Yup, caused by liberals. Everything bad is caused by liberals.
I told you that we failed with the Brussels sprouts… 
Cite?
Who arbitrates whether or not an activity is “primarily” economic in nature?
If a child wants a puppy for Christmas, and gets it, he would not think of his activity as “primarily economic,” even if it plunged his father into the pet marketplace and thus had economic effects. The government, which looks at the very big picture, will of course see things differently.
A father later carrying that child into the ER would not think of his activity as “primarily economic,” even if it meant he would be in the healthcare marketplace and thus had economic effects. But the government, will of course see things differently.
If the child grow up and considers getting married, he would not think of his activity as “primarily economic,” even though his decision to marry or not will have quite significant economic effects. But the government, which looks at the very big picture, will of course see things differently.
And if said child considers having children of his own, he would not think of his activity as “primarily economic,” even though his decision will have enormous economic effects, likely for decades to come. But the government, which looks at the very big picture, will of course see things differently.
The largest country on the planet has a standing “one child” policy, in which government inserts itself into the most intimate of human relations. The stated reason for this was never ideological or moral – it was economic.
Why is it so shocking that the government can force you to do some thing?
For decades the government drafted young men and sent them to die in foreign wars, but broccoli you guys have a problem with? Even to this day the US has the Selective Service System in place if it needs it.
In some cases it’s obvious, I think. For example, I don’t know that too many people think violence against women is primarily an interstate commerce issue, or that the government is primarily concerned about this aspect.
But as you note, there will be cases where different people might view things differently. That’s true of many things, however. Generally the courts have the final word.
That’s an interesting point. But I don’t think the authority to have a draft derives from the Commerce Clause, so it’s not strictly on point here.
More broadly, I think people have long since accepted the concept of a draft even though it’s a lot more onerous, since the consequences of not defending the country are so severe and widely accepted. I don’t think the economic well-being of the country - or, more importantly, some politicians’ idea of what helps the economic well-being of the country - rises to that level.
One of the stated reasons was economic. The first stated reason was “social issues”, and the second was economics. The third was the environment.
We draw opposite conclusions from this fact. You say the government permits itself the ability to draft young men and send them to die, which means lesser crimes should also be permitted. I say the government permits itself the ability to draft young men and send them to die, which means it is a self-serving entity not to be trusted. You use it as a reason to expand the government’s power, I’d use it as a reason to remove their ability to use the draft.
His post is his cite. It’s SA. You’re not new here, are you? 
True. But the authority to conduct a draft derives from Article I, § 8 ("…to declare war; . . . to raise and support armies…") and not the Commerce Clause.
For me, it’s not shocking that the government can force you to do stuff. But it’s shocking that the Commerce Clause is thought to contain a broad enough reach to let the federal government regulate ANYTHING.
… back to the OP, the AP has an interesting article today that says that there is an alternative to the mandate that could work.
It would make enrollment in the Health Exchanges to purchase insurance look much like the current Medicare system. It would involve setting premiums higher if you wait to purchase insurance. That coupled with limited, annual open enrollment periods (just like Medicare) would go a long way towards limiting the ‘adverse selection’ problem.
I believe that the sections of the law regarding insurance exchanges already allow for enrollment periods and premium reviews, so the Medicare approach is probably very doable within the current law. I doubt that the insurance companies would complain about being able to charge higher premiums (for everyone), so they would lobby just as hard or harder than they are for the current mandate.
So, wouldn’t this put individual choice back in the equation? If I am a young ‘invincible’, i can choose to wait to purchase insurance - but I will pay more at a later date. Also, if I break a leg snowboarding, I can pay for it in cash or wait up to a year to get insurance to treat it.
-
Cite? Wiki says “The original intent of the one-child policy was economic” One-child policy - Wikipedia
-
What “social issues” would those be that have absolutely no economic dimensions? Deng Xiaoping didn’t care for crying kids in movie theaters?
Scale means nothing. Just because the majority are buying broccoli now does not make it okay for the government to demand you buy broccoli if you do not want to. Once this happens then the government has the right to do the exact opposite…tell 95% of the people to buy something that only 5% currently purchase. Would you think that is fair?
On a side note: Do you really believe the government cares about the people? Look at the extension in unemployment benefits. Did the government give a shit when only 4% of the population was unemployed? Nope. All of a sudden, with almost 10% unemployed, the government cares. Why is it okay to let a few people “starve in the street” or whatever term you guys are using, but not a lot of people?
