay themselves)? Or, as the law intends, do we spread that burden around by having everyone pay a little, pooling the resources, and covering those costs. This helps reduce the number of people who end up in emergency situations because they have no coverage, no doctor, and have been getting sicker and sicker as the result of something that is entirely preventable. That, in turn, will bring down the total cost of healthcare delivery (and this has been done at the state level and through specific programs for at rick populations like the homeless with excellent results)

Excellent point.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Oh, there are parts of the bill that did like and that was one of them. But it was in the wrong venue... it can be a state requirement, but I still believe that with the exception of the whole tax thing, it is a violation of the 10th amendment. The other is how are we all going to pay the $900 billion to $1.1 Trillion price tag when we have accumulated $10 trillion in new debt in the past 3 years.

There are some structural issues and the abortion part, but I do think that it was done with a good heart with the intent to help people.

So, it's ok that some states would have excellent health care while other states would have lousy, like environmental regulations?

 

[dandy_warhol]

So, it's ok that some states would have excellent health care while other states would have lousy, like environmental regulations?

Something like this:

 

[michaelskis]

So, it's ok that some states would have excellent health care while other states would have lousy, like environmental regulations?

Yep. Just like some states don't have an income tax, some states have lower sales taxes, some states, have lower gas taxes, some states have better roads, some states have better schools, some states, and some states have better land use and planning laws. But regardless of the state to state difference, can you show me where in the Constitution is says that they can do this, if it is not a tax? Can anyone in here? If not, it is a violation of the 10th amendment. Obama said that it is without question NOT A TAX... so it seems that it got through based on a loophole.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Yep. Just like some states don't have an income tax, some states have lower sales taxes, some states, have lower gas taxes, some states have better roads, some states have better schools, some states, and some states have better land use and planning laws. But regardless of the state to state difference, can you show me where in the Constitution is says that they can do this, if it is not a tax? Can anyone in here? If not, it is a violation of the 10th amendment. Obama said that it is without question NOT A TAX... so it seems that it got through based on a loophole.

So it's okay for people in those states to suffer.

 

[btrage]

Yep. Just like some states don't have an income tax, some states have lower sales taxes, some states, have lower gas taxes, some states have better roads, some states have better schools, some states, and some states have better land use and planning laws. But regardless of the state to state difference, can you show me where in the Constitution is says that they can do this, if it is not a tax? Can anyone in here? If not, it is a violation of the 10th amendment. Obama said that it is without question NOT A TAX... so it seems that it got through based on a loophole.

The last time I checked, families didn't go bankrupt because of income taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, the quality of roads, the quality of schools, and/or land use and planning laws. Also, the federal government IS heavily involved in the gas tax (FHWA), the quality of roads (FHWA) and the quality of schools (NCLB).

The fact of the matter is that health care as an industry makes up a significant portion of the national economy. While I agree that there may be different ways to create a better health care system, I am convinced that any policy must be enacted at the national level for it to have any serious impact.

So Obama was wrong when he said it wasn't a tax. Big deal. Clinton lied about getting blow jobs. Bush Jr. lied about WMDs. Reagan lied about Iran-Contra. Bush I lied about raising taxes. Nixon lied about Watergate. Many things are said during the course of politics. After reading some of the SCOTUS' opinions, it seems they got it right when they call it a tax. I say TAX, TAX, TAX away!!!!!

 

[Planit]

Regarless the public pays - either way.

If there is no 'Obamacare' (I hate the term) then taxpayers - us - pay for indigent care individuals.
With 'Obamacare' the taxpayers - us - pay as well in mskis so called "tax"

 

[michaelskis]

So it's okay for people in those states to suffer.

You know what, your right. But why stop with the US. Let’s go global and have one set of global laws controlled by the UN and we will do away with all individuality. Back to the question, can you point to the Right to Health Care provision in the Constitution?

