Missouri Prop C: Health Care Freedom Act

[Enderw24]

If you live outside Missouri and haven't yet heard about this, I don't blame you. It's really not getting much attention outside Missouri.

If you live inside Missouri and haven't yet heard about this, I don't blame you either. It's also not getting much attention anywhere in the state.

Prop C, stemming from HB 1764, aims to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and bans punishment for those without health insurance. It was slid into the Legislative agenda at the end of the session and then breezed through the House and Senate.
It's basically an FU to the Federal government and the health care legislation passed earlier this year. If Prop C passes, it will be run through the court system for the next several years (at considerable taxpayer expense) before it's ultimately declared Unconstitutional. There's pretty much no way around it. It's in direct violation of Federal law.
But that's not the point. The point is to attempt to circumvent for however long it's possible any and all timelines set up by the Health care reform legislation. First up: the September deadline to get children under 26 years of age onto some form of health insurance and not deny them for pre-existing conditions.

Over the next several years this will affect hundreds of thousands of Missourians.

And here's the classy part. Like CA's Prop 8, this is phrased to be the opposite of what you'd expect. Are you FOR health care reform? Vote AGAINST this then.

Here's some pretty neutral information on this:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Health_Care_Freedom,_Proposition_C_(2010)
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Proposition_C_(2010),_full_text

It goes up for vote on the August 3rd election so go out and vote!

[Simplicio]

I can't really see how this will do anything. IIRC, the penalties for ignoring the mandate were administered by the IRS. I don't really see how a Missouri law is going to keep the IRS from assessing those penalties or treating people who refuse to pay as tax-evaders.

I imagine a few Missourians will try and use the law to justify not paying, and end up sharing a cell-block with Wesley Snipes. For everyone else, meh.

[Frank]

It's meaningless and will have no effect.

It's pretty much a given that it will pass. Primary turnout for Republicans is expected to be much greater than for Democrats.

Which is another thing! Why in the world does Missouri allow stuff like this on the ballot in what is otherwise a simple party primary election? St. Louis County also has a proposition on the ballot. People who aren't members of a party aren't going to be inclined to toddle down to vote for one or two propositions, and people who are a party member may not have a seriously contested primary race. It's ridiculous to expect a representative turnout for this.

And municipal elections are in the spring. I voted in April, I'll vote Tuesday, and I'll vote again in November. Aargh!

Sorry, got sidetracked.

[Enderw24]

Meaningless yes. Ultimately have no effect, yes. But while the law is on the books and before it gets struck down by the courts, there's a glorious legal sweet spot where health insurance companies need not adhere to any laws passed by the Federal government and hundreds of thousands of Missourians go without that which they are entitled: health insurance. I'd take health CARE, but I'll settle for insurance.

[Simplicio]

But while the law is on the books and before it gets struck down by the courts, there's a glorious legal sweet spot where health insurance companies need not adhere to any laws passed by the Federal government and hundreds of thousands of Missourians go without that which they are entitled: health insurance. I'd take health CARE, but I'll settle for insurance.


The law doesn't seem to even try to affect parts of the ACA affecting insurance companies, so I don't really see why you think it would be relevant to them. It just says [i]individuals[/] can't be forced to buy healthcare. And again, the ACA doesn't, so far as I know, need the State of Missouri to actually do anything to enforce the individual mandate, so the effect on the ACA will again be negligible.

[Frank]

Proposition - C-Oppose Federal Health Care
3354 of 3354 Precincts Reporting - 100%

Yes 667,680 71%
No 271,102 29%

[GaryM]

If it's unconstitutional and will have no effect in the long run, why are folks happy if their state passes a MM act.? It's the same thing isn't it? MJ is regulated by the Feds, so state laws are unconstitutional, right? Explain the difference between the two types of laws please.

[Enderw24]

Proposition - C-Oppose Federal Health Care
3354 of 3354 Precincts Reporting - 100%

Yes 667,680 71%
No 271,102 29%

I'm disappointed that it passed though it doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm at least plesantly surprised that nearly a million people showed up to an off-year primary. That's about 1/6 of the state and 1/5 of the potential voting public.

[Frank]

I'm at least plesantly surprised that nearly a million people showed up to an off-year primary.
Very few independents, as I was pitching a fit about earlier in the thread. Going by the Senate results, some 315,000 Democrats and some 575,00 Republicans voted, 3500 Libertarians and 2000 Constitution (eyeball addition by approximation, I didn't use a calculator), leaving only about 45,000 who voted who are not registered in a party.

I just don't think that a state-wide (or county-wide--St. Louis County voted to go to an elected assessor yesterday) referendum or proposition should be allowed to go on a primary election ballot. There were also tax measures and other items for various locations here and there. Either put them on the municipal ballot in the spring if appropriate, or on the main ballot in November, but it is ridiculous to vote on them as part of a primary.

[Really Not All That Bright]

If it's unconstitutional and will have no effect in the long run, why are folks happy if their state passes a MM act.? It's the same thing isn't it? MJ is regulated by the Feds, so state laws are unconstitutional, right? Explain the difference between the two types of laws please.
It does have an effect, assuming the federal law on the matter is outdated and remains in place due to sheer inertia.

[foolsguinea]

It looks like they're using one amendment, 1.330--"No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system."--to sneak in another, 375.1175--which is very obscure.

Further, it's being sold as a "referendum on Obama." :rolleyes: Whatever, we know he lost the state to McCain.

That's not how a referendum should work. Practically no one understands the second part well enough to make a judgment on it. And federal supremacy voids the whole thing.

There is nothing legit about this mess. It really should be struck down in court, which is probably the plan; then the GOP can lambaste through the next election cycle whichever judge has the thankless job of interjecting reality into things.

I voted no. Removing the individual mandate isn't offensive to me; this stupid bill very much is.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Presumably it also removes the requirement for hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay.

[Simplicio]

Presumably it also removes the requirement for hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay.

The text is linked in the OP. I don't see anything like that.

[Aversin]

And federal supremacy voids the whole thing.
\

I see things like this posted around the net constantly. I was always under the impression that the 10th amendment to the constitution stated the exact opposite.

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.


Perhaps someone could explain to me how the federal government bypasses this, or why it is not applicable in this situation (or others such as medical marijuana).

[Captain Midnight]

The health care law is unconstitutional. The government telling me that I must buy something, especially insurance is insane. But hey, you people voted for Obama and this is what you get.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Insane? Try again.

[Chronos]

I see things like this posted around the net constantly. I was always under the impression that the 10th amendment to the constitution stated the exact opposite.

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.And one of the powers delegated to the federal government is to look out for the general welfare, and another is to levy taxes. This Missouri proposition is trying to deny that the federal government has either of those powers, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Captain Midnight, you might want to double-check the meaning of the word "unconstitutional". It doesn't mean "something I don't like", as you seem to think.

[foolsguinea]

Even if federal supremacy doesn't stick a fork in it, the following fact remains: that most people voted against an individual mandate, while ignoring the bewildering second clause which is barely related & hugely obscure. It's a trick. Somebody's getting up to something.

