ikki3520 |
ya know, george II also ended those wars. Obama just ended them again. Im sure they will need to be ended a third and forth time still. (at a bare minimum).
Just like ww2 hasnt ended yet, with germany occupied and paying for the occupation.
And now this greater irano-syrian-chinese-pakistan war to come, wherein nukes are very likely to be involved. Too bad this healthcare system wont provide me with cyanide pills incase it does go nuclear.
Meanwhile the balkan war is still left open and rotting, that the oh so wonderful clinton went and started. Over massgraves that actually contained serbs, not albanians. Ohwell, just tiny details.
Libya is a mess and will remain so for the next century atleast, with the oil robbed and the manmade river destroyed and thugs in charge. Cute how their first act of government, while in rebellion, was to set up a debt based central bank on the rotchild model. Cute.
Hitdice |
ya know, george II also ended those wars. Obama just ended them again. Im sure they will need to be ended a third and forth time still. (at a bare minimum).
Just like ww2 hasnt ended yet, with germany occupied and paying for the occupation.And now this greater irano-syrian-chinese-pakistan war to come, wherein nukes are very likely to be involved. Too bad this healthcare system wont provide me with cyanide pills incase it does go nuclear.
Meanwhile the balkan war is still left open and rotting, that the oh so wonderful clinton went and started. Over massgraves that actually contained serbs, not albanians. Ohwell, just tiny details.
Libya is a mess and will remain so for the next century atleast, with the oil robbed and the manmade river destroyed and thugs in charge. Cute how their first act of government, while in rebellion, was to set up a debt based central bank on the rotchild model. Cute.
To be fair, saying they all face the same problems doesn't make them the same political beast.
Obama's a bit too far to the right for me, but we haven't heard of anything like Bush's use of signing statements as a executive branch power grab.
Comrade Anklebiter |
ya know, george II also ended those wars. Obama just ended them again. Im sure they will need to be ended a third and forth time still. (at a bare minimum).
Just like ww2 hasnt ended yet, with germany occupied and paying for the occupation.And now this greater irano-syrian-chinese-pakistan war to come, wherein nukes are very likely to be involved. Too bad this healthcare system wont provide me with cyanide pills incase it does go nuclear.
Meanwhile the balkan war is still left open and rotting, that the oh so wonderful clinton went and started. Over massgraves that actually contained serbs, not albanians. Ohwell, just tiny details.
Libya is a mess and will remain so for the next century atleast, with the oil robbed and the manmade river destroyed and thugs in charge. Cute how their first act of government, while in rebellion, was to set up a debt based central bank on the rotchild model. Cute.
Smash US/(wherever Ikki3520 is from) imperialism!
For free, quality health care now!
Workers revolution everywhere!!
Make a second season of Firefly, or at least another Serenity movie!
thejeff |
ya know, george II also ended those wars. Obama just ended them again. Im sure they will need to be ended a third and forth time still. (at a bare minimum).
Just like ww2 hasnt ended yet, with germany occupied and paying for the occupation.And now this greater irano-syrian-chinese-pakistan war to come, wherein nukes are very likely to be involved. Too bad this healthcare system wont provide me with cyanide pills incase it does go nuclear.
Meanwhile the balkan war is still left open and rotting, that the oh so wonderful clinton went and started. Over massgraves that actually contained serbs, not albanians. Ohwell, just tiny details.
Libya is a mess and will remain so for the next century atleast, with the oil robbed and the manmade river destroyed and thugs in charge. Cute how their first act of government, while in rebellion, was to set up a debt based central bank on the rotchild model. Cute.
That's all just silly. WWII is still going on? And we're already blaming Obama, or maybe Romney for a nuclear irano-syrian-chinese-pakistan war?
Bush may have said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were over, but since US troops were directly involved in battles in both through the end of his 2nd term, it's hard to credit that. US ground forces are now out of Iraq. Military operations in Libya are over. There is a difference.
Yeah, Libya's a mess. It was a mess under Qaddafi and it was going to be a mess when he lost power, however and whenever that happened. Maybe they can sort it out now. Maybe they won't. There's a chance at least.
If WW2 is still going on and the Balkan war as well, are there any wars that have actually ended? Ever?
bugleyman |
Tax and refund is no different than a fine. The primary (not secondary) purpose of a tax HAS to be to raise revenue for the general fund, not change behavior. If you're trying to coerce people into buying a product its no different than passing a law outright requiring its purchase. If you don't have the power to make that requirement then you can't subvert that restriction by calling it a tax.
