Originally Posted by Deb C

Comment: It would be gratifying poetic irony if conservative legislators and conservative judges pushed us into single payer reform by either repealing or ruling unconstitutional the individual mandate.

The strange thing is, I can see the legal argument for striking down the "individual mandate" to purchase a private product. To my knowledge there is no other private sector product that the government forces citizens to buy (auto insurance doesn't count since you don't HAVE to buy it, you just can't legally drive if you don't).

But yes, this would more or less force 'single payer' or the 'public option for all' as the way around it. So in killing this, the Right might be planting the seeds for something that's even more anathema to them. Interesting times.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

The strange thing is, I can see the legal argument for striking down the "individual mandate" to purchase a private product. To my knowledge there is no other private sector product that the government forces citizens to buy (auto insurance doesn't count since you don't HAVE to buy it, you just can't legally drive if you don't).

I dunno, you don't *have* to buy insurance either. You just get taxed if you don't.

What I see as the big downfall here is that the federal government doesn't have the same authority as state governments. The feds can only do this as long as they're regulating interstate commerce, but the insurance industry is decidedly not interstate. If the bill had, in it's original house form, created a national health exchange, this wouldn't be a problem, but as it is, the feds basically reinforced that health insurance is a state-by-state commercial activity, and completely screwed itself with regards to the constitutionality, since they're obviously not regulating interstate commerce: at least not by the modern standards of what that means.

But yes, this would more or less force 'single payer' or the 'public option for all' as the way around it. So in killing this, the Right might be planting the seeds for something that's even more anathema to them. Interesting times.

Yeah, I can definitely see this bill being declared unconstitutional in part (and the only part that even had the potential of lowering costs) and it leading to the left having renewed vigor to get a comprehensive system in a couple years.

Still, I think it will take Obama losing the national election for the left to get back to the drawing board. He's done for.

The reason car insurance is OK but a mandated purchase of health care is not is simple.

You do not need to purchase a car to live.

The health care mandate requires you to purchase a service just for being alive.

That is not right, you shouldn't be required by law to purchase something just for being alive.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

That is not right, you shouldn't be required by law to purchase something just for being alive.

How is that any different from taxes?

When I learned about the proposals for HCR early on, I was very excited about the public option. The reason being that I knew that, properly managed, the public option could grow into a single-payer plan. It was single-payer by the back door, since a for-profit insurance company couldn't possibly compete with it. Making Medicare available to everyone on a buy-in basis would over time mean the end of private health insurance as we know it and the beginning of a rational health-care system.

I was disappointed that the public option didn't make it into the ACA, but knew that passing any sort of comprehensive HCR, however flawed, would mean that we would eventually have a single-payer system, whereas failure of the bill would delay things for years longer.

The reason is that now the precedent has been set. Health care is seen as a right. Congress has passed a law essentially saying that; saying that it's the government's job to ensure that everyone has access to health care and nobody can be denied. Since the only thing that can actually accomplish that is a single-payer system, that's what we will eventually have -- this new precedent, this new expectation, requires it.

It really doesn't matter whether the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional or not, or whether it's repealed or not. The ACA as constructed, including the individual mandate, is inadequate and pressure for more reform will only grow. That's why I wanted to see the bill passed, despite its flaws. Its passage set the precedent that guaranteeing health care is the government's job. Its failure would have set the precedent to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Silifi

How is that any different from taxes?

You have to be doing something to pay taxes - have a job, buy something, have income, etc. It is possible to live in a subsistence way and never have any of these things. It is possible not to pay any taxes at all.

For HCR, all you have to be doing is breathing and you have to buy insurance. I cannot understand the comments from the left that the court challenges are frivolous. From what I understand of our system, these court challenges are a slam dunk to win. I would be interested in those who make a legal argument otherwise.

Keep in mind, I am for single payer.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

When I learned about the proposals for HCR early on, I was very excited about the public option. The reason being that I knew that, properly managed, the public option could grow into a single-payer plan. It was single-payer by the back door, since a for-profit insurance company couldn't possibly compete with it. Making Medicare available to everyone on a buy-in basis would over time mean the end of private health insurance as we know it and the beginning of a rational health-care system.

I was disappointed that the public option didn't make it into the ACA, but knew that passing any sort of comprehensive HCR, however flawed, would mean that we would eventually have a single-payer system, whereas failure of the bill would delay things for years longer.

The reason is that now the precedent has been set. Health care is seen as a right. Congress has passed a law essentially saying that; saying that it's the government's job to ensure that everyone has access to health care and nobody can be denied. Since the only thing that can actually accomplish that is a single-payer system, that's what we will eventually have -- this new precedent, this new expectation, requires it.