You’ll hear no argument from me concerning that. I think it is theft plain and simple. That being said, the government can legally spend tax dollars on subsidies. It cannot force you to go to the store and buy corn. Giving my tax dollars to GM or Fannie, Freddy, or the whole list of financial institutions that were bailed out is not the same as forcing me to buy a product from any of these companies.
When unemployment was 4%, any individual who was unemployed could hustle and find a job. There were lots of open jobs as well, the unemployed had to find them. Sometimes they had to take a job they really didn’t want to take. Sometimes they had to learn something new. The chances of anyone starving on the street, to use the hyperbolic phrasing some have here, was pretty small. So the “government” cared more about motivating people to look for jobs, fill the vacant jobs, and increasing total output. In technical terms this is called
But when unemployment is almost 10%, no matter how much they hustle, they will not find a job. There are very few vacant positions, and the competition for them is fierce. The canonical example is people with college degrees taking up cashier or barista jobs, edging out the high school graduate. So not only is it difficult to find a job at all, the job you will likely find is extremely unattractive (dirty, dangerous, physically demanding, etc), and the “government” cares about you starving in the street even though you are looking for work as hard as you can. Or more properly, the people care, they call their congresspeople, and then the government cares. When half the voters have a parent, child, sibling or spouse who is unemployed, it is hard to tell them that the unemployed are just lazy shirkers, trying to freeload on the industrous.
By the way, when unemployment is 4%, some of the unemployed really are enjoying a short vacation on the dole. You just have a very hard time identifying them individually. And most people will not know anyone who has been out of work for very long.
Fair? I don’t believe fair is listed as a requirement for new laws. Do you think 20 year olds think a legal drinking age of 21 is fair? As a renter, I didn’t think it was *fair *that home owners got a sweet tax break. That policy (combined with the $8000) *forced *me to buy a house.
Ah hell, let’s go a step further: was slavery fair? The government said it was okay to force people to work for free, to be owned. I supposed technically the government didn’t own slaves (or did they?) but they allowed for it. Keep in mind, that was the basis for the constitution. Clearly, fair was never meant as a significant factor.
You also asked if I think it’s “okay.” Again, what I think is “okay” has nothing to do with the constitution and the process of making a bill into a law. Apparently it was considered “okay” to own someone and force them to work–constitutionally.
I believe that “the government” is made up of elected people, who are elected by people. It’s not a robot we turn on and set loose. Those people we elect care about getting re/elected, so they promise/do things that are pleasing to their electorate.
Does Apple (aka big corporations) care about it’s customers? Doesn’t matter, they make a product, and if pleasing their customers will buy it. Hence, their goal is to make products that are pleasing to their customers.
When we apply the broccoli example: if 95% are already buying broccoli, they’ll continue to vote for Team Broccoli. If 95% don’t want to buy broccoli, they will vote against Team Broccoli, electing the guy that says he’ll repeal it. 95% is a big number of voters to piss off. Unless of course Team Broccoli is in favour of gun rights, while Team non-Broccoli is a secret Buddhist that will raise taxes…
You do realize that the net result is the same, money out of your pocket, and broccoli purchased. I agree is sucks, and as a person that hates broccoli this law would piss me off. I would say that it’s not okay, and it’s not fair. But so what? I don’t like that several thousand dollars of my income is spent on smart bombs that ultimately get used to blow up Canadian soldiers.
You probably don’t want to hear this, but the government is currently using your income to buy broccoli, lots of its. It’s buying milk, chicken, all sorts of things. And on Monday I’m going to get a whole bunch of that as part of a donation, paid for by the USDA.
Trusted? The government, and by that I mean your elected congress, has the ability to start a war, then force you to go fight, without any reason at all (well, maybe they need to pretend there was a torpedo or WMDs). They don’t even have to provide you with equipment, and can then court martial you if you refuse to run towards into a machine gun turret.
That’s pretty much as powerful as it gets, there isn’t much to expand beyond that. They have that power, yet are not to be trusted?
As far as I can tell, the federal government (and by that I mean the elected president and elect members of congress) has the ability to do anything it wants–as long as the supreme court say it’s constitutional. And if it’s not constitutional, the government (again, elected) can either nominate a new supreme court, or amend the constitution.
