# The winds of change at the Supreme Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012 "2017-04-07T21:32:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/101 "2017-04-12T17:18:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Huh? Voter ID laws are significantly more popular than gay marriage. “Huh” right back at you. Why do you think that observation undermines my point? Only strong liberals oppose voter ID laws right now. So if Kennedy sided with them on an issue like that, it would support the hypothesis that Kennedy is a secret liberal. Support for gay marriage, by contrast, does not indicate liberal leanings. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/102 "2017-04-13T19:31:30Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > You ever read the Peanuts comic strip? Charlie Brown and all that? There’s this recurring thing where Lucy is holding a football for Charlie Brown to kick, and every time, Charlie Brown says, “Oh, no, I’m not falling for that trick this time. You’re going to pull the football away at the last minute.”, and Lucy says, “No, no, this time I’m not going to do that.”, and so Charlie Brown always goes to kick the football, and sure enough, she pulls the football away, and he always lands on his back. > > It’s like that. It doesn’t matter who the nominee is. Republicans are going to put them in. Only two Republicans voted against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education, even though she had no idea what the current debate was on testing standards. No Republicans voted against somebody with a long history of making racist statements for Attorney General. Marco Rubio spent his entire questioning of Tillerson criticizing him for being pro-Russian and too friendly to Putin, and then voted for him for Secretary of State. > > Do you understand what I’m saying? Nothing the Democrats do in the Senate right now matters, because the Republicans, no matter how much they say they’ll use independent judgement, will walk in lockstep and swallow as much crap as the party tells them to swallow. It was very much the same way in Obama’s early years when he had the senate. Karma, as they say, is a real b\*-@h! With nearly a 1/3 of the voters identifying themselves as independent, I for one hope to see more politicians running for office who have not had their campaigns faded by a foreign nation for special interest groups. These days Politicians are mostly defined by their largest donors unless an election is coming then the flip or flop if needed to win. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/103 "2017-04-16T19:30:38Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Support for gay marriage, by contrast, does not indicate liberal leanings. I agree. However, the belief that Constitution mandates that all 50 states must affirmatively recognize gay marriage, is indicative of a belief in an evolving, living constitution: the epitome of a liberal belief. I oppose legal abortion, but my role as a judge (hypothetically) would have to be that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and even if I wanted, I couldn’t outlaw it in all 50 states. The percentage of the public which supports gay marriage or abortion, whether 5%, 40%, 60%, or 95% is irrelevant to whether the words of the 14th amendment mandate that gay marriage or abortion must exist in those areas of the country that don’t want it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/104 "2017-04-16T20:21:58Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I agree. However, the belief that Constitution mandates that all 50 states must affirmatively recognize gay marriage, is indicative of a belief in an evolving, living constitution: the epitome of a liberal belief. > > I oppose legal abortion, but my role as a judge (hypothetically) would have to be that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and even if I wanted, I couldn’t outlaw it in all 50 states. > > The percentage of the public which supports gay marriage or abortion, whether 5%, 40%, 60%, or 95% is irrelevant to whether the words of the 14th amendment mandate that gay marriage or abortion must exist in those areas of the country that don’t want it. You’re conceding my point (political support for marriage equality isn’t very good evidence that one is a liberal) and making a different argument (judicial enforcement of equal treatment of marriage makes one a liberal). But I don’t think your new argument is very strong given your concession. In the final analysis the disagreements weren’t about how to interpret the equal protection and due process clauses, but instead whether there was any sound basis for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The centrist view was that there wasn’t any such basis. The rest follows straightforwardly under precedent. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/105 "2017-04-21T19:12:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You’re conceding my point (political support for marriage equality isn’t very good evidence that one is a liberal) and making a different argument (judicial enforcement of equal treatment of marriage makes one a liberal). > > But I don’t think your new argument is very strong given your concession. In the final analysis the disagreements weren’t about how to interpret the equal protection and due process clauses, but instead whether there was any sound basis for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The centrist view was that there wasn’t any such basis. The rest follows straightforwardly under precedent. Your “sound basis” analysis is a legislative function. Morality laws have always been a part of society. Many voters and legislators have decided that they are opposed to legal same sex marriage, for various reasons. It is not the function of an all-powerful, all-knowing Supreme Court to tell these people that they are wrong and that we know better. It goes beyond same sex marriage. What if the Court decided that there was no “sound basis” for a particular law because of studies that said otherwise? The debate over who is right and who is wrong should be had in the legislature. If they are enacting coo-coo bananas laws, then they can be voted out. Does the Court suggest that everyone in society prior to 2001 lost their minds? That the 30 states since then, and the voters that approved those constitutional amendments are simply insane? Scalia was very prescient on how Lawrence laid the groundwork for this faulty result. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/106 "2017-04-21T19:43:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Alternatively, that advice keeps the entire country from sinking to the lowest common denominator. Your state can do anything it wishes to do wrt domestic policy. You want UHC? It’s within your grasp. Quit expecting the other 300M odd people to want the same thing you do. This is untrue. The fundamental reason why a single state cannot practically offer universal health care (it has been tried but it rapidly begins to fail) is that a. Doctors and nurses can move across state lines and their licenses are still valid. They _can’t_ move to other countries nearly so easily. Some countries require retraining, others pay much less. You need to be able to force, through market pressure, doctors and nurses to accept lower rates, or UHC isn’t viable. b. Drug companies are not nearly so easy to squeeze when it’s just one state doing it. Again, you need to be able to negotiate with real clout or you can’t force medical rates to be reasonable. c. It gives the sick and poor a reason to move to your state, while the rich and healthy have a reason to move out of your state. Again, if the UHC is nationwide, this problem is greatly reduced - moving to another country is in fact a PITA and a years long process, even for the rich. Also, the rich would pay an exit tax of 40% of their assets. And I can go on and on. Point is, it’s not a policy you can effectively implement in one state. I take from the tone of your post that you disagree with UHC entirely, and that’s fine, but do you see how Federalism does not solve this particular issue? Also, I understand you not liking the fundamental need for the state to muscle doctors, nurses, and drug companies into accepting less - though my position on that is that you are fighting one monopoly with another. De facto, the pool of doctors and nurses are a monopoly (nobody else is licensed and there is a shortage of them), so you fight with a monopoly of a UHC conglomerate that has 200 million patients. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/107 "2017-04-21T20:23:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Scalia was very prescient on how Lawrence laid the groundwork for this faulty result. Yes. But this only makes your argument weaker. By acknowledging that Obergefell follows from striking down sodomy laws, you only make it clearer why Kennedy is not fairly designated as a liberal. He’s just not a member of the radical right. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/108 "2017-04-21T20:35:33Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > This is untrue. The fundamental reason why a single state cannot practically offer universal health care (it has been tried but it rapidly begins to fail) is that > > a. Doctors and nurses can move across state lines and their licenses are still valid. They _can’t_ move to other countries nearly so easily. Some countries require retraining, others pay much less. You need to be able to force, through market pressure, doctors and nurses to accept lower rates, or UHC isn’t viable. > > b. Drug companies are not nearly so easy to squeeze when it’s just one state doing it. Again, you need to be able to negotiate with real clout or you can’t force medical rates to be reasonable. > > c. It gives the sick and poor a reason to move to your state, while the rich and healthy have a reason to move out of your state. Again, if the UHC is nationwide, this problem is greatly reduced - moving to another country is in fact a PITA and a years long process, even for the rich. Also, the rich would pay an exit tax of 40% of their assets. > > And I can go on and on. Point is, it’s not a policy you can effectively implement in one state. I take from the tone of your post that you disagree with UHC entirely, and that’s fine, but do you see how Federalism does not solve this particular issue? Also, I understand you not liking the fundamental need for the state to muscle doctors, nurses, and drug companies into accepting less - though my position on that is that you are fighting one monopoly with another. De facto, the pool of doctors and nurses are a monopoly (nobody else is licensed and there is a shortage of them), so you fight with a monopoly of a UHC conglomerate that has 200 million patients. So, your national plan must force doctors, nurses, and drug companies to pay a government mandated price, and not be allowed to leave. It must forbid rich, young, or healthy people from leaving or otherwise paying a price that is relative to the care that they might draw from the system; they must pay not only their share, but others’. It is a vast transfer of wealth from the healthy to the sick, and from not only the rich, but the middle class to the poor. It is forced labor at slave wages. No fucking thank you. That’s why we don’t want it. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/109 "2017-04-21T20:53:39Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So, your national plan must force doctors, nurses, and drug companies to pay a government mandated price, and not be allowed to leave. It must forbid rich, young, or healthy people from leaving or otherwise paying a price that is relative to the care that they might draw from the system; they must pay not only their share, but others’. > > It is a vast transfer of wealth from the healthy to the sick, and from not only the rich, but the middle class to the poor. It is forced labor at slave wages. > > No fucking thank you. That’s why we don’t want it. Do you disagree with my _point_ that such a system _does_ require national coordination? It must be done nationwide, or it can’t work. I wasn’t asking for your opinion on whether you wanted UHC, and I respect your strong kneejerk belief against it. It’s all of those things - transfer of wealth, and forcing of labor. It’s not slave wages, or nobody would apply to medical school in Canada or Britain, but it is not as much as doctors are paid now. Roughly half as much. (give or take, anechdotal numbers. About 350k for USA surgeons, 200k for NHS surgeons. About 180k for USA PCPs, closer to 120 for NHS. And so on. What makes it not slave labor is it’s still more than the average income in Britain, more than double, and people still compete for the chance to study medicine at all there.) Since everyone with a pulse, including you, will be sick eventually, transferring money makes sense because you will probably eventually be a beneficiary. Statistically, you will be. Only way you won’t be is if you die suddenly and rapidly. Transferring from the rich - I would agree with you there, except it is a mathematical reality that the rich are collecting more and more of the money in the current system and they are the only ones capable of paying a good chunk of the immense bill for a real UHC system. Robin hooding some of that money back the other way may in fact be a good idea _in this situation._ We aren’t talking the Communist Revolution here, just a 5% or so tax on the incomes of the rich. It’s not the same thing as seizing all of their property like during a Communist takeover- but I _do_ understand how they are similar. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/110 "2017-04-21T20:56:54Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > This is untrue. The fundamental reason why a single state cannot practically offer universal health care (it has been tried but it rapidly begins to fail) is that > > a. Doctors and nurses can move across state lines and their licenses are still valid. They _can’t_ move to other countries nearly so easily. Some countries require retraining, others pay much less. You need to be able to force, through market pressure, doctors and nurses to accept lower rates, or UHC isn’t viable. > > b. Drug companies are not nearly so easy to squeeze when it’s just one state doing it. Again, you need to be able to negotiate with real clout or you can’t force medical rates to be reasonable. > > c. It gives the sick and poor a reason to move to your state, while the rich and healthy have a reason to move out of your state. Again, if the UHC is nationwide, this problem is greatly reduced - moving to another country is in fact a PITA and a years long process, even for the rich. Also, the rich would pay an exit tax of 40% of their assets. > > And I can go on and on. Point is, it’s not a policy you can effectively implement in one state. I take from the tone of your post that you disagree with UHC entirely, and that’s fine, but do you see how Federalism does not solve this particular issue? Also, I understand you not liking the fundamental need for the state to muscle doctors, nurses, and drug companies into accepting less - though my position on that is that you are fighting one monopoly with another. De facto, the pool of doctors and nurses are a monopoly (nobody else is licensed and there is a shortage of them), so you fight with a monopoly of a UHC conglomerate that has 200 million patients. So much to disagree with here. Whether an individual state can successfully implement a major social policy decision such as implementation of UHC has not bearing on whether such a plan is constitutional nor on whether it is within the proper role of the federal government to take it up. Humbly, doctors and nurses likely find it easier to move internationally as their skills are in high demand. Several countries do recognize US medical licenses to practice. In some instances it may be just as easy as moving across state borders. The wealthy can move internationally with ease. Independent means of self support will get you some form of resident’s visa in many countries. Took me about six weeks from the time of making the decision to move overseas to moving in to my new home in a new country, including the time to get a resident visa approved. A years long process is not required. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/111 "2017-04-21T21:03:54Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > So much to disagree with here. > > Whether an individual state \*\*can \*\*successfully implement a major social policy decision such as implementation of UHC has not bearing on whether such a plan is constitutional nor on whether it is within the proper role of the federal government to take it up. > > Humbly, doctors and nurses likely find it easier to move internationally as their skills are in high demand. Several countries do recognize US medical licenses to practice. In some instances it may be just as easy as moving across state borders. > > The wealthy can move internationally with ease. Independent means of self support will get you some form of resident’s visa in many countries. Took me about six weeks from the time of making the decision to move overseas to moving in to my new home in a new country, including the time to get a resident visa approved. A years long process is not required. Bolding mine. Do you understand how, whether or not doctors and nurses can move internationally, or \*you \*could move internationally, it’s _harder_ than moving to another state. Especially since almost no country in the entire world pays doctors and nurses as much as they make now in the USA. And we aren’t talking Contitutional issues - though the Supreme Court [did 5-4 answer them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius). I am simply saying that the Federalism system does not _practically_ allow for Universal Health Care. And if you were worth more than 2 million, you would have had to pay a significant tax : [Expatriation tax - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax#United_States) So, no, the wealthy _cannot_ move internationally with ease. And if they have business holdings making income in the USA, they would be paying taxes towards UHC as long as they have business interests in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/112 "2017-04-21T21:29:28Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > This is untrue. The fundamental reason why a single state cannot practically offer universal health care (it has been tried but it rapidly begins to fail) is that > > a. Doctors and nurses can move across state lines and their licenses are still valid. They _can’t_ move to other countries nearly so easily. Some countries require retraining, others pay much less. You need to be able to force, through market pressure, doctors and nurses to accept lower rates, or UHC isn’t viable. > > b. Drug companies are not nearly so easy to squeeze when it’s just one state doing it. Again, you need to be able to negotiate with real clout or you can’t force medical rates to be reasonable. > > c. It gives the sick and poor a reason to move to your state, while the rich and healthy have a reason to move out of your state. Again, if the UHC is nationwide, this problem is greatly reduced - moving to another country is in fact a PITA and a years long process, even for the rich. Also, the rich would pay an exit tax of 40% of their assets. > > And I can go on and on. Point is, it’s not a policy you can effectively implement in one state. I take from the tone of your post that you disagree with UHC entirely, and that’s fine, but do you see how Federalism does not solve this particular issue? Also, I understand you not liking the fundamental need for the state to muscle doctors, nurses, and drug companies into accepting less - though my position on that is that you are fighting one monopoly with another. De facto, the pool of doctors and nurses are a monopoly (nobody else is licensed and there is a shortage of them), so you fight with a monopoly of a UHC conglomerate that has 200 million patients. You could make all those same arguments about public schools, and yet state run public schools have not caused the country to implode. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/113 "2017-04-21T21:58:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You could make all those same arguments about public schools, and yet state run public schools have not caused the country to implode. Totally different cost scales. Not a comparable situation in any way. The cost to educate a student by a state run public school is 10k a year tops. A medical bill can be 1 million or higher, easy. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/114 "2017-04-21T23:07:42Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Totally different cost scales. Not a comparable situation in any way. The cost to educate a student by a state run public school is 10k a year tops. A medical bill can be 1 million or higher, easy. I think this is both wrong factually, and the wrong comparison. It’s factually wrong because some states will pay less than $10K, but some will pay much more. ([Page 8 of the pdf](https://www2.census.gov/govs/school/13f33pub.pdf)) It’s the wrong comparison because you are comparing the regular run rate to the spike costs of a particularly expensive incident. A better comparison would be to the ongoing actuarially determined insurance cost. For that it looks to be around[just north of $6,200 per individual](http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx)in 2015 for employer sponsored plans: > [@](#): > > The average annual single coverage premium is $6,251 and the average family coverage premium is $17,545.this year Maybe average out of pocket health care expense would be a better measure. [For that it is approximately $10K/year.](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-peak-us-health-care-spending-10345-per-person/) ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/115 "2017-04-21T23:32:34Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > … > > And if you were worth more than 2 million, you would have had to pay a significant tax : [Expatriation tax - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax#United_States) > > So, no, the wealthy _cannot_ move internationally with ease. And if they have business holdings making income in the USA, they would be paying taxes towards UHC as long as they have business interests in the USA. You are equating moving internationally with renouncing your US citizenship. Do you understand that you can do the former without doing the later? There is no tax just for moving your residence overseas. My home country is crawling with American expats. There are a few thousand Americans here. That rises to 40%+ of the working age population being expats if you count all foreigners. From janitors and landscapers to accountants and surgeons we have people from all over the globe. And it simply does not take years to move, not even for the most wealthy individuals. It takes a matter of a few weeks to make the move. Immigration routinely processes visa applications in a matter of a few weeks. The exceptionally long time to move cases are a few months with the delay based upon the individual’s choices, most often if they do not want to take their kids out of school during a school term. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/116 "2017-04-21T23:35:43Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So, your national plan must force doctors, nurses, and drug companies to pay a government mandated price, and not be allowed to leave. It must forbid rich, young, or healthy people from leaving or otherwise paying a price that is relative to the care that they might draw from the system; they must pay not only their share, but others’. > > It is a vast transfer of wealth from the healthy to the sick, and from not only the rich, but the middle class to the poor. It is forced labor at slave wages. > > No fucking thank you. That’s why we don’t want it. Boy, you sure make it sound scary. You really think all the other G7 countries live under quite the yoke of oppression. I wonder how many people thought like this when we started making fire departments a public function. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/117 "2017-04-22T01:01:00Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > You are equating moving internationally with renouncing your US citizenship. Do you understand that you can do the former without doing the later? There is no tax just for moving your residence overseas. No, but if you have massive investments in U.S. companies, you would still pay the new taxes put in place on your income from those companies, even if you move overseas. Only if you make under a certain amount of money or renounce your citizenship are you immune to said tax. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/118 "2017-04-22T10:44:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Boy, you sure make it sound scary. You really think all the other G7 countries live under quite the yoke of oppression. I wonder how many people thought like this when we started making fire departments a public function. He forgot the death panels. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/119 "2017-04-22T16:45:43Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Do you disagree with my _point_ that such a system _does_ require national coordination? It must be done nationwide, or it can’t work. > > I wasn’t asking for your opinion on whether you wanted UHC, and I respect your strong kneejerk belief against it. It’s all of those things - transfer of wealth, and forcing of labor. > > It’s not slave wages, or nobody would apply to medical school in Canada or Britain, but it is not as much as doctors are paid now. Roughly half as much. (give or take, anechdotal numbers. About 350k for USA surgeons, 200k for NHS surgeons. About 180k for USA PCPs, closer to 120 for NHS. And so on. What makes it not slave labor is it’s still more than the average income in Britain, more than double, and people still compete for the chance to study medicine at all there.) > > Since everyone with a pulse, including you, will be sick eventually, transferring money makes sense because you will probably eventually be a beneficiary. Statistically, you will be. Only way you won’t be is if you die suddenly and rapidly. > > Transferring from the rich - I would agree with you there, except it is a mathematical reality that the rich are collecting more and more of the money in the current system and they are the only ones capable of paying a good chunk of the immense bill for a real UHC system. Robin hooding some of that money back the other way may in fact be a good idea _in this situation._ We aren’t talking the Communist Revolution here, just a 5% or so tax on the incomes of the rich. It’s not the same thing as seizing all of their property like during a Communist takeover- but I _do_ understand how they are similar. It would likely require national coordination but the reasons why it requires it should give anyone who believes in the ideas of individual liberty and freedom pause. You must have national coordination so that you can trap doctors, nurses, the young, rich and healthy in your system unless they wish to give up their citizenship and leave. And yes, such a system might benefit me one day. That is not a reason to support it. If there was a bill in the Legislature to pay Ultravires $1 million because we like him, I would be in favor of that. It doesn’t mean that it is good public policy just because I benefit from it. Simply because Bill Gates or Warren Buffett have been successful in life does not give me the right, by force of law, to require that they pay for my health care. The law should not require doctors or surgeons to work for less than the market wage because I really need health care. You are correct in that this isn’t total communism. It’s only partial communism. But it illustrates the larger problem with government spending. So long as it benefits me, I like it. My state has a $400 million budget deficit that the Legislature is trying to fix. It voted to eliminate a $15 million subsidy to greyhound dog racing breeders. They raised holy hell and the governor vetoed it. At the end of the day, nothing can be cut, and everything should be provided for by government. So this is only partial communism, and the next program is only partial communism, the next, the next, etc. until we have actual socialism or communism. I