It really doesn't matter whether the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional or not, or whether it's repealed or not. The ACA as constructed, including the individual mandate, is inadequate and pressure for more reform will only grow. That's why I wanted to see the bill passed, despite its flaws. Its passage set the precedent that guaranteeing health care is the government's job. Its failure would have set the precedent to the contrary.

Nice and optimistic. I like it.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

For HCR, all you have to be doing is breathing and you have to buy insurance. I cannot understand the comments from the left that the court challenges are frivolous. From what I understand of our system, these court challenges are a slam dunk to win. I would be interested in those who make a legal argument otherwise.

Keep in mind, I am for single payer.

Most of us who have been working for single payer, could see from the beginning that the mandate was merely a windfall for the insurance industry. Not to mention that it meant more citizen money subsidizing that giveaway. And, the insurance that was to be purchased were usually junk policies. Meaning that these instruments had extremely high deductibles and co-pays that would make any holder of that policy hesitant to seek care when they were sick.

So when it appears that we think the court action is frivolous, it's because even if they strike down the mandate, it isn't a real lose.

We had to destroy the healthcare system to save it...

Next 1T?

Originally Posted by James50

You have to be doing something to pay taxes - have a job, buy something, have income, etc. It is possible to live in a subsistence way and never have any of these things. It is possible not to pay any taxes at all.

Is it practically possible to never pay taxes?

I suppose if you lived a complete nomadic lifestyle, it would be. Maybe. You'd have to get everything from charity, couldn't use money except in personal exchanges, and could own no property beyond the clothes on your back.

For HCR, all you have to be doing is breathing and you have to buy insurance.

I'm not quite sure it works that way.

Something tells me homeless guy on the street isn't going to be expected to buy insurance.

I cannot understand the comments from the left that the court challenges are frivolous. From what I understand of our system, these court challenges are a slam dunk to win. I would be interested in those who make a legal argument otherwise.

Keep in mind, I am for single payer.

James50

Again, I do think the court challenges will prevail, but not simply because of the mandate. The mandate will fail, I would guess, not based on the forced purchasing of insurance, but on the interstate commerce clause. That they are regulating a business transaction that is not interstate, and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

This is something the right four justices (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas) would agree on, and something that Kennedy might sway on due to the particular invasiveness of the individual mandate. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the first big shift in the understanding of the commerce clause since the 1930s.

Originally Posted by Silifi

This is something the right four justices (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas) would agree on, and something that Kennedy might sway on due to the particular invasiveness of the individual mandate.

Indeed, as will often be the case with the current makeup of the court, as goes Justice Kennedy, so goes the decision.

Anyone else remember the days when Republican Court nominees often sided with the liberals? Warren (appointed by Eisenhower) and Stevens (appointed by Ford) come to mind. These days you wouldn't see that happen since the presidents doing the appointments (D or R) wouldn't stand for it, so I guess the court is positioned for the 4T along ideologically polarized lines as well.

Taxes are very different from forcing to private entities into commercial contract. Which has happened a lot an I am not a fan

Anyway, taxes are a social contract you agree to by remaining a citizen you agree to pay taxes and obey the law in return for the protections and services the government provides to us all. (protection, clean water, roads mainly). When the government starts providing extra to others, or promoting one group financially over another I get upset with it. That is not for this thread though. I have found the boomers don't usually understand my point with this, because they always assume this form of power will be used to change society in a way they prefer. Which is why government power is used in social engineering and has for many decades.

HCR mandate is wrong because it is forcing you to purchase a service from a private company. It is not a pay-we-all-benefit- tax; it would be like the government requiring us all to by food from supermarkets. Sure we all need food to survive but if I choose to grow my own food or use a different method to get food, who is the government to force me to buy from Safeway? They wouldn't and they shouldn't.

This whole mandate is exactly the type of thing that highlights what is really wrong in this country. The union of government and business to the detriment of our society. Many wanted health care reform, and what we got was a bastardized bill that made you required to purchase something from insurance companies. And people still think that the legislators have your interests in mind Ha!

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Indeed, as will often be the case with the current makeup of the court, as goes Justice Kennedy, so goes the decision.

Anyone else remember the days when Republican Court nominees often sided with the liberals? Warren (appointed by Eisenhower) and Stevens (appointed by Ford) come to mind. These days you wouldn't see that happen since the presidents doing the appointments (D or R) wouldn't stand for it, so I guess the court is positioned for the 4T along ideologically polarized lines as well.

