Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The government has the power to tax the people. The mandate essentially says that you will be taxed to provide a service (health care) if you don't already have a plan to help cover the costs of healthcare. It is essentially a tax. All arguments against it would also have to be applied to taxes and those arguments would fall apart in a court of law.

Lets change the wording of the law:

There will be a $4,000 dollar tax on each individual. You and the rest of society will be provided healthcare in return. If you already have healthcare insurance you can opt out of the tax upon proving you have it and you won't receive the service.

Meh, I don't know the US constitution but it does seem to me that Obama's plan is quite retarded and possibly unconstitutional, though I don't know the details of it really.
But I keep hearing this "mandatory purchase of health insurance" deal and that doesn't sound alright by me.

But at the same time, how is it really different than an income tax?
That's been ruled constitutional again and again and it basically forces you to spend money on things you may or may not want.

It would seem pretty clumsy of Obama's team to have crafted the reform in a way that isn't constitutional when they could have done it like they do the military, for instance.
I just assume they're not that stupid but who knows! They fuck up so much, it wouldn't be that surprising if they were tricked into making their pussy-ass healthcare reform unconstitutional by the Republicans.

Pox, its a pretty shitty plan compared to what it could have been, but it has things in it that are good.

Such as, you can't turn someone down for health insurance. Or, you can't charge extra due to pre-existing conditions.

In the end, I'm hoping this legislation just turns into motivation for doing it right once and for all. I don't think anyone is happy right now, but they also aren't going to be able to take away certain parts of the bill without out pissing off large portions of the population. So, we're at the point now where we can talk about what we actually want instead of whether there will be 'death panels'.

As far as the mandate. I'm not really happy with it, but it certainly forces people to care. So, I'm not that upset by it either.

Here's the deal: Nearly everyone loves the part of the Health Care Plan that says that you can't be turned down due to pre-existing condition or be dropped by insurers because of high risk. So those with congenital heart defects or diabetes or whatever now can actually get decent health coverage and not have to file bankruptcy every few years because their local public health coverage doesn't cover $700,000 worth of heart surgery, hospital stays, rehabilitation and a $2,000/month worth of prescriptions.

But, if you can't be turned down, then what is to stop someone from not buying health insurance until they absolutely need it (for the extreme hyperbolic example: with your blackberry while in the ambulance on the way to the hospital) then dropping it again once they're clear. That would cost insurance companies millions of dollars a year, which they would pass on to customers resulting in a huge raise in premiums.

So congress tried to fix this by requiring everyone to buy insurance, which will spread the burden, put everyone into the insurance pool and probably LOWER premiums across the board. People can opt out of purchasing insurance by paying a fine (tax).

Without this context, just looking at the statement "The government is making people purchase a product. They are legislating against inaction." seems perfectly ridiculous, and the idea that congress is overstepping it's powers via the commerce clause making it unconstitutional seems like a no-brainer. But think of it this way: we're already paying for it. We already have mandated taxpayer-funded health care in the form of emergency rooms. People cannot be turned away, and those who are there without insurance often get it while there in order to help pay for their care. We the Peeps already pay for this, and Helath insurance is, indeed, unlike every other product on the market for the simple fact that noone can ever say he or she will never need it.

At some point in your life, unless you land in the top 1-5% of wage earners, you will need insurance to pay for a medical event at some time in your life. And you never know when that will be. SInce we already pay for it, why not pay LESS, and get a better system? If this one, narrow part of the bill gets struck down, much of the rest of the bill falls apart.

Personally, I think the judge saw that there could be a better way to word the law in order to resolve the conflict between mandating coverage and mandating purchase, knew it would be a case likely to head to the SCotUS, and ruled it unconstitutional just so it would go that far. As the most controversial part of the Bill, this one issue will be the likely legal sticking point, and dismissing or ruling constitutional the bill would have harmed it's chances of getting to the SCotUS, I think he probably saw it as a good idea to speed the journey by making a splashy ruling, and almost guaranteeing a trip to the highest court.

While I disagree with his ruling, I believe it was the right ruling for him to make (if that makes any sense).

At 12/15/10 09:45 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Personally, I think the judge saw that there could be a better way to word the law in order to resolve the conflict between mandating coverage and mandating purchase,

Yeah, who HAS to purchase it?
There's got to be some kind of salary / income guide for this, you can't round up hobos and inmates and go "well you didn't buy your insurance quota for this year, so now we'll fine you MORE money you don't have!".

That's just ... obviously crazy...

While I disagree with his ruling, I believe it was the right ruling for him to make (if that makes any sense).

I like to think he's just a hateful asshole who was bought by lobbyists instead of a master strategist...
Yeah... : D
I mean, can't prove it either way, right? So what's more likely....

At 12/15/10 07:22 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: The government has the power to tax the people. The mandate essentially says that you will be taxed to provide a service (health care) if you don't already have a plan to help cover the costs of healthcare.

Yeah.....

At 12/15/10 05:29 AM, Memorize wrote: "If the Government determined that the sun causes skin cancer, could it then order its populace to go to the store and buy a hat?"

It's not hard to figure out. Point being that the pro-obamacare side doesn't even have an argument.

But that's not the content of the post your responding to. Nor is it really even the point of what the OP was talking about. The point was whether or not this judge has a conflict of interest in this matter and should have recused himself rather then hearing the case and making a ruling. But I know, when it contains words like "Obama" you only really seem to have a few specific arguments you trot out for every topic on it either just to cause shit, or because you can't be bothered to grasp that there might be different parts to an issue.

At 12/15/10 10:44 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/15/10 07:22 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: The government has the power to tax the people. The mandate essentially says that you will be taxed to provide a service (health care) if you don't already have a plan to help cover the costs of healthcare.

Yeah.....