That's fine as a statement of how you think things should be, but that isn't how things are. Everything from tobacco taxes, liquor taxes, gas taxes, etc., etc., etc. are clearly levied with an eye toward shaping behavior. Further, the proceeds of such taxes are often put aside for specific purposes. There is no shortage of precedent in this area.
Caineach |
ikki3520 wrote:ya know, george II also ended those wars. Obama just ended them again. Im sure they will need to be ended a third and forth time still. (at a bare minimum).
Just like ww2 hasnt ended yet, with germany occupied and paying for the occupation.And now this greater irano-syrian-chinese-pakistan war to come, wherein nukes are very likely to be involved. Too bad this healthcare system wont provide me with cyanide pills incase it does go nuclear.
Meanwhile the balkan war is still left open and rotting, that the oh so wonderful clinton went and started. Over massgraves that actually contained serbs, not albanians. Ohwell, just tiny details.
Libya is a mess and will remain so for the next century atleast, with the oil robbed and the manmade river destroyed and thugs in charge. Cute how their first act of government, while in rebellion, was to set up a debt based central bank on the rotchild model. Cute.
That's all just silly. WWII is still going on? And we're already blaming Obama, or maybe Romney for a nuclear irano-syrian-chinese-pakistan war?
Bush may have said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were over, but since US troops were directly involved in battles in both through the end of his 2nd term, it's hard to credit that. US ground forces are now out of Iraq. Military operations in Libya are over. There is a difference.
Yeah, Libya's a mess. It was a mess under Qaddafi and it was going to be a mess when he lost power, however and whenever that happened. Maybe they can sort it out now. Maybe they won't. There's a chance at least.
If WW2 is still going on and the Balkan war as well, are there any wars that have actually ended? Ever?
German repparations for WWI ended a few years ago.
Kirth Gersen |
Meanwhile the balkan war is still left open and rotting, that the oh so wonderful clinton went and started. Over massgraves that actually contained serbs, not albanians. Ohwell, just tiny details.
Have you ever been in the Balkans? "Rotting?" Belgrade in 2010 was one of the most vibrant cities I've ever been in. As far as Clinton "starting" the war there -- that had been simmering since the '40s, it's just that Tito was too much of a hardcase to let it boil over while he was in charge.
Libya, Iran, Pakistan -- I can't address those; my crystal ball is apparently not as good as yours; it's still cloudy.
bugleyman |
That's all just silly. WWII is still going on? And we're already blaming Obama, or maybe Romney for a nuclear irano-syrian-chinese-pakistan war?
Bush may have said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were over, but since US troops were directly involved in battles in both through the end of his 2nd term, it's hard to credit that. US ground forces are now out of Iraq. Military operations in Libya are over. There is a difference.
Yeah, Libya's a mess. It was a mess under Qaddafi and it was going to be a mess when he lost power, however and whenever that happened. Maybe they can sort it out now. Maybe they won't. There's a chance at least.
If WW2 is still going on and the Balkan war as well, are there any wars that have actually ended? Ever?
Don't feed the trolls. :)
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Tax and refund is no different than a fine. The primary (not secondary) purpose of a tax HAS to be to raise revenue for the general fund, not change behavior. If you're trying to coerce people into buying a product its no different than passing a law outright requiring its purchase. If you don't have the power to make that requirement then you can't subvert that restriction by calling it a tax.That's fine as a statement of how you think things should be, but that isn't how things are. Everything from tobacco taxes liquor taxes
Tobacco, liquor, and gas are made in one state and usually transported accross state lines. As I said above, since its interstate trade congress gets the power to regulate it.
Taking that to the extreme of "congress can pass a law about anythinig that in any way affects interstate trade, including non actions" completely negates the fact that congress has enumerated powers and cannot act outside of them: the entire point of the constitution. When the constitution was ratified people didn't think the bill of rights was neccesary because congress didn't have the power to do anything they were being prohibited from doing.
There's also the "though shall" nature of the fine vs "though shall not" nature of the taxes.
Lets say someone gets into office and they own the bouncing blue marble company in Alaska. Can the government just put a 1 million dollar capitation (head tax) on everyone and then write in an exemption for everyone with an authentic bouncing blue marble?
bugleyman |
Tobacco, liquor, and gas are made in one state and usually transported accross state lines. As I said above, since its interstate trade congress gets the power to regulate it.
Taking that to the extreme of "congress can pass a law about anythinig that in any way affects interstate trade, including non actions" completely negates the fact that congress has enumerated powers and cannot act outside of them: the entire point of the constitution. When the constitution was ratified people didn't think the bill of rights was neccesary because congress didn't have the power to do anything they were being prohibited from doing.