And the individual mandate, as offensive as it is, was part of the deal to get the bill, with its increase in Medicaid & banning of rescission, passed. Even our Democratic US Senator was against the individual mandate in the negotiations, but voted for the final bill. That's sometimes how it works.

Is the mandate really such a horrible thing? Should we repeal just that one bit? I'm not sure. But most of the giant health care bill was for the good; the mandate is an acceptable price in my mind.

[Aversin]

I see things like this posted around the net constantly. I was always under the impression that the 10th amendment to the constitution stated the exact opposite.

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.And one of the powers delegated to the federal government is to look out for the general welfare, and another is to levy taxes. This Missouri proposition is trying to deny that the federal government has either of those powers, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Captain Midnight, you might want to double-check the meaning of the word "unconstitutional". It doesn't mean "something I don't like", as you seem to think.

IANAL but I think you are wrong about that, a tax is sent to the government not to an insurance company. A tax would have been a public option. My point forcing citizens to hand over money to private businesses is wrong.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Like automobile insurance providers?

[Mr Smashy]

The health care law is unconstitutional. The government telling me that I must buy something, especially insurance is insane. But hey, you people voted for Obama and this is what you get.

My God, this ground is so covered already....

If it's not a tax, then it pretty clearly violates the Commerce Clause.

If it is, it violates the requirement for apportionment.

This bill is going down like Madonna on her honeymoon.

*(For the record, the Missouri thing was just for show, it also will be overruled based on Federal pre-emption. But the Dems ignore it at their peril this Nov.)

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's not a bill anymore.

[Chronos]

IANAL but I think you are wrong about that, a tax is sent to the government not to an insurance company. A tax would have been a public option. My point forcing citizens to hand over money to private businesses is wrong.It doesn't force citizens to hand money over to private businesses. It just imposes a punitive tax if they don't.

[Aversin]

Like automobile insurance providers?

You are only forced to purchase car insurance if you own and drive a car and IIRC this is not a federal law, but one mandated by each state individually.


IANAL but I think you are wrong about that, a tax is sent to the government not to an insurance company. A tax would have been a public option. My point forcing citizens to hand over money to private businesses is wrong.It doesn't force citizens to hand money over to private businesses. It just imposes a punitive tax if they don't.


Why should paying a private business get me out of paying a tax to the government? This is just run-around the issue bullshit and that is the problem with politics.

By 2016 the phase-in stage will be over and the penalty will be $750 per year. According to paycheckcity.com someone working minimum wage ($15,080 annually) will bring in $983 in a month claiming 1 voluntary deduction. The penalty alone would be 6% of that, and good luck finding health insurance for $62 a month. So now anyone who cannot afford health insurance that falls into this category in effect gets a 6% tax increase. Imagine if a politician tried to pass a 6% tax increase on people earning minimum wage without disguising the law with some fancy political mumbo jumbo.

On a side note I am aware that part of the plan subsidizes people below the poverty line however I was unable to find any clear details. Now perhaps in your next post you could explain to me WHY an individual mandate is necessary, health care is not a right.

[Mr. Moto]

Since when is a child someone under the age of 26?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Now perhaps in your next post you could explain to me WHY an individual mandate is necessary, health care is not a right.
That's your opinion. We are essentially alone among developed countries in failing to insure all of our citizens.

[Aversin]

I didn't say it was my opinion, I'm indifferent on the issue of health care as a right. It is not in the constitution which means it is not a legal right. Now if we as a society think it SHOULD be a right, then it should be added to the constitution, and it should be properly protected. The current bill which passed is far from fair. I also want to point out that our other rights, can be waived. Ever hear a police officer say "you have the right to remain silent"? You also have the right not to be silent, why do I NOT have the right to opt out of health care starting in 2014?

[Chronos]

It is not in the constitution which means it is not a legal right. The Constitution itself says that this line of reasoning is invalid.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I didn't say it was my opinion, I'm indifferent on the issue of health care as a right. It is not in the constitution which means it is not a legal right. Now if we as a society think it SHOULD be a right, then it should be added to the constitution, and it should be properly protected. The current bill which passed is far from fair. I also want to point out that our other rights, can be waived. Ever hear a police officer say "you have the right to remain silent"? You also have the right not to be silent, why do I NOT have the right to opt out of health care starting in 2014?
Interesting that you should point out Miranda rights. Where do they appear in the Constitution?

[Rafe Hollister]

Interesting that you should point out Miranda rights. Where do they appear in the Constitution?

5th Amendment--protection from self-incrimination.

[Rafe Hollister]

How is anything a "right" if it requires other citizens to provide that right to each other? This healthcare BS by necessity will take taxes to supply the health insurance to all citizens. True rights do not diminish the rights of one person to provide for another. Forcibly taking one's private property (income) to provide health care for others is tyranny.

I am proud to have been among the 71 percent of Missourians to vote yes on Prop. C.

[Chronos]

How is anything a "right" if it doesn't require citizens to provide that right to each other?

And being ignorant of the fact that a proposition is unconstitutional is nothing to be proud of.

[Rafe Hollister]

Do we have a right to food? Surely if we have a right to health care because of the General Welfare clause (as you stated in post #17), then we also have a right to food. There are some in our society who eat much better quality food than others. We need government intervention NOW to equalize that discrepancy. If that requires taxing all to provide for all, then I know you will all support that.

Besides that, your assertion re: general welfare is incorrect. At least according to James Madison.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
--James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546

[Rafe Hollister]

How is anything a "right" if it doesn't require citizens to provide that right to each other?


All have a right to life. All have a right to liberty. All have a right to the pursuit of happiness. None of these require that anything be taken from anyone else. The laws of our nation should simply exist to ensure that others do not take any of these rights from us. Our government's sole purpose is to protect those rights for our citizens and do nothing else.

[Aversin]

It is not in the constitution which means it is not a legal right. The Constitution itself says that this line of reasoning is invalid.

Where exactly does the constitution say that we have additional legal rights, which are not mentioned explicitly in it? If you want to have a real discussion, please cite this and anything else that directly opposes something contained in my post. I'm willing to change my opinions/beliefs but not due to an internet forum post which contains no facts.

You can find a copy of the constitution online at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html or elsewhere if you google.

Now you are probably looking at the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

From wikipedia (cite included)

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated as follows in Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991):

[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

[ricksummon]

If it's unconstitutional and will have no effect in the long run, why are folks happy if their state passes a MM act.? It's the same thing isn't it? MJ is regulated by the Feds, so state laws are unconstitutional, right? Explain the difference between the two types of laws please.

As far as I know, medical marijuana laws don't actually obstruct enforcement of federal marijuana law in any way. All they do is say that state and local governments won't assist the FBI and DEA in enforcing it. The states, of course, realize that the FBI has better things to do than go around arresting potheads on the street, so they know that most people will be de facto safe from prosecution.

It's like those cop shows where the Feds come in to the local police station and say, "This is a Federal matter. We're taking over this case now." The medical marijuana laws basically say that when the Feds come in to the local police station for help busting potheads, the locals can say, "This is a Federal matter. You're taking over this case now." :D

However, I wonder if desuetude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude) might actually become a defense against marijuana prosecutions under federal law in states like California. The rules for a law falling into desuetude are:


The statute proscribes only acts that are malum prohibitum and not malum in se;
There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of the statute for a long period; and
There has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the statute.