The last time I checked, families didn't go bankrupt because of income taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, the quality of roads, the quality of schools, and/or land use and planning laws. Also, the federal government IS heavily involved in the gas tax (FHWA), the quality of roads (FHWA) and the quality of schools (NCLB).

Yep, your right, and most of them are not in the Constitution either. Does it make it right? NO.

The fact of the matter is that health care as an industry makes up a significant portion of the national economy. While I agree that there may be different ways to create a better health care system, I am convinced that any policy must be enacted at the national level for it to have any serious impact.

I agree, it is a significant part of our economy. My wife is an OR Nurse at a major heart center. We both agree that the system that we currently have is broken. There are parts of the bill that I like. But first, we as a nation can’t afford it, and two, the Federal Government does not have the right to do it unless it is a tax.

So Obama was wrong when he said it wasn't a tax. Big deal. Clinton lied about getting blow jobs. Bush Jr. lied about WMDs. Reagan lied about Iran-Contra. Bush I lied about raising taxes. Nixon lied about Watergate. Many things are said during the course of politics. After reading some of the SCOTUS' opinions, it seems they got it right when they call it a tax. I say TAX, TAX, TAX away!!!!!

I pointed out that both the Democrats and Republicans are idiots. But the change here is Obama sold the measure to congress saying that it was not a Tax. Now that there is definitive proof that it is, it will be interesting to see if it get repealed.

Back to the question, can you point to the Right to Health Care provision in the Constitution?

Regarless the public pays - either way.
If there is no 'Obamacare' (I hate the term) then taxpayers - us - pay for indigent care individuals.
With 'Obamacare' the taxpayers - us - pay as well in mskis so called "tax"

*Ummm the US Supreme Court called it a tax… I just agree with them. I agree the system that we have is broken and needs to be fixed. Parts of this bill would address some of those concerns. But other parts make things worse (a penalty if you don’t have insurance, which is cheaper than the insurance). Small business owners with between 50 to 100 employees are either going to need to offer insurance or pay the fines. If they pay the fines that would be the salary of several employees, who would get laid off. How well did the healthcare plan work for them?

Back to the question, can you point to the Right to Health Care provision in the Constitution? Maybe a better question is what does the 10th Amendment say?

 

[Blide]

But the change here is Obama sold the measure to congress saying that it was not a Tax. Now that there is definitive proof that it is, it will be interesting to see if it get repealed.

It wouldn't have been considered a tax under the commerce clause. It was Roberts who felt it was a tax, the other four Justices who voted with him disagreed that it was. So it's a bit disingenuous to say Obama was lying when the goal post got moved.

 

[stroskey]

I am more conservative than not, but here's my take. We have two options with people who can not or don't pay their bills. Hospitals can refuse to provide care or we can provide care to all residents. We have decided hospitals must accept all patients, regardless of their ability to pay, so we must deal with that choice. So when that happens they must make up that lost revenue elsewhere, be it lower salaries (!?) or increased costs to insured patients. Because you are insured you end up paying more for your care. The fact is we already all are forced to pay for it, albeit just a different way. So besides people don't like Obama because he's black, or a democrat, or whatever, there is no reason why this shouldn't work. In an ideal world we would all pay X% of our income (or just have a sales tax) with no loopholes, but that's not the way it works right now. I am fine for forced participation but don't like how millions will continue to get it for free.

 

[btrage]

Back to the question, can you point to the Right to Health Care provision in the Constitution? Maybe a better question is what does the 10th Amendment say?

There is no such provision.

However, the Constitution does state:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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;

No one has the "Right to Health Care". However, if the Federal government determines it is in the best interest of the country to tax those citizens who don't have insurance, it appears the Constituion allows for that.

The 10th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since Congress has the ability to Tax, I don't see how the 10th Amendment comes into play.

 

[michaelskis]

There is no such provision.

However, the Constitution does state:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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;

No one has the "Right to Health Care". However, if the Federal government determines it is in the best interest of the country to tax those citizens who don't have insurance, it appears the Constituion allows for that.

