Missouri Prop C: Health Care Freedom Act

Politics & Elections
41

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.

42

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.”

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
43

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?

44

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.

45

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.

46

Quote the portion of the fifth amendment which states that law enforcement officials have a duty to inform you of your rights.

47

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.

Massresources.org - scroll down to see the costs and fees for the different plans.

48

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.

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).

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.

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.

49

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…

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.

50

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.

51

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.

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.

52

Quoth Aversin:

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?

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?

53

It’s not what I asked for. Please read the question before responding.

54

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.

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.

55

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.

56

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

57

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.

Yes, they do. Have you ever read Rousseau?

That’s not what tyranny means.

I suppose you might mean ochlocracy.

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.

58

I 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.

59

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?

60

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.