Well, they pretty much were liberals.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

Taxes are very different from forcing to private entities into commercial contract. Which has happened a lot an I am not a fan

You aren't forced into a commercial contract, you either get a contract or you pay a tax.

Think of it this way: everyone has to pay the health care tax but those who buy insurance are exempt.

Anyway, taxes are a social contract you agree to by remaining a citizen you agree to pay taxes and obey the law in return for the protections and services the government provides to us all. (protection, clean water, roads mainly).

when did I sign that again

When the government starts providing extra to others, or promoting one group financially over another I get upset with it.

All government actions promote one group over another. It's kind of the point.

That is not for this thread though. I have found the boomers don't usually understand my point with this, because they always assume this form of power will be used to change society in a way they prefer. Which is why government power is used in social engineering and has for many decades.

Again, all governments at all times use social engineering. Every outlay of rules-to-be-followed carries with it social consequences. The only difference between now and a century ago is the precision of the social engineering.

HCR mandate is wrong because it is forcing you to purchase a service from a private company. It is not a pay-we-all-benefit- tax; it would be like the government requiring us all to by food from supermarkets. Sure we all need food to survive but if I choose to grow my own food or use a different method to get food, who is the government to force me to buy from Safeway? They wouldn't and they shouldn't.

No, it would be like the government telling you that you have to pay a tax but that's you're exempt from the tax.

Both are silly and counterproductive, but there's nothing particularly odd about them. You get tax exemptions for all sorts of things nowadays, like getting married or having kids or whatever.

The judge in VA is a piece of work. The government can't ask people to pay for health coverage? Anyone heard of medicare? Ronald Reagan made the same objection to Medicare. His ideological clones are making the same objection to this mild, moderate health reform law now.

Again, I do think the court challenges will prevail, but not simply because of the mandate. The mandate will fail, I would guess, not based on the forced purchasing of insurance, but on the interstate commerce clause. That they are regulating a business transaction that is not interstate, and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Good point, but aren't most of the insurance companies interstate?

So far the judges are 2 to 1 in favor of the health reform law. We'll see what Kennedy decides.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good point, but aren't most of the insurance companies interstate?

I was under the impression that there are no interstate insurance pools. There are companies that manage plans in multiple states, but this is an administrative thing, not putting customers from one state into the same risk pool as customers from another state.

Or at least, that's what I've presumed based on the fact that every insurance provider I've ever had was state specific, and there was lots of talk about people being able to buy insurance across state lines: implying they currently can't.

My friend Kevin, who is the president of Voters For Peace and has worked for years for a health care for all, says, "Looks like another federal judge is about to rule against the health insurance mandate. Bravo. The government should not be allowed to force Americans to spend 10% of their income on corrupt insurance policies. Enough of this corporate-state!"

Health Law May Be Unconstitutional, Florida Judge Says
www.nytimes.com

A federal judge hinted that he might be the second to rule against the new health law...

This is the direct link to 'Health Law May Be Unconstitutional, Florida Judge Says'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/us...%20care&st=cse

Originally Posted by Silifi

You aren't forced into a commercial contract, you either get a contract or you pay a tax.

How is that not force?

Originally Posted by Silifi

Think of it this way: everyone has to pay the health care tax but those who buy insurance are exempt.

again...that is using force to make people buy something. The tax is a punishment for not purchasing a service from a private entity. You see nothing wrong with that?

Originally Posted by Silifi

when did I sign that again

When you continued to live and pay taxes here.

Originally Posted by Silifi

All government actions promote one group over another. It's kind of the point.

That is not the point of a government. Holy Christ where did you develop such a backwards view of the point of government? The point of the government is to ensure nobody kills, rapes, or steals from you. It also ensures public safety (fireman, military). The government is also used as a tool to ensure other forms of collective good depending on what current times demand. It is supposed to do these things equally for all, with equal justice under the law. Supporting one group over another is not equal justice under the law. That is social engineering. Our government practices it a lot. And it shouldn't because it is not the place of the government to mold society, it is societies job to mold the government.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Again, all governments at all times use social engineering. Every outlay of rules-to-be-followed carries with it social consequences. The only difference between now and a century ago is the precision of the social engineering.

It is unfortunate that we can never live in a free society. People are to afraid of one another.

Originally Posted by Silifi

No, it would be like the government telling you that you have to pay a tax but that's you're exempt from the tax.

Both are silly and counterproductive, but there's nothing particularly odd about them. You get tax exemptions for all sorts of things nowadays, like getting married or having kids or whatever.