I think the courts would agree that marijuana is malum prohibitum. There has certainly been open, notorious, and pervasive violation of federal marijuana law in California for some time. And President Obama has actually directed the Justice Department not to prosecute medical marijuana cases in states where it's legal. I'd say that's 3 out of 3.

[Chronos]

To say "It is not in the constitution which means it is not a legal right" is to construe the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution to deny or disparage other rights retained by the People.

[Rafe Hollister]

So give me a couple examples of these rights you claim in Post #32 must necessarily take from some people in order to be provided to others.

[Enderw24]

So give me a couple examples of these rights you claim in Post #32 must necessarily take from some people in order to be provided to others.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Your taxing me to go hunting infringes upon my right to a well regulated militia.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
There are a finite number of attorneys available. Your "right" to have one free of charge takes away my ability to find one and pay for his or her services.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

Stupid anchor babies. They come here and steal my jobs!

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
As a White male who owns land, I feel that these amendments did nothing for me. Every additional person who is elligible to participate in an election takes power away from my vote.

Want me to go on? There are 22 more rationales I can pull from my ass.

[Rafe Hollister]

Please do. You are showing your underlying (or maybe blatant) disdain for constitutional conservatives by generalizing them as racially-motivated and I find it kinda humorous.

[Enderw24]

Please do. You are showing your underlying (or maybe blatant) disdain for constitutional conservatives by generalizing them as racially-motivated and I find it kinda humorous.

Gladly!

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
Clarified my ass! What you've done is tell my employer that he's gotta take some of MY hard earned money and give it towards some socialistic agenda I didn't even vote for. How is this not taxation without representation? Heck, I oughta call the whole thing Unconstitutional!

Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished.
Uncle Sam just up and slapped me in the face. Why, I oughta jaunt on down to the local speakeasy and fan off my vapors. Why that'll be the cat's pajamas.
What's that? You've removed my right to order a glass of New-Fashioned? I challenge you to a dual, good sirrah.

Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years.
More hippy mumbo jumbo. Oh, the poor people from no stateland want to press a lever. Oh they're sending me off to war to die and I can't even say anything about it. Waaaaaaaaaaah. What about my right to stop listening to you whiners? Why does that always get lost in the shuffle?

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished.
Can you think of a bigger instance where the long arm of the government swooped in and messed up the free enterprise of established business?

Seriously. Every time you pass a law or have a court ruling or change the Constitution you're giving rights to some people and taking rights away from some other people. That's just how it works. I'm not saying that politics or government is a zero-sum game, but I am saying that it's never going to be a value added bonus for everyone. That'll never happen. Somebody always loses. Suck it the fuck up and accept that things aren't Unconstitutional just because you perceive them to be unfair.

[Aversin]

To say "It is not in the constitution which means it is not a legal right" is to construe the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution to deny or disparage other rights retained by the People.

My last post contains a case in which the sixth circuit court of appeals states that you are wrong. The first sentence says "The ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law."

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Asubstantive

If you think health care as a right has a firm basis in reality and is therefore important meaningful or considerable(as a right), according to our judicial system you are WRONG. Unless someone can provide a later case which invalidated this.

Since health care is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution and we apparently have that right, I'm going to assert that under the 9th amendment that I have the right to 5 government funded chocolate bars each day. Your last post basically ignored my cite, and then stated your opinion. Stop passing your opinion off as fact (trolling) and either make a real post or walk away.



From my last post (and wikipedia):

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated as follows in Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991):

[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution

[Aversin]

Please do. You are showing your underlying (or maybe blatant) disdain for constitutional conservatives by generalizing them as racially-motivated and I find it kinda humorous.

Gladly!

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
Clarified my ass! What you've done is tell my employer that he's gotta take some of MY hard earned money and give it towards some socialistic agenda I didn't even vote for. How is this not taxation without representation? Heck, I oughta call the whole thing Unconstitutional!

Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished.
Uncle Sam just up and slapped me in the face. Why, I oughta jaunt on down to the local speakeasy and fan off my vapors. Why that'll be the cat's pajamas.
What's that? You've removed my right to order a glass of New-Fashioned? I challenge you to a dual, good sirrah.

Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years.
More hippy mumbo jumbo. Oh, the poor people from no stateland want to press a lever. Oh they're sending me off to war to die and I can't even say anything about it. Waaaaaaaaaaah. What about my right to stop listening to you whiners? Why does that always get lost in the shuffle?

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished.
Can you think of a bigger instance where the long arm of the government swooped in and messed up the free enterprise of established business?

Seriously. Every time you pass a law or have a court ruling or change the Constitution you're giving rights to some people and taking rights away from some other people. That's just how it works. I'm not saying that politics or government is a zero-sum game, but I am saying that it's never going to be a value added bonus for everyone. That'll never happen. Somebody always loses. Suck it the fuck up and accept that things aren't Unconstitutional just because you perceive them to be unfair.

I understand your argument about taking away rights from the slave owners (as well as your other points), but one could easily argue that their 'right' to own a slave was infringing on the slave's basic human rights (which didn't exist legally at the time). Most of your arguments seem like satire, but the end of your post sounds more like a real opinion. Could you clarify if the entire thing is a joke, if you do believe the law is fair (and constitutional) and why?

[Brown Eyed Girl]

By 2016 the phase-in stage will be over and the penalty will be $750 per year. According to paycheckcity.com someone working minimum wage ($15,080 annually) will bring in $983 in a month claiming 1 voluntary deduction. The penalty alone would be 6% of that, and good luck finding health insurance for $62 a month. So now anyone who cannot afford health insurance that falls into this category in effect gets a 6% tax increase. Imagine if a politician tried to pass a 6% tax increase on people earning minimum wage without disguising the law with some fancy political mumbo jumbo.

On a side note I am aware that part of the plan subsidizes people below the poverty line however I was unable to find any clear details. Now perhaps in your next post you could explain to me WHY an individual mandate is necessary, health care is not a right.
Huh. I work part-time in retail. Suffice it to say, I don't make much money. My health insurance is subsidized by my employer, yet I pay about $2400/year in premiums. It'd be safe to assume COBRA would be considerably more costly. Now, perhaps my math is bad, but if it came to that, I'd think $750 per year wouldn't be as difficult to come up with. Still, I can't see how this mandate benefits individuals as much as it does the insurance industry.

I'm not thrilled about the mandate and I think it was a crappy compromise to get very necessary reform passed. IMHO, there's a fair amount of good to come of this bill aside from the mandate, including coverage for young adults and those with chronic health problems (or pre-existing conditions). Suffice it to say, though, I would have preferred a single payer system administered by the federal government for every citizen.

[Enderw24]

I understand your argument about taking away rights from the slave owners (as well as your other points), but one could easily argue that their 'right' to own a slave was infringing on the slave's basic human rights (which didn't exist legally at the time). Most of your arguments seem like satire, but the end of your post sounds more like a real opinion. Could you clarify if the entire thing is a joke, if you do believe the law is fair (and constitutional) and why?