There's also the "though shall" nature of the fine vs "though shall not" nature of the taxes.
Lets say someone gets into office and they own the bouncing blue marble company in Alaska. Can the government just put a 1 million dollar capitation (head tax) on everyone and then write in an exemption for everyone with an authentic bouncing blue marble?
I'm pretty sure health care is a matter of interstate commerce.
But I'm a little unclear what we're discussing here -- I'm simply proposing that the federal government should have just effectively extended medicare to 100% of the population, then raised taxes to pay for it. The whole point of doing it that was is to avoid splitting the "tax" vs. "fine" hair.
thejeff |
bugleyman wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:Tax and refund is no different than a fine. The primary (not secondary) purpose of a tax HAS to be to raise revenue for the general fund, not change behavior. If you're trying to coerce people into buying a product its no different than passing a law outright requiring its purchase. If you don't have the power to make that requirement then you can't subvert that restriction by calling it a tax.That's fine as a statement of how you think things should be, but that isn't how things are. Everything from tobacco taxes liquor taxes
Tobacco, liquor, and gas are made in one state and usually transported accross state lines. As I said above, since its interstate trade congress gets the power to regulate it.
Taking that to the extreme of "congress can pass a law about anythinig that in any way affects interstate trade, including non actions" completely negates the fact that congress has enumerated powers and cannot act outside of them: the entire point of the constitution. When the constitution was ratified people didn't think the bill of rights was neccesary because congress didn't have the power to do anything they were being prohibited from doing.
There's also the "though shall" nature of the fine vs "though shall not" nature of the taxes.
Lets say someone gets into office and they own the bouncing blue marble company in Alaska. Can the government just put a 1 million dollar capitation (head tax) on everyone and then write in an exemption for everyone with an authentic bouncing blue marble?
I think, Constitutionally, the answer is yes. That might be too narrow of an exemption, but I'm not sure if there are Constitutional grounds to block it on that basis.
An exemption (or rebate) based on an entire industry is definitely Constitutional. There was no question about the recent home-purchase rebate, for example. Not done under the Commerce clause, but just under the taxing authority.
thejeff |
But I'm a little unclear what we're discussing here -- I'm simply proposing that the federal government should have just effectively extended medicare to 100% of the population, then raised taxes to pay for it. The whole point of doing it that was is to avoid splitting the "tax" vs. "fine" hair.
That would be the obvious, effective, certainly Constitutional solution. Unfortunately the Republican party would fight to the death to stop it. And plenty of Democrats would go along with them. It's socialism, you know. And that's eevul.
This bit of discussion started with the idea of just rewording the ACA to provide exactly the same financial penalties/rewards as the current law does, but designed as a tax and tax rebate rather than a mandate and penalty. Exactly the same practical effect, but much more difficult to claim unconstitutional.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An exemption (or rebate) based on an entire industry is definitely Constitutional. There was no question about the recent home-purchase rebate, for example. Not done under the Commerce clause, but just under the taxing authority.
Done under the spending authority, which is different. Congress can spend money however the hell it wants. Congress can decide that people with dogs live longer , here's free money for a dog. Congress can't decide to require dog ownership because its neither an enumerated power or a reasonable extrapolation of an existing power.
BigNorseWolf |
I'm pretty sure health care is a matter of interstate commerce.
But is my own individual NOT buying of insurance interstate commerce? That's a much harder argument to make.
But I'm a little unclear what we're discussing here -- I'm simply proposing that the federal government should have just effectively extended medicare to 100% of the population, then raised taxes to pay for it. The whole point of doing it that was is to avoid splitting the "tax" vs. "fine" hair.
As long as the taxes were raised across the board I'm fine with it.
I specifically dislike the worst parts of government mandates and for profit businesses combined in this plan.
I also dislike the expansion of government power in this bill. The reasoning makes the federal government completely unrestrained by the constitution.
thejeff |
The jeff wrote:An exemption (or rebate) based on an entire industry is definitely Constitutional. There was no question about the recent home-purchase rebate, for example. Not done under the Commerce clause, but just under the taxing authority.Done under the spending authority, which is different. Congress can spend money however the hell it wants. Congress can decide that people with dogs live longer , here's free money for a dog. Congress can't decide to require dog ownership because its neither an enumerated power or a reasonable extrapolation of an existing power.
Can Congress give everyone with dogs $500?
Is that fundamentally different than charging everyone who doesn't have a dog $500?
Especially since Congress can also levy a $500 head tax.
