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.ph...sition_C_(2010)
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...10),_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]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

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]

Originally Posted by Frank

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]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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." 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]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

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]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

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]

Originally Posted by Chronos

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

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.

Originally Posted by Chronos

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]

Originally Posted by Aversin

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Rafe Hollister]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Chronos

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]

Originally Posted by Chronos

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

However, I wonder if 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Aversin

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]

Originally Posted by Rafe Hollister

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.c...=#incomelimits - scroll down to see the costs and fees for the different plans.

[Aversin]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by Enderw24

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).

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Nicest of the Damned

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.c...=#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...

Originally Posted by Aversin

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.