It's a floor wax! It's a dessert topping!
Stop, you're both right!

90% of my post was satirical. I'm sure there are SOME nutjobs out there who believe what I wrote, but I'm not that nutjob. Today anyway.
But my conclusion still stands. To give someone rights, you must necessarily take something away from others. It may not necessarily be that you're taking away the rights of others (though it can be) nor does it have to be an equal sum exchanged. It could just be privileges or benefits or a small sense of power over others. The point is that when one person gains a right, other people must lose something in return. As facetious as I was, I hope that my examples at least proved that. I hope, also, I've proven that taking away a portion of someone's rights or privileges or benefits or whatever in order to give another group even stronger rights can and often is a net benefit to society, individuals be damned.

So do would I support a law mandating health care for all? Hell yeah. And I truly don't care about your "right" to not buy health insurance or your "right" to stop helping those lazy good for nothings who can't get off their ass and pay for their cancer treatments like honest Americans.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Interesting that you should point out Miranda rights. Where do they appear in the Constitution?

5th Amendment--protection from self-incrimination.
Quote the portion of the fifth amendment which states that law enforcement officials have a duty to inform you of your rights.

[Nicest of the Damned]

By 2016 the phase-in stage will be over and the penalty will be $750 per year. According to paycheckcity.com someone working minimum wage ($15,080 annually) will bring in $983 in a month claiming 1 voluntary deduction. The penalty alone would be 6% of that, and good luck finding health insurance for $62 a month.

FWIW, under the current Massachusetts plan a single person who makes more than $10,836 but less than $16,248 qualifies for a plan with a monthly premium of $39 or less. If they choose the lowest cost plan available there is no premium.

http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=81&pageID=13&Subpages=#incomelimits - scroll down to see the costs and fees for the different plans.

[Aversin]

By 2016 the phase-in stage will be over and the penalty will be $750 per year. According to paycheckcity.com someone working minimum wage ($15,080 annually) will bring in $983 in a month claiming 1 voluntary deduction. The penalty alone would be 6% of that, and good luck finding health insurance for $62 a month. So now anyone who cannot afford health insurance that falls into this category in effect gets a 6% tax increase. Imagine if a politician tried to pass a 6% tax increase on people earning minimum wage without disguising the law with some fancy political mumbo jumbo.

On a side note I am aware that part of the plan subsidizes people below the poverty line however I was unable to find any clear details. Now perhaps in your next post you could explain to me WHY an individual mandate is necessary, health care is not a right.
Huh. I work part-time in retail. Suffice it to say, I don't make much money. My health insurance is subsidized by my employer, yet I pay about $2400/year in premiums. It'd be safe to assume COBRA would be considerably more costly. Now, perhaps my math is bad, but if it came to that, I'd think $750 per year wouldn't be as difficult to come up with. Still, I can't see how this mandate benefits individuals as much as it does the insurance industry.

I'm not thrilled about the mandate and I think it was a crappy compromise to get very necessary reform passed. IMHO, there's a fair amount of good to come of this bill aside from the mandate, including coverage for young adults and those with chronic health problems (or pre-existing conditions). Suffice it to say, though, I would have preferred a single payer system administered by the federal government for every citizen.


I did not say $750 per year would be difficult to come up with, my problem is paying $750 and getting no benefit whatsoever. Its the principle not the money. I also believe parts of the bill were a step forward, but not the mandate. Could those improvements have been afforded without taxing those outside of the health care system? Absolutely.

I also want to point out, just working part-time retail does not qualify you to speak on behalf of everyone everywhere who does, many people are in different situations than you are. $2400 per year may not be much to you, but the last time I was working part-time retail it would have been a substantial portion of my income. It is wrong to assume health care is a priority for everyone.




I understand your argument about taking away rights from the slave owners (as well as your other points), but one could easily argue that their 'right' to own a slave was infringing on the slave's basic human rights (which didn't exist legally at the time). Most of your arguments seem like satire, but the end of your post sounds more like a real opinion. Could you clarify if the entire thing is a joke, if you do believe the law is fair (and constitutional) and why?

It's a floor wax! It's a dessert topping!
Stop, you're both right!

90% of my post was satirical. I'm sure there are SOME nutjobs out there who believe what I wrote, but I'm not that nutjob. Today anyway.
But my conclusion still stands. To give someone rights, you must necessarily take something away from others. It may not necessarily be that you're taking away the rights of others (though it can be) nor does it have to be an equal sum exchanged. It could just be privileges or benefits or a small sense of power over others. The point is that when one person gains a right, other people must lose something in return. As facetious as I was, I hope that my examples at least proved that. I hope, also, I've proven that taking away a portion of someone's rights or privileges or benefits or whatever in order to give another group even stronger rights can and often is a net benefit to society, individuals be damned.

So do would I support a law mandating health care for all? Hell yeah. And I truly don't care about your "right" to not buy health insurance or your "right" to stop helping those lazy good for nothings who can't get off their ass and pay for their cancer treatments like honest Americans.

Say I get cancer, and I do not wish for treatment why am I still required to help pay for others treatment via the penalty tax? You SAY that giving someone rights, takes away from others and I have seen some of your opinions which support this. Do you have any factual basis for this, short of the satirical ones posted about the various amendments? I noticed you skipped over several amendments, how does my right to free speech take rights, benefits, or privileges away from anyone else? Perhaps if something must be taken, in order to give to someone else than it is not a right? Please don't choose the question you deem the easiest to argue against and ignore the rest of my post.

Also the fact that you do not care about my right to *INSERT ANYTHING HERE* does not stop me from having the right, nor should it(its your OPINION).




5th Amendment--protection from self-incrimination.
Quote the portion of the fifth amendment which states that law enforcement officials have a duty to inform you of your rights.


Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
[T]he person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

The ruling is an interpretation of the fifth and sixth amendments, and has yet to be challenged again in court.




By 2016 the phase-in stage will be over and the penalty will be $750 per year. According to paycheckcity.com someone working minimum wage ($15,080 annually) will bring in $983 in a month claiming 1 voluntary deduction. The penalty alone would be 6% of that, and good luck finding health insurance for $62 a month.

FWIW, under the current Massachusetts plan a single person who makes more than $10,836 but less than $16,248 qualifies for a plan with a monthly premium of $39 or less. If they choose the lowest cost plan available there is no premium.

http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=81&pageID=13&Subpages=#incomelimits - scroll down to see the costs and fees for the different plans.

Thats great and I'd love to see something like this get Federal backing. It does not however change the issue at hand. Just because MA has this program does not mean all Americans have the same option. For instance I live in Iowa, but I doubt they would let me subscribe to the program you cited(assuming I meet all requirements). People who have been offered group health insurance by a family members employer (their own) within the last 6 months you are ineligible for the program you cited. Essentially that program is for people who do not have access to a health care plan which subsidizes at least 20% or 33% of premiums respectively. A health care plan which subsidizes 33% of premiums may still be well over $750 per year, but would render you ineligible for the cited program, if you had access to such a plan.

[Enderw24]

You know, sometimes I love the multi-quote feature and sometimes it's just a pain to ensure you've gotten the right part.
Anyway...