would be horrified to think that the government can provide me with the same service in healthcare that they provide at the DMV or the county property tax office. It seems that those with money in Canada feel the same way as they travel to the United States for health care to skip the bureaucracy in Canada. I simply do not want it. The problems we have with healthcare is that government is involved too much already. Third party payment prevents true bargaining with the customer. I don’t care if my PCP charges $200 for a 10 minute office visit because I pay a $10 co-pay. Insurance should not cover routine health care issues anymore than auto insurance should cover oil changes, tires, and gasoline, or homeowners insurance should pay for burnt out light bulbs. You do not insure against known events; you insure against possible, yet unlikely events. Federal income tax rates are confiscatory right now. I could have bought a car or a modest home for what I paid to the federal government last year. In a free society, those who desire some of my money for their own needs should not be able to place a lien on the fruits of my labor as a matter of course. I am not saying that there is no place for charity and good works, but this idea that the force of law should compel such payments is not indicative of the rights discussed in the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence. This debate over UHC really highlights this fundamental disagreement over the proper role and scope of governmental power. Property rights are fundamental. Simply because a majority would like to soak it to the rich bastards doesn’t mean that it is a proper thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/120 "2017-04-22T17:57:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Simply because Bill Gates or Warren Buffett have been successful in life does not give me the right, by force of law, to require that they pay for my health care. The law should not require doctors or surgeons to work for less than the market wage because I really need health care. > > You are correct in that this isn’t total communism. It’s only partial communism. But it illustrates the larger problem with government spending. So long as it benefits me, I like it. > > At the end of the day, nothing can be cut, and everything should be provided for by government. So this is only partial communism, and the next program is only partial communism, the next, the next, etc. until we have actual socialism or communism. So long as we are on the same page. Yes, we are talking about a compromise between communism and “libertarian capitalism”. A step more leftward. I’m not going to be able to make you change your views, but I do have one question for you, UltraVires. Are you aware that since the 1970s, the total productivity of America has roughly doubled but wages have stayed flat in real dollars? What has happened - I can provide quotes, these are undisputed figures collected by the IRS and other credible census type data sources - is that advancing technology and long work hours have allowed the country as a whole to produce more than twice what it did in the 1970s. However, all of the gains have gone to mostly the 0.1%. Not the 1%, the 0.1%. Maybe you feel that Bill Gates has “earned” the billions he holds. But do you agree that whether or not he deserves the money, the _value_ of what Microsoft owns was almost _entirely created_ by the programmers working for Microsoft and not Gates himself? That is, Microsoft is worth money because it owns licenses on millions of lines of computer code. A virtual city of complexity. And nearly every line was hammered into place (and tested, etc) by workers who were _not_ Bill Gates himself. I know you’re going to counter with “it’s not our business to wonder how the rich got rich”, “it was all freely agreed to contracts”, “how can you possibly calculate the value that Bill Gates has himself personally added to the company and then conclude he was overcompensated”. And you have good points there. But do you at least see my point of view? This is _exactly_ the same type of injustice that Karl Marx saw more than a century ago. The workers would work in the mines or cut lumber, etc, while the owners would enjoy vast estates, and from a _literal_ level, the mansion was built by the workers, the estate was guarded by soldiers from the worker class, and every last good or service the rich owners enjoyed was created by said workers. Anyways, I personally see a problem here. And thus I don’t see anything wrong with confiscating _some_ of this vast ocean of wealth the wealthy are sitting on (through taxes leveled by unbiased accountants in the employ of the IRS, not some violent uprising like a Communist Revolution) to provide Universal Health Care for the rest of us. My _suspicion_ is this vast ocean of wealth, where the wealthy have gotten to take us 99.9% for about half of everything we as a country have produced in 40 years, was swiped by some kind of scam, and I think the numbers back me up. I also raise my eyebrows at why we have to have a system where 0.1% of us enjoy the fruits of everything, while those of us who are part of _creating_ said fruits have to sicken and die when readily available technology and methods is available to treat us. Concentrating _all_ wealth into the hands of a few people who will never even enjoy it\* doesn’t seem like the most efficient way to run a railroad. \*Well, diminishing returns. The toys of the uber rich that cost 100 times as much don’t produce 100 times the benefit. Maybe 1.1 times the benefit. A private motor yacht is probably only a little more fun than a jet ski, after all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012.md?page=7)