The 10th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since Congress has the ability to Tax, I don't see how the 10th Amendment comes into play.

That is my point. Obama has repeatedly said that it is not a tax. Under his view of the bill, the US Supreme Court would have found it to be unconstitutional. The only way that this passed, was it was sold as not being a tax, but being a tax is the only way that it is being constitutional. It it continues to stand, what is the limits? This lets the federal government put a mandate on anything and charge a fine if you don't comply, and just call it a tax. Everyone need to buy pet insurance, everyone needs to buy online identity insurance, everyone needs to get life insurance, everyone needs to buy and licence a bike... The Federal Government just told everyone that they (or their employer) need to buy something. There is no limits anymore.

It wouldn't have been considered a tax under the commerce clause. It was Roberts who felt it was a tax, the other four Justices who voted with him disagreed that it was. So it's a bit disingenuous to say Obama was lying when the goal post got moved.

He wrote the opinion so that is the official ruling regardless of what the others thought. There was 4 that said it was unconstitutional... but because they were the minority, the US Supreme Court said that it is.

 

[Blide]

He wrote the opinion so that is the official ruling regardless of what the others thought.

Yup which is interesting in and of itself but irrelevant to whether Obama was lying or not. The reason this case went to the Supreme Court in the first place was because there wasn't sufficient clarity on the issue. The Roberts' ruling just means Obama was "wrong", not that he was lying.

When it comes down to it, taxes, fees, and fines are all the same but they're treated differently under the law. It's an issue of semantics that both parties like to take full advantage of.

 

[btrage]

That is my point. Obama has repeatedly said that it is not a tax. Under his view of the bill, the US Supreme Court would have found it to be unconstitutional. The only way that this passed, was it was sold as not being a tax, but being a tax is the only way that it is being constitutional. It it continues to stand, what is the limits? This lets the federal government put a mandate on anything and charge a fine if you don't comply, and just call it a tax. Everyone need to buy pet insurance, everyone needs to buy online identity insurance, everyone needs to get life insurance, everyone needs to buy and licence a bike... The Federal Government just told everyone that they (or their employer) need to buy something. There is no limits anymore.

I understand your slippery slope argument.

But do you honsetly think Congress cares if we have pet insurance or life insurance or a bike license? Healh care is a big deal. Last time I checked, the "pet" or "bike" industry did not impact our national economy in the way that health care does.

 

[michaelskis]

I understand your slippery slope argument.

But do you honsetly think Congress cares if we have pet insurance or life insurance or a bike license? Healh care is a big deal. Last time I checked, the "pet" or "bike" industry did not impact our national economy in the way that health care does.

I agree that those are extreme examples and outrageous. In December of 1913, a congressman made a comment that we worried about a day where the federal income tax could get as high as 12% or 15%. He was laughed out of the chamber with other members saying that was ridiculous.

I think that health care is a big deal, but I don't think health insurance is the way to address it. What next, we get taxed on our % of body fat? That has to do with health. It is like in NYC where they want to prohibit the sale of 64oz sodas... but people can still buy two 32oz sodas...

Yup which is interesting in and of itself but irrelevant to whether Obama was lying or not. The reason this case went to the Supreme Court in the first place was because there wasn't sufficient clarity on the issue. The Roberts' ruling just means Obama was "wrong", not that he was lying.

When it comes down to it, taxes, fees, and fines are all the same but they're treated differently under the law. It's an issue of semantics that both parties like to take full advantage of.

I never said that he was lying... I said that he sold it by saying that it was not a tax. It was everyone else that said he lied. It would be less concerning if he was lying because then at least it showed that he understood. In this case, if he did not understand it is a tax, I wonder if he understands the long term ramifications of the bill and how the extra costs will do more harm to the economy than good.

 

[imaplanner]

Something like this:

View attachment 4938

great map eh!

I wonder if he understands the long term ramifications of the bill and how the extra costs will do more harm to the economy than good.