Say I get cancer, and I do not wish for treatment why am I still required to help pay for others treatment via the penalty tax? You SAY that giving someone rights, takes away from others and I have seen some of your opinions which support this. Do you have any factual basis for this, short of the satirical ones posted about the various amendments? I noticed you skipped over several amendments, how does my right to free speech take rights, benefits, or privileges away from anyone else? Perhaps if something must be taken, in order to give to someone else than it is not a right? Please don't choose the question you deem the easiest to argue against and ignore the rest of my post.

Also the fact that you do not care about my right to *INSERT ANYTHING HERE* does not stop me from having the right, nor should it(its your OPINION).


You have the right to not seek treatment for your cancer and still be obligated to pay for others in the same way you have the right to send your kids to private school and still be forced to pay for public education in your county. You have the right to own a car that just sits in your garage all day and still be forced to pay for the roads around town.
You have the right to never ever ever purchase stamps or cable or electricity or water and you still must allow the postal/cable/electrical/water worker to walk through your property. Why? Did you know the word "easement" never once shows up anywhere in the Constitution? What right do they have to interfere? Well, every right it turns out.

You ask about Free Speech. I have the absolute right to Free Speech. It says so right there in the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Doesn't seem to be much wiggle room there. No law. None.
Except it doesn't work that way. To cite but one of numerous examples I can give, the Supreme Court has held that the government has the right to curtail free speech at certain times, places or manners. You don't have the right to hold a protest inside a courthouse. Or falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre. Or publish child pornography.
How can that be? The Constitution is pretty darn clear, isn't it?

Every time the Court comes out with a new ruling abridging the freedom of speech they take my large hunk of rights and slice a little bit off. It's still my right. It's just not as powerful today as it was yesterday.
Or maybe they rule in my favor and grant me rights at the expense of others including, but not limited to, the government itself. That's cool too.

Point is that it's all a big game of give and take. Sometimes you've just got to realize that what's best for you as the individual may not be best for society. Getting back to topic at hand, no, there's no absolute Right to health care. But there's also no absolute Right to be protected from laws you personally don't like. If you cry that something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, my response is "well what the hell is anyway?" 99.99% of our laws do not directly relate to inherent Rights granted by the Constitution and yet somehow we muddle through.

[WarmNPrickly]

Does Healthcare Reform actually word the insurance requirement as a tax on the uninsured? It seems it would be better to have worded it as a deduction for the insured.

[Aversin]

You know, sometimes I love the multi-quote feature and sometimes it's just a pain to ensure you've gotten the right part.
Anyway...


Say I get cancer, and I do not wish for treatment why am I still required to help pay for others treatment via the penalty tax? You SAY that giving someone rights, takes away from others and I have seen some of your opinions which support this. Do you have any factual basis for this, short of the satirical ones posted about the various amendments? I noticed you skipped over several amendments, how does my right to free speech take rights, benefits, or privileges away from anyone else? Perhaps if something must be taken, in order to give to someone else than it is not a right? Please don't choose the question you deem the easiest to argue against and ignore the rest of my post.

Also the fact that you do not care about my right to *INSERT ANYTHING HERE* does not stop me from having the right, nor should it(its your OPINION).


You have the right to not seek treatment for your cancer and still be obligated to pay for others in the same way you have the right to send your kids to private school and still be forced to pay for public education in your county. You have the right to own a car that just sits in your garage all day and still be forced to pay for the roads around town.
You have the right to never ever ever purchase stamps or cable or electricity or water and you still must allow the postal/cable/electrical/water worker to walk through your property. Why? Did you know the word "easement" never once shows up anywhere in the Constitution? What right do they have to interfere? Well, every right it turns out.

You ask about Free Speech. I have the absolute right to Free Speech. It says so right there in the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Doesn't seem to be much wiggle room there. No law. None.
Except it doesn't work that way. To cite but one of numerous examples I can give, the Supreme Court has held that the government has the right to curtail free speech at certain times, places or manners. You don't have the right to hold a protest inside a courthouse. Or falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre. Or publish child pornography.
How can that be? The Constitution is pretty darn clear, isn't it?

Every time the Court comes out with a new ruling abridging the freedom of speech they take my large hunk of rights and slice a little bit off. It's still my right. It's just not as powerful today as it was yesterday.
Or maybe they rule in my favor and grant me rights at the expense of others including, but not limited to, the government itself. That's cool too.

Point is that it's all a big game of give and take. Sometimes you've just got to realize that what's best for you as the individual may not be best for society. Getting back to topic at hand, no, there's no absolute Right to health care. But there's also no absolute Right to be protected from laws you personally don't like. If you cry that something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, my response is "well what the hell is anyway?" 99.99% of our laws do not directly relate to inherent Rights granted by the Constitution and yet somehow we muddle through.

Your argument on public/private schools is flawed. Public schools are funded from general taxes, and paying a private school doesn't get you out of paying for public schools as you pointed out. The flaw lies in the fact that if you cannot afford a private school, a public one is provided for you. Under this law, if I cannot pay for private health care, I am taxed and not provided with public health care. Do you see the difference? Furthermore those paying for private health care are NOT subject to the same tax, clearly a different situation. As far as the car argument, it is also flawed because I don't need to own a car(meaning I have a choice), I need to be alive. Postal/electric works etc. crossing my property does not infringe on any right of mine. Now since you didn't actually cite anything in regards to this I'm going to assume it only applies within city limits. Therefore if I lived outside of city limits, I may not be required to allow water workers and such on my property.

AFAIK there is no law requiring me to allow a cable worker onto my property, they are employed by a private company and have no right to install a box on the side of my house or enter my property unless I request their service. If this is wrong please do cite, but I have never heard of such a law or ruling.

On the subject of yelling fire in a crowded theater, that is NOT free speech. Free speech does not encompass causing a panic or infringing on others rights(protesting in a court room infringes on my right to a fair trail). The constitution is not clear, which is why we have the judicial branch of our government, to interpret our laws. As for child porn, not one person here would come out in favor of it. There is no law anywhere which protects the 'right' to distribute child porn, and I have no idea why you bring this up.

You also sidestepped one of my important questions from the last post: How does my right to free speech take something away from you? You did say any right inherently takes something from one group and gives it to another, how is this the case with free speech?

I never said I had a right to be protected from laws which I do not agree with, but that doesn't mean every law passed is ethical, or without flaws. This law is flawed, I won't repeat myself as to why. If health care is no an absolute right, as you admitted then why am I being taxed in order to provide it to others when this tax provides me none of the same benefits? If 99% of our laws (Federal) do not have any basis in the constitution than why are they not found unconstitutional? We don't muddle through, everything has a tie into the overall law of the land. With some laws this connection may not be immediately clear, others may not have a connection, but have not been challenged in court. Laws may not specifically mention the constitution, because they build upon older laws, but it all traces back.


Does Healthcare Reform actually word the insurance requirement as a tax on the uninsured? It seems it would be better to have worded it as a deduction for the insured.

See below
http://www.opencongress.org/senate_health_care_bill?version=ocas&nid=ocuo_nid_998

(A) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month. (B) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.