I used the word “fair” for a reason. It is you that claims your so-called broccoli law was okay since 95% of the population already purchases broccoli. Forcing an individual to buy something against his will is unconstitutional whether 5% or 95% of the people already purchase the product. Just because less people are affected by the law does not magically make it constitutional or right.
You are forgetting that the vast majority of the federal government is an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy that elected officials hide behind when the decisions that the bureaucracy makes cause outrage in the public.
Again, you miss the point. Just because 95% of voters believe something is a good idea does not make it constitutional.
I’m fully aware that the net result is the same. A better analogy would be using our tax dollars to fund a government-run healthcare industry. Here, much like SS and Medicare, the government probably can legally do this with tax dollars. This is quite different from penalizing someone for not purchasing a product from a private corporation.
Yes it does. No, not directly, but are you aware of Article 5 of the constiution, that’s how the constitution gets changed? It doesn’t even require 95%. If three-fourths of the states, or 2/3rds of both levels of congress, want people to buy broccoli, it will become constitutional. So if it’s currently unconstitutional, then the constitution can be changed.
The alternative is to realize that for a law to be unconstitutional isn’t up to you, or me, or 95% of the population, but of 8 people on the supreme court. Now, consider that those 8 people are nominated by “the government.” Then consider that the number of justices isn’t fixed. So if the current 8 vote unannamously against my broccoli law, congress has the power to nominate 9 more justices that will vote in my favour.
But more on topic: “the government” has already demonstrated that it can force me to buy auto insurance. As a caterer I was forced to buy insurance. Many home owners are required to buy mortgage insurance. I’m sure everyone lurking can think of an occation where they were forced to buy insurance. Forced by the government to buy something.
Each of those cases usually goes along with a choice: don’t own a car, make a larger downpayment, etc. With health care it is based on the choice to live in the US. Because all of these situations represent you being a liability to society.
We recognizaed that you as a motorist have the ability to cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, and thus have a mandate that forces you to buy insurance from a private company.
Health care is no different, by virtue of being alive you are a liability to the system. How is that? Because we as a society realized that we’re not okay letting people die. So we mandate that ERs provide life saving treatment. Should you fail to pay, those costs get passed on to the insured patients–just like auto insurance.
Now, at the end of all this, having a mandate to buy health insurance is still a stupid way to go about that, you’ll get no argument from me on that. The whole set up is fucking retarded as far as I’m concerned. Tell me though, would you have been happy if there was a way to prove “self coverage,” perhaps by showing you’ve got $10k ready to spend on health expenses?
IIRC with day-trading (in stocks) there are requirements that you have $25k in cash in your account to be able to buy and sell the same stock within the day. Otherwise you’re not allowed and your account gets frozen.
Then amend the constitution and that will be the end of it. The problem is that politicians are constantly trying to bend the constitution to fit whatever they think is a good idea at the time.
Christ. How many times do we have to rehash this argument. Auto insurance is not a federal requirement. States have more latitute to…bla bla bla. Mortgage insurance is required by banks…not the federal government (unless you have a FHA loan with a low percentage down payment). This is not equal to the federal government forcing you to purchase mortgage insurance.
You are a liability to the system because the government has chosen to not let people die. There is nothing inherent in the health care system that causes an individual to be a liability to the government. The government is free to raise taxes to pay for those liabilities…that is not the same as forcing people to buy health insurance. I suspect you already know all of this but are trying desperately to find a way to justify a federal mandate to purchase a product from a private company.
No, not equal, similar. Would you rather that instead, the federal government require the states mandate the health insurance? They could make it part of the requirements for getting federal highway funds, just like the drinking age set at 21. Would that make you feel better?
Incidentally, I think this brings up an interesting point: what, if anything, limits the powers of the individual state governments? Could they mandate everyone buy health insurance form a private company?
No, not the government, the people. The government is acting on behest of the people.
I assure you I don’t give a crap about the federal mandate, and feel no need to justify it. It’s a retarded idea and won’t do a thing to help with actual problems. I also have perfectly adequate health insurance and would continue to with or without a federal mandate. What fascinates me is that you (and many others) spend your efforts worrying about “can” the government instead of “should” the government.
As I said with the draft, and declarations of war: the federal government can which means what we need to ask more frequently is should