He's a crafty little devil. I have it on good authority that he understands full well the damage he is doing to the economy but he is doing it on purpose because he hates America.

 

[michaelskis]

great map eh!





He's a crafty little devil. I have it on good authority that he understands full well the damage he is doing to the economy but he is doing it on purpose because he hates America.

Funny....

:not:


Like I said before, there are parts of the bill that I like. But between the price of insurance and the fines, people will loose their jobs. I am missing the point where that is good for America.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Funny....

:not:


Like I said before, there are parts of the bill that I like. But between the price of insurance and the fines, people will loose their jobs. I am missing the point where that is good for America.

You are missing the point because you can't see beyond your ideology. That a healthier workforce is a more productive workforce. That the poor and disabled didn't always ask to be that way. They may have gotten that way because of factors beyond their control.

 

[Dan]

Dewey defeats Truman.

 

[Brocktoon]

That is my point. Obama has repeatedly said that it is not a tax. Under his view of the bill, the US Supreme Court would have found it to be unconstitutional. The only way that this passed, was it was sold as not being a tax, but being a tax is the only way that it is being constitutional. It it continues to stand, what is the limits? This lets the federal government put a mandate on anything and charge a fine if you don't comply, and just call it a tax. Everyone need to buy pet insurance, everyone needs to buy online identity insurance, everyone needs to get life insurance, everyone needs to buy and licence a bike... The Federal Government just told everyone that they (or their employer) need to buy something. There is no limits anymore.


He wrote the opinion so that is the official ruling regardless of what the others thought. There was 4 that said it was unconstitutional... but because they were the minority, the US Supreme Court said that it is.

You are not alone in your point. If you look at how the bill was written and debated in Congress it was under the Constitutional provision of the commerce clause. From my understanding it highly unsual for the Court to find another reason outside the rationale of Congress during debate to uphold the law. However that argument was made both on the floor of Congress and during arguments at the Supreme Court. But you are right the penalty was never explicitly called a tax.

Four members of the court accepted that argument but these four and a fifth also made the interpretation that the penalty under the ACA functions as a tax which is something Congress can impose the $95 a year tax on people for not having health insurance.

Personally, I accepted the commerce clause argument. If you say that a motel owner cannot discriminate against people based upon color because their business affects interstate commerce (Heart of Atlanta Motel v US) then given this broad interpretation of the commerce clause I could see how health insurance is also under this purview.

 

[Richmond Jake]

Another Vietnam-era draft dodger...from Wiki.

You go, Willard.

(Mitt) Romney had missed much of the tumultuous American anti-Vietnam War movement while away, and was surprised to learn that his father had turned against the effort during his unsuccessful 1968 presidential campaign.[32] Regarding the military draft, Romney had initially received two 2-S student deferments, then, like most Mormon missionaries, a 4-D ministerial deferment while in France, and then two more student deferments.[27][48] When those ran out, his high number in the December 1969 draft lottery (300) ensured he would not be selected.[27][48][49]

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

 

[michaelskis]

You are missing the point because you can't see beyond your ideology. That a healthier workforce is a more productive workforce. That the poor and disabled didn't always ask to be that way. They may have gotten that way because of factors beyond their control.

You are, I am missing the point. I guess I can not see past the idea of a small business owner having to lay people off because they need to pay fees because it is cheaper than paying the insurance. You are correct, a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. But I doubt that they are the ones without insurance right now.

Many of the homes people that ask me if I have any cash are not going to clean up their act and go out and be a productive member of society just because the government is going to offer them healthcare.

 

[imaplanner]

You are, I am missing the point. I guess I can not see past the idea of a small business owner having to lay people off because they need to pay fees because it is cheaper than paying the insurance. You are correct, a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. But I doubt that they are the ones without insurance right now.

Many of the homes people that ask me if I have any cash are not going to clean up their act and go out and be a productive member of society just because the government is going to offer them healthcare.