(1) IN GENERAL. If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c). (2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN. Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.


Visit the link for the full details, but what that basically says is that any individual must maintain minimum essential coverage or face a penalty tax on a per month bassis(actual penalty is paid with regular yearly taxes).

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, if it were a flat tax increase with a deduction for subscribing to private health care, I would not have an issue with it. The reason they did not write the law in this manner is because proposing a tax increase without any added benefit to society as a whole, is a sure way to get voted out of office next time elections come up. Some may argue this law does benefit society, I say it doesn't because it is written in the interest of private insurance companies and not the individual.

[Chronos]

Quoth Aversin:I also believe parts of the bill were a step forward, but not the mandate. Could those improvements have been afforded without taxing those outside of the health care system? Absolutely.OK, so how would you have dealt with the problem of people who never buy insurance until they get sick, and then start paying low premiums to pay for expensive treatment, only to go back to no insurance once they're healthy again?

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, if it were a flat tax increase with a deduction for subscribing to private health care, I would not have an issue with it. That would have exactly the same effect as what they did do. If it has the exact same effect either way, why do you care which way they worded it?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Quote the portion of the fifth amendment which states that law enforcement officials have a duty to inform you of your rights.Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
[T]he person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

The ruling is an interpretation of the fifth and sixth amendments, and has yet to be challenged again in court.
It's not what I asked for. Please read the question before responding.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Huh. I work part-time in retail. Suffice it to say, I don't make much money. My health insurance is subsidized by my employer, yet I pay about $2400/year in premiums. It'd be safe to assume COBRA would be considerably more costly. Now, perhaps my math is bad, but if it came to that, I'd think $750 per year wouldn't be as difficult to come up with. Still, I can't see how this mandate benefits individuals as much as it does the insurance industry.

I'm not thrilled about the mandate and I think it was a crappy compromise to get very necessary reform passed. IMHO, there's a fair amount of good to come of this bill aside from the mandate, including coverage for young adults and those with chronic health problems (or pre-existing conditions). Suffice it to say, though, I would have preferred a single payer system administered by the federal government for every citizen.


I did not say $750 per year would be difficult to come up with, my problem is paying $750 and getting no benefit whatsoever. Its the principle not the money. I also believe parts of the bill were a step forward, but not the mandate. Could those improvements have been afforded without taxing those outside of the health care system? Absolutely.
I guess that's the difference between an individual who doesn't feel an obligation to society and one who realizes that the cost of living in a society is contributing to the betterment of that society. I personally consider universal health care a benefit to society. I realize, though, that not everyone can afford it and I expect the government to pick up the slack for those who cannot. That costs money and somebody has to pay for it. I don't think its fair to avoid contributing my share by opting out of the system. I do think it would be better to just create a tax, but I don't have a problem with making people who opt out of the system pay a penalty when the system requires everyone to take part to work at its most efficient.

I also want to point out, just working part-time retail does not qualify you to speak on behalf of everyone everywhere who does, many people are in different situations than you are. $2400 per year may not be much to you, but the last time I was working part-time retail it would have been a substantial portion of my income. It is wrong to assume health care is a priority for everyone.
First off, I indicated my employment status to give you an idea of where my income level falls in order to demonstrate that I am an example of those low-income workers you were referring to. I don't know what gave you the idea that I think $2400/yr is not much, but I can assure you it most certainly IS a significant chunk of my income. Regardless, I feel health insurance is necessary for my family and mine covers myself and daughter. I never assumed or indicated that I assume its a priority for every one. Were I 20 years younger and childess, I'd consider going without insurance and if I did opt out I would be thankful to be paying less in penalties than what I would pay to an insurance company.

[Rafe Hollister]

Brown Eyed Girl, I assure you that I feel an obligation to society. My Christian faith and human decency dictate my need to give aid any time possible. The difference is that I think government sucks at that job. Private organizations and average individuals are by far a superior choice. Besides that, when the services are provided through a government entity, the human factor is removed. There is nothing compassionate about that. I gladly give to charities; I give until it hurts. When the government taxes tax money for social programs that are inefficient and heartless, I absolutely have a problem with that.

[Enderw24]

Your argument on public/private schools is flawed. Public schools are funded from general taxes, and paying a private school doesn't get you out of paying for public schools as you pointed out. The flaw lies in the fact that if you cannot afford a private school, a public one is provided for you. Under this law, if I cannot pay for private health care, I am taxed and not provided with public health care. Do you see the difference? Furthermore those paying for private health care are NOT subject to the same tax, clearly a different situation.
Thing is, there's no tax. I realize that a lot of people in this thread, myself probably included, have been using that for shorthand, but in reality, there is no tax. There's the potential for a fine if you don't obey the law but that's NOT the same as a tax any more than me getting a ticket for speeding is a policeman's tax.

Postal/electric works etc. crossing my property does not infringe on any right of mine. Now since you didn't actually cite anything in regards to this I'm going to assume it only applies within city limits. Therefore if I lived outside of city limits, I may not be required to allow water workers and such on my property.

AFAIK there is no law requiring me to allow a cable worker onto my property, they are employed by a private company and have no right to install a box on the side of my house or enter my property unless I request their service. If this is wrong please do cite, but I have never heard of such a law or ruling.

Cable companies and others sometimes have what's called a utility easement. They have the ability to lay cable/pipes/whatever through your yard (which means digging a trench) and then, if it needs repairing, to come dig it up again.

On the subject of yelling fire in a crowded theater, that is NOT free speech. Free speech does not encompass causing a panic or infringing on others rights(protesting in a court room infringes on my right to a fair trail). The constitution is not clear, which is why we have the judicial branch of our government, to interpret our laws. As for child porn, not one person here would come out in favor of it. There is no law anywhere which protects the 'right' to distribute child porn, and I have no idea why you bring this up.

Here's the crux of the argument. You and I agree on all of the above. But the question is NOT whether anyone would favor child porn. It's whether child porn is speech.Child porn is speech. Protests are speech. Yelling "fire" in a theatre is speech.
There's no denying any of that. There's also no denying that the Constitution says point blank that no laws may be created that abridge your right to speech.
All of these -every single one and more- went through the judicial branch to be determined. So at one point the legitimate question of whether you could do X was brought up because at the point when it was addressed it wasn't quite so evident. The Constitution says I have free speech! I'm going to yell in a courtroom! And it's only now, in hindsight, that we see that, no, you don't have the right to do so.
There's more to the law than just what the Constitution says.
So any argument that starts with "but health care isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution" needs a heck of a lot more to be convincing.

You also sidestepped one of my important questions from the last post: How does my right to free speech take something away from you? You did say any right inherently takes something from one group and gives it to another, how is this the case with free speech?

OK. I'll throw this one example out: protests at funerals. You and I may not like Fred Phelps and his clan at the Westboro Baptist Church and you and I may not like what he says and you and I may agree that people should have the right to mourn peacefully.
But he has the absolute right to protest and his rights will absolutely infringe upon yours if it's your relative's funeral he's protesting.