Pretty much. I think there's a stronger argument to say that mandatory auto insurance is a form of taxation than there is for what Obama is saying in that video. Of course, politicians will never admit that a new tax actually is a new tax. The legal oddity here is that it's technically not a tax, so it can't be treated as one.

My guess is that this ruling has done nothing more than give the bill's supporters a few months to find some goofball precedents that say the government's allowed to make you buy stuff.

At 12/15/10 06:18 PM, Elfer wrote: Pretty much. I think there's a stronger argument to say that mandatory auto insurance is a form of taxation than there is for what Obama is saying in that video. Of course, politicians will never admit that a new tax actually is a new tax. The legal oddity here is that it's technically not a tax, so it can't be treated as one.

My guess is that this ruling has done nothing more than give the bill's supporters a few months to find some goofball precedents that say the government's allowed to make you buy stuff.

At the same time there is no requirement that people purchase health care. It is actually just a requirement that you have health care. For some people that healthcare is provided before they are even given a paycheck, by their employees. Other people get their insurance through charities, I'm sure. The mandate is that you have insurance, not that you must buy it.

And as odd as that argument sounds since most people will have to buy it or pay for a part of it, you can't truly say the government is taking your property. And further, if you are purchasing an item there is an assumption of an exchange of value. Which means that you are technically gaining something, and the government itself is not taking your property. Moreover, do you actually own your money, or is it the property of the U.S. government? After all there is a penalty for destroying U.S. currency, even currency that is "yours."

As far as it not being a tax. Its not technically a tax if you speed on a road either. Its a fine. And fines are perfectly legal and have been for a long time. While in my personal opinion this is very much like a tax, you can justify it from a legal standpoint many different ways.

At 12/15/10 07:12 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: While in my personal opinion this is very much like a tax, you can justify it from a legal standpoint many different ways.

Please do.

At 12/15/10 07:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/15/10 07:12 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: While in my personal opinion this is very much like a tax, you can justify it from a legal standpoint many different ways.

Please do.

I guarantee that you will see some very interesting and probably clever justifications from actual lawyers during the appeal.

At 12/15/10 07:12 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: The mandate is that you have insurance, not that you must buy it.

It's pretty much the same thing. If you're covered by an employer or other agency, great, but if you're not, you are compelled to purchase it or find someone who will cover you.

you can't truly say the government is taking your property.

Of course not. The government is merely granting insurance companies the right to take your property.

And further, if you are purchasing an item there is an assumption of an exchange of value. Which means that you are technically gaining something, and the government itself is not taking your property.

This is assuming that the piece of paper you receive in return has equal "value." Since value is relative, you may or may not be gaining something out of the government-mandated exchange.

Suppose that the government is forcing everyone to buy a peanut butter sandwich -- what if you don't like (or are allergic to) peanut butter? The sandwich would not have the same value to you as it might to someone else. If you were able to sell that sandwich to someone else, there is no guarantee that you will profit from the exchange -- the person might buy it for the same or lower price from you than what you had originally paid for.

Since a sandwich is not a terribly liquid commodity and would be of no use to you otherwise, you are not getting your money's worth. Insurance is only valuable when you need it, and there is no guarantee that you will need it -- and on top of that you can't even trade it. Therefore, even if it might be beneficial to have insurance, it is not necessarily beneficial for the individual to be mandated to purchase it.

Moreover, do you actually own your money, or is it the property of the U.S. government? After all there is a penalty for destroying U.S. currency, even currency that is "yours."

You do not actually own the physical store of value, but rather the value therein itself.

Ownership is a tenuous concept. I own my currency insofar as I can do whatever I want with it in the privacy of my own home. If I plan to use it fraudulently outside my house, that would be an entirely different thing altogether.

As far as it not being a tax. Its not technically a tax if you speed on a road either. Its a fine. And fines are perfectly legal and have been for a long time.

So essentially you'd be punished for not buying insurance? Does that make it better?

While in my personal opinion this is very much like a tax, you can justify it from a legal standpoint many different ways.

Why not just raise taxes directly instead of dancing around the point? Or simply just nationalize health care?

At 12/27/10 12:11 PM, KemCab wrote: So essentially you'd be punished for not buying insurance? Does that make it better?

Since the other alternative is that no one gets fined and the government picks up the tab with no tax assistance, its better than nothing. However, I'm not very much in favor of the current plan. So better is not a word I care about. I believe it is legal.

Why not just raise taxes directly instead of dancing around the point? Or simply just nationalize health care?

In response to the first; because, then, why have health insurance (raising taxes without creating a better option sounds bad to me)?

In response to the second: Indeed.

At 12/27/10 12:25 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 12/27/10 12:11 PM, KemCab wrote: So essentially you'd be punished for not buying insurance? Does that make it better?

Since the other alternative is that no one gets fined and the government picks up the tab with no tax assistance, its better than nothing. However, I'm not very much in favor of the current plan. So better is not a word I care about. I believe it is legal.

But if people choose not to be covered, isn't that their own problem then? What is the point in penalizing people for opting out of a plan?

In response to the first; because, then, why have health insurance (raising taxes without creating a better option sounds bad to me)?

Well, of course I mean providing better healthcare with the additional consequence of increased costs in the form of taxes.

Nice, he essentially just shot himself in the foot. Whether or not his judgment was made because of any bias he may or may not have doesn't even matter at this point. Its going to be a breeze to get his ruling appealed on the simple point that he should have never been a part of the process at all.

At 12/27/10 12:58 PM, KemCab wrote: Well, of course I mean providing better healthcare with the additional consequence of increased costs in the form of taxes.

Because people view any form of tax increase as a terrible thing, regardless of whether or not it actually is. Raising taxes to pay for it would be straightforward, but bad political posturing.