I think that businesses under 50 employees are exempt from that provision. But I can see larger businesses making hiring decisions based on this and some job losses occuring. That said, businesses will do what is in their best interest. If they need employees they need employees.

We have two options with people who can not or don't pay their bills. Hospitals can refuse to provide care or we can provide care to all residents. We have decided hospitals must accept all patients, regardless of their ability to pay, so we must deal with that choice. So when that happens they must make up that lost revenue elsewhere, be it lower salaries (!?) or increased costs to insured patients. Because you are insured you end up paying more for your care. The fact is we already all are forced to pay for it, albeit just a different way. So besides people don't like Obama because he's black, or a democrat, or whatever, there is no reason why this shouldn't work. In an ideal world we would all pay X% of our income (or just have a sales tax) with no loopholes, but that's not the way it works right now. I am fine for forced participation but don't like how millions will continue to get it for free.

I agree with this for the most part, except I actually disagree with the forced participation in a private market. Throw in a public option and I would be happy. Requiring people to buy a private product is something that really irks me.

 

[btrage]

I agree with this for the most part, except I actually disagree with the forced participation in a private market. Throw in a public option and I would be happy. Requiring people to buy a private product is something that really irks me.

Well if the SCOTUS didn't rule that money equals free speech, perhaps the insurance companies wouldn't be able to line the pockets of Congress.

The lack of trying to push the single-payer, public option is the primary reason I dislike the Obama presidency.

That being said, this may be the first step towards that. I wonder what will happen when the private market realizes that making money off the health of citizens is no longer as profitable as it once used to be.

 

[Hink]

That being said, this may be the first step towards that. I wonder what will happen when the private market realizes that making money off the health of citizens is no longer as profitable as it once used to be.

It is still incredibly profitable. Until government deals with the causes of increased healthcare costs with worse outcomes we aren't going to fix much of anything. Here are the issues that actually need to be addressed:

- tests being performed that aren't needed but are "expected"
- defensive medicine - over prescribing, over dictating, and covering your ass at the expensive of the time and money of the patient
- tort reform - until doctors are protected the costs will continue to rise - no other profession is expected to get it right every time - people make mistakes and until they are protected from some of those mistakes, there will be fewer doctors and higher costs. Alternatively if it was loser pays, that would fix a lot of the problems and frivolous lawsuits.
- Medicare/medicaid reimbursements - If the cost is 100, and insurance will pay 50, and medicare will only pay 20 how is that sustainable for the medical professionals? What that does is force overall costs higher to cover costs. So now the cost is 140, insurance will pay 100, and medicare/caid will pay 60. It is a very unsustainable system.... as we have seen.

The answer starts with education about the system. If people really understood why medical billing is done the way it is done, they would realize the need for reform. Your $20 Tylenol is paying for a lot. It isn't just the hospital screwing you. EMTALA requires that EVERYONE be seen in an Emergency room. What this does is create a free healthcare clinic for those without insurance. To cover that forced cost by the government, hospitals then spread out their loses over the entire patient population. Which ends up adding $15 to your Tylenol. There are lots of other reasons that the hospital has to increase costs on those with insurance, mainly due to the unreasonably low medicare/medicaid reimbursement rates.

The system is still broken. Obama tried to put a couple sticks over the rushing river. Without looking at the costs, doctor protections, and government requirements on the healthcare system, we are going to continue to deal with this flood of issues.

 

[jsk1983]

Dewey defeats Truman.

So will this screenshot be a collectable some day?

 

[Mud Princess]

Many of the home[les]s people that ask me if I have any cash are not going to clean up their act and go out and be a productive member of society just because the government is going to offer them healthcare.

*soapbox on*

May I suggest the following: Walk a Mile in Someone's Shoes

I'm so tired of the blame-the-victim mentality in politics today. Empathy and compassion are associated with the much-maligned "bleeding heart liberal," as if there is something wrong with it. But I've known too many people in dire circumstances due to factors beyond their control, including major or chronic health problems. Try not to judge them so harshly.

*soapbox off*