I never said I had a right to be protected from laws which I do not agree with, but that doesn't mean every law passed is ethical, or without flaws. This law is flawed, I won't repeat myself as to why. If health care is no an absolute right, as you admitted then why am I being taxed in order to provide it to others when this tax provides me none of the same benefits? If 99% of our laws (Federal) do not have any basis in the constitution than why are they not found unconstitutional? We don't muddle through, everything has a tie into the overall law of the land.

There are lots of laws passed to protect that which isn't an absolute right. If I'm in a wheelchair, there's no absolute right to mandating that wheelchair ramps are installed. Indeed, it's just a "tax" on the able bodied people of society and business owners.
Just because it's not a Right doesn't mean it's not right.
And again, this health care legislation is not a tax.

[foolsguinea]

By 2016 the phase-in stage will be over and the penalty will be $750 per year. According to paycheckcity.com someone working minimum wage ($15,080 annually)The expansion of Medicaid is supposed to cover those people. And that expansion was part of the bill. Look, I'm unhappy with the way they did it too. But if not this, what do you recommend? Do minimum wage really earners want NO health care? Or single payer? 'Cos I'd take single-payer in a femto-heartbeat, if my brain could process the choice that fast.True rights do not diminish the rights of one person to provide for another.Yes, they do. Have you ever read Rousseau?Forcibly taking one's private property (income) to provide health care for others is tyranny.That's not what tyranny means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant

I suppose you might mean ochlocracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

But I am inclined to argue that's what the anti-health-care crowd are doing. The bill was passed constitutionally, by the elected legislators, whose job it was to balance the different economic considerations. For the populace to come in & say,"No I won't pay this tax," is not rule of law.

[foolsguinea]

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
--James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546I should hope so. What you call indefinite I call sovereign. Government is not just another service provider. And I'm not going to advocate "limited government" just because the wealthy planter class 200 years ago wanted a nice pet government on a leash, & killed as many people as they could until their real lawful rulers surrendered control to them.

The Founding Fathers were, by & large, pirate scum. The sooner you learn that the better. That's not to say they didn't have their good points. But still, I don't take as gospel truth the writings of someone who joined a revolution to overthrow his lawful rulers at the age of 25.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Brown Eyed Girl, I assure you that I feel an obligation to society. My Christian faith and human decency dictate my need to give aid any time possible. The difference is that I think government sucks at that job. Private organizations and average individuals are by far a superior choice. Besides that, when the services are provided through a government entity, the human factor is removed. There is nothing compassionate about that. I gladly give to charities; I give until it hurts. When the government taxes tax money for social programs that are inefficient and heartless, I absolutely have a problem with that.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think private insurance companies do it better, they do it for profit. I don't think health care should be a profit-motivated industry because if you're one of the unlucky individuals that doesn't contribute to their bottom line, private industry has no incentive to provide services to you. The government does, just as it provides for our military and veterans, its own employees, and our elderly. I don't expect perfection. I expect lower cost health care coverage that is provided to all citizens without regard to income. As to the government providing services, I was under the impression that health care providers would still be private, not employed by the government. Aren't medicare insureds allowed to go to private doctors or do they only get government ones? What's heartless about that?

[Aversin]

A penalty/fine IS a tax(in instances such as this), they are just using a different word causing the argument to spiral off into semantics.

Brown eyed girl, you obviously did not understand any of my posts(at least my opinion in them). I have no problem chipping in for the good of society, even in cases where others may see a benefit I don't. Health care is a different situation, it isn't a tax, I'm being penalized for not 'being with the times'. This law(the mandate) has nothing to do with the betterment of society and everything to do with appeasing congressmen who did not want government competition in the private health care industy, which is now a public industry seeing as everyone is required to pay into it. Using your line of reasoning, it would be unreasonable for everyone to not pay more taxes in order to provide everyone (including me) with a 1/year voucher for a pool party (included expenses) because pool partys reduce stress(benefit to society), as well as cause exercise(benefit to society). The cost of this is not an overall benefit to society, because money is funneled through insurance companies before being paid for services.

The ONLY line of reasoning to force others to purchase health care is because you think they are gaming the system, like chronos mentions. I admit this does happen, but I haven't done it. Why is the exploitation of a private industry NOT inline with free market ideals? I don't personally think it is right, but the proper way to fix it is to stop the gaming of the system, not force a subscription fee on every single person living in the USA. Do this by excluding people from the health care system permanently, why should I NOT have this right? Wait that isn't humane is it? Allowing people to choose to see a doctor or not. Health care is a luxury, not a necessity(for most).

Easement on public workers in your own words is a 'sometimes' situation, which means if I am against it I can most likely find somewhere in the united states where they would not bother me. I knew a girl who did not have running water at her trailer, she had a well... in 2008. Is this wrong? If I live 60 miles from the nearest town, no one will spend the time/money to extend public networks that far to my house.

The Americans With Disabilities Act is a civil rights law that was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. One of its provisions is that individuals with disabilities can't be discriminated against in regards to their access to "public accommodations."

It sounds to me like the government is using the line of reasoning that these people in wheelchairs are being discriminated against by not having proper access to public facilities (their right). So YES they have a right to wheelchair ramps, an absolute right according to this law which was never challenged by the judiciary system. Jesus christ do you even google your opinions on the law or are you just spouting off any argument without researching it that you think will make me 'wise up'.

What if tomorrow(in 2016) every single health insurance company went bankrupt(would never happen). I'll tell you, every single american would be penalized by the government.

(There's more to the law than just what the Constitution says.)
Yes there is, but no law can be interpreted as "citizens have the right to health care". Now even if you can find some way to tie it in, it should not be run by private insurance companies. I'm not saying they have no right to exist, but a public mandate without a public option is tyranny.

Rights are provided by or protected by, the government. Not private companies.

In common usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls.

The oligarchy in this case being insurance companies.

A right is provided for or protected by the government is it not? This law does neither, it taxes people who do not support a private business.

This seems to have been going in circles for a couple posts. You all seem to have your minds made up, nothing I could say would change this. I'm not going to say you are trolls, because it appears you believe everything you have posted, but continuing to post(for me) would be about as pointless as if you were.

[foolsguinea]

OK, "pirate scum" was a bit hyperbolic perhaps. I do have some respect for some of the Founding Fathers. I rather like Washington & Paine despite their flaws. But if I ever quote Madison in support of one of my positions, it's just going to be, "Hey, random dead guy you may have heard of sort of [can be read to have] agreed with me!" & utterly self-serving. I honestly don't care what he thought, & arguments from his authority make me scoff.

That said:
The health care bill was passed in accordance with the principles of limited government. The limit on the government is the legislature having to pass laws. Non-limited government would be the administration unilaterally & arbitrarily deciding to do something without the authorization of the people's representatives. In this case, the people's representatives passed a law, within the constitution--they even bent over backwards to get past an extra-constitutional filibuster requirement--that's how the system was designed to work. It may not be a law Madison would have voted for, but it is consistent with the present constitution, & with the one he designed.

Granted, a few parts of the law might be more coherent if they'd come from an autocrat's decree--but that process would be unconstitutional under our constitution.