As I said before the tax is a punishment. A punishment which is backed by the ultimate in physical force, the military and armed incarceration. I understand you like the idea of national healthcare. Forcing someone to purchase a service from some other private entity is not the way to do it. It is overly subversive to the bill of rights and is a dangerous precedent. It is not a reasonable mean to a HCR end.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

How is that not force?

Oh, it is, I'm just saying your supposed difference between this force and everything else the government forces you to do is rather spurious.

again...that is using force to make people buy something. The tax is a punishment for not purchasing a service from a private entity. You see nothing wrong with that?

I see no difference between this and any other social engineering that the government engages in every day.

When you continued to live and pay taxes here.

Because I had such excellent alternatives...

That is not the point of a government. Holy Christ where did you develop such a backwards view of the point of government? The point of the government is to ensure nobody kills, rapes, or steals from you. It also ensures public safety (fireman, military). The government is also used as a tool to ensure other forms of collective good depending on what current times demand.

You do realize that all of these things have the effect of promoting one group over the other, right?

Any kind of government program comes with inherent biases. If the role of the government is to protect property, then it favors those with property to those without it. If the government protects people's lives, then it favors those who are unable to physically defend themselves. Government's role is a question of who gets what, when, and how.

It is supposed to do these things equally for all, with equal justice under the law. Supporting one group over another is not equal justice under the law. That is social engineering. Our government practices it a lot. And it shouldn't because it is not the place of the government to mold society, it is societies job to mold the government.

Even doing things "equally for all" can produce inequal results. Again, if the government protects private property, especially land, this is social engineering. You're allowing someone to accumulate wealth without possessing the necessary resources to hold it. You allow individuals to accumulate vast amounts of property that, as a matter of practicality, they could never hold in absence of a government. The United States, and more or less every country, has always done this, and the effect has been the creation of extremely wealthy individuals that would not have existed otherwise. That is a bias in favor of one group over another.

There is no escaping that this is what government does. It doesn't have to specify what group gets what, the nature of the laws themselves, even if applied equally to all, cause certain groups to be favored.

It is unfortunate that we can never live in a free society. People are to afraid of one another.

Yeah, probably. But it's important to realize that things have always been this way, it's not some modern invention.

As I said before the tax is a punishment. A punishment which is backed by the ultimate in physical force, the military and armed incarceration. I understand you like the idea of national healthcare. Forcing someone to purchase a service from some other private entity is not the way to do it. It is overly subversive to the bill of rights and is a dangerous precedent. It is not a reasonable mean to a HCR end.

Oh boy you've misread me...

I didn't say that I favored this method of universal health care. What I said was that the HCR law is not something out of the ordinary. It is merely an additional part to a system of taxes and exemptions. There is nothing uniquely unjust about it.

Again, other exemptions can be framed in the same way.

If you don't get married, you have to pay more in taxes.

Is that forcing people to get married? Not really.

The only difference is in how we frame the mechanism. A mere switcheroo of words without changing the substantive formula, and the law becomes an tax exemption for purchasing health insurance. Everyone has to pay this tax, but if you buy insurance, you're exempt.

This is how the Pentagon treats the troops that they made so many promises to during their recruitment?

Pentagon Health Plan Won’t Cover Brain-Damage Therapy for Troops

http://act.commondreams.org/go/3615?...06.dVBPxy&t=14

What next? Will they start deciding that the things they're covering now are too expensive to treat? Will we go back to wounded veterans sitting on the roadside begging? Then how are they going to get recruits, revive the press gang?

P.S. Yes. I know that's a "slippery slope" argument.That doesn't make it necessarily false any more than it's necessarily true. But possible? You bet!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

What next? Will they start deciding that the things they're covering now are too expensive to treat? Will we go back to wounded veterans sitting on the roadside begging? Then how are they going to get recruits, revive the press gang?

P.S. Yes. I know that's a "slippery slope" argument.That doesn't make it necessarily false any more than it's necessarily true. But possible? You bet!

I warned Chris S. and Glick about this. Look at all the VA scandals to date. This is only the beginning.

Originally Posted by Poodle

I warned Chris S. and Glick about this. Look at all the VA scandals to date. This is only the beginning.

I have a claim in right now. It should be complete by mid-January. I'll report back on the results.

Of course, my claim is minor. I lost no limbs, and I still have my faculties (as far as I can tell). On my last trip to the VA Hospital, I saw far too many far less lucky than me.

Originally Posted by Poodle

I warned Chris S. and Glick about this. Look at all the VA scandals to date. This is only the beginning.

A Gen X friend of mine who was over in Lebanon knows full well the VA scandals. What he had to do in order to get benefits from his service is just dispicable.

~Chas'88