[Enderw24]

This seems to have been going in circles for a couple posts. You all seem to have your minds made up, nothing I could say would change this. I'm not going to say you are trolls, because it appears you believe everything you have posted, but continuing to post(for me) would be about as pointless as if you were.

Not to toot my own horn, but I've got ten years on these boards and almost 7,000 posts, so to throw the term "troll" at me seems a wee bit over the top, especially for what's basically just a few posts back and forth on half a page of a thread.

For what it's worth, I think your responses have been intelligent and well analyzed. But it's clear from reading what you've written that the crux of my argument is just going right past you. Whether that's because you're not taking the time to listen or because I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, I don't know. We're just talking right past each other at this point though, so I don't think any headway is being made on this issue.

I'll leave you with this though. The reason every one of my arguments seems so silly and so out there to you is because you're sitting here looking at it from 2010's perspective.
Of course you have the right to publish satirical articles about celebrities! Of course people have the right to equal protections if they have disabilities! Of course women have the right to vote! Who would have thought differently?

Lots and lots and lots of people. It took activists and legislators and judges years and tons of work before what's assumed by you to this self-evident right even came to be.


And my hope is that your equivilant in 2030 will be sitting at a computer writing "Of course all Americans have the right to equal, universal health care! Why would you think it should be any other way?"

[Aversin]

To clarify my intent was not to call you a troll. I may not have clearly expressed myself with the end of the(my) last post. Perhaps I should elaborate, arguing with a troll, never goes anywhere and is generally pointless. I wrote that sentence as I did to imply that we both have our minds made up, and continuing the discussion seemed pointless. I was not trying to state your posts lacked cogency, or relevance. No disrespect was intended, sorry if that is how it came off.

As a final note, I hope health care as a right does happen I am just opposed to the current iteration of laws which have been passed. I do not believe the law is written in the interest of the people. I do hope the next iteration will improve it, but if you won't oppose laws you consider wrong than you are part of the problem.

(the last sentence is directed at the majority of Americans, not anyone here)

[kunilou]

Brown Eyed Girl, I assure you that I feel an obligation to society. My Christian faith and human decency dictate my need to give aid any time possible. The difference is that I think government sucks at that job. Private organizations and average individuals are by far a superior choice. Besides that, when the services are provided through a government entity, the human factor is removed. There is nothing compassionate about that. I gladly give to charities; I give until it hurts. When the government taxes tax money for social programs that are inefficient and heartless, I absolutely have a problem with that.

But government is an institution of society. If you believe that society has an obligation to give aid, why do you believe that its primary institution should not be involved?

If private organizations and average individuals are far superior at providing social services, why have they not done so? Why is there any perception of need for government to get involved?

[Bricker]

But government is an institution of society. If you believe that society has an obligation to give aid, why do you believe that its primary institution should not be involved?

Not to speak for Rafe, but my answer is that there's a distinction between a moral obligation, one that springs from the heart, and a rule that government should impose.

I also, for example, believe there's an obligation to be faithful to one's spouse, but I don't believe the government should criminalize adultery.


If private organizations and average individuals are far superior at providing social services, why have they not done so? Why is there any perception of need for government to get involved?

Of course, there is a huge amount of private charity in this country. But of course, when the amount "given" to charity is a result of mandate, it can be huge. The perception arises from people who believe that it's the proper role of government.

[Zebra]

How about instead of a moral obligation, it just, to some people, makes sense.

If you believe the health care system was not working, and you had tried to reform it or allow the insurance companies to reform the system and they have failed, then should not the government step in and try to fix it again?

[Saint Cad]

It's basically an FU to the Federal government and the health care legislation passed earlier this year. If Prop C passes, it will be run through the court system for the next several years (at considerable taxpayer expense) before it's ultimately declared Unconstitutional. There's pretty much no way around it. It's in direct violation of Federal law.


So any state law that violates Federal law is unconstitutional? Have we now officially repealed the Tenth Amendment or is it just de facto still?

[Simplicio]

So any state law that violates Federal law is unconstitutional? Have we now officially repealed the Tenth Amendment or is it just de facto still?

Not sure why the 10th Amendment is relevant. The Supremacy Clause explicitly says state laws can't violate federal ones (or at least, if they do, state judges can't enforce them).

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Not much point in having a federal gov't if the states can ignore it at will.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

If it's unconstitutional and will have no effect in the long run, why are folks happy if their state passes a MM act.? It's the same thing isn't it? MJ is regulated by the Feds, so state laws are unconstitutional, right? Explain the difference between the two types of laws please.
Federal drug enforcement rests mainly on the power to regulate interstate commerce. This doesn't mean necessarily that a perpetrator has to cross state lines, or an international border, while committing a drug crime; in Raich v. Gonzalez the a conviction for cultivating MJ for intrastate medicinal use was upheld on the principle that anyone who resorted to growing their own MJ, and thereby withdrawing from the illicit market, was complicit in the fact that the dealers would find other more vulnerable buyers. At this point, according to this Rube Goldberg-like convoluted logic, interstate commerce could be impacted. (At the time, the Feds did not recognize any therapeutic value of unrefined cannabis at all, but this is beginning to change*). Early drug prohibitions, including the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act and the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, in fact, had to be framed as revenue statutes because the power to prohibit outright wasn't assumed. As for the constitutionality of state MJ laws that are more permissive than the Federal statutes, I'd say the 9th and 10th Amendments makes it constitutional for a state to vote itself out from under the Federal laws, within limits. International narcotics treaties require some sort of strict regulation, but not necessarily prohibition of cannabis.

On the other hand, a state voting itself free of the provision that everyone must carry health insurance seems to me to have a greater direct impact on interstate commerce, by undermining the average health of the insured population.

*According to a recent L.A. Times article, the Department of Veteran Affairs was no longer going to terminate benefits, or otherwise penalize vets, who were using MMJ for pain.

[Saint Cad]

So any state law that violates Federal law is unconstitutional? Have we now officially repealed the Tenth Amendment or is it just de facto still?

Not sure why the 10th Amendment is relevant. The Supremacy Clause explicitly says state laws can't violate federal ones (or at least, if they do, state judges can't enforce them).

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Not much point in having a federal gov't if the states can ignore it at will.

They can if the Federal law does not pertain to one of the enumerated powers of the Feds. At least until South Dakota v. Dole that is.

[Simplicio]

They can if the Federal law does not pertain to one of the enumerated powers of the Feds. At least until South Dakota v. Dole that is.

No they can't. If a State thinks a federal law is unconstitutional, they can challenge it in the courts. But so long as the law hasn't been ruled against by the SCOTUS (or whatever federal court), the Supremacy Clause holds.

The State Legislature can't just decide for themselves that the law doesn't fall under the enumerated powers and pass their own law invalidating it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

They can if the Federal law does not pertain to one of the enumerated powers of the Feds. At least until South Dakota v. Dole that is.
Dole v. South Dakota had nothing to do with it. South Dakota retained the right to enforce an 18+ drinking age. It chose not to in order to accept federal highway funding.

The idea that states could nullify federal law (both statutory and case law) has been dead since at least 1958 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron), and had pretty much been put to rest by that whole Civil War thing anyway.