BigNorseWolf |
I think, Constitutionally, the answer is yes. That might be too narrow of an exemption, but I'm not sure if there are Constitutional grounds to block it on that basis.
Its a clear work around to congress having limits and enumerated powers under the constitution. So the grounds are that it violates the entire constitution.
BigNorseWolf |
Can Congress give everyone with dogs $500?
Yes.
Is that fundamentally different than charging everyone who doesn't have a dog $500?Especially since Congress can also levy a $500 head tax.
Yes! There is an enormous difference and thank you. Because i think this explains what my problem with obamacare's funding is.
If the government needs 200 million dollars to pay for the Canine Companion Comfort Compact by taxes will go up by say 3 dollars. pretty much nothing. Romney's taxes will go up by 10,000 dollars.
The fine and capitation method is a workaround for a law congress otherwise could not pass. This isn't a problem for tobacco or alchohol because congress has the power to say "these things will not cross state lines, ever" (which is how we got a ban in a lot of wildlife products)
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:Can Congress give everyone with dogs $500?
Yes.
Quote:Is that fundamentally different than charging everyone who doesn't have a dog $500?Especially since Congress can also levy a $500 head tax.Yes! There is an enormous difference and thank you. Because i think this explains what my problem with obamacare's funding is.
If the government needs 200 million dollars to pay for the Canine Companion Comfort Compact by taxes will go up by say 3 dollars. pretty much nothing. Romney's taxes will go up by 10,000 dollars.
The fine and capitation method is a workaround for a law congress otherwise could not pass. This isn't a problem for tobacco or alchohol because congress has the power to say "these things will not cross state lines, ever" (which is how we got a ban in a lot of wildlife products)
Not necessarily. Taxation power is not limited to income tax. A direct head tax is Constitutional. They might not be able to tax everyone who doesn't have a dog. They can, however, tax everyone a flat amount. They can also, as we just agreed, pay everyone who has a dog that same amount. Which works out to exactly the same thing.
BigNorseWolf |
They can, however, tax everyone a flat amount. They can also, as we just agreed, pay everyone who has a dog that same amount. Which works out to exactly the same thing.
But it also amounts to "The government requires you to have a dog". That is the effect of the law, particularly if the price of the capitation rises. The effect and intent are as important as the technicality when considering the constitutionality of a government action, which is why the government can't put out a trillion dollar capitation on everyone and then give people a waiver if they don't insult the Secretary of Agriculture. While you technically have a tax and spend the effect is to stifle free speech. With the dog the effect is to mandate dog ownership, which isn't a power that congress has.
thejeff |
Thejeff wrote:They can, however, tax everyone a flat amount. They can also, as we just agreed, pay everyone who has a dog that same amount. Which works out to exactly the same thing.But it also amounts to "The government requires you to have a dog". That is the effect of the law, particularly if the price of the capitation rises. The effect and intent are as important as the technicality when considering the constitutionality of a government action, which is why the government can't put out a trillion dollar capitation on everyone and then give people a waiver if they don't insult the Secretary of Agriculture. While you technically have a tax and spend the effect is to stifle free speech. With the dog the effect is to mandate dog ownership, which isn't a power that congress has.
I agree with the intent and I think it's a lousy trick to get around the intent of the Constitution. I'm not sure that is an actual Constitutional argument though. Law doesn't always follow common sense.
It's one of the problems with a Constitutional system. You can use legalistic tricks to get around the apparent intent.
CBDunkerson |
But is my own individual NOT buying of insurance interstate commerce?
Yes... and it doesn't matter.
Yes, the Supreme Court (including the current conservative members) has previously ruled that growing and using crops entirely for yourself is interstate commerce that can be regulated by the government because you are then NOT buying the crops on the interstate market and thereby impacting the interstate price.
It doesn't matter because the commerce clause says that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Health care is interstate commerce. Therefor the government can regulate health care. Charging someone a penalty for not buying health insurance is just a WAY of regulating health care.
All that being said, there are plenty of past examples of the government requiring people to buy certain products. For example, the militia acts passed in conjunction with the second amendment required that all able-bodied US males take part in regular drills as part of local militias... and purchase, at their own expense, the rifle, ammunition, and other materials required.
There are absolutely no grounds under which the Supreme Court could legitimately rule the individual mandate unconstitutional. Though that doesn't mean they won't.
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:But is my own individual NOT buying of insurance interstate commerce?Yes... and it doesn't matter.
Yes, the Supreme Court (including the current conservative members) has previously ruled that growing and using crops entirely for yourself is interstate commerce that can be regulated by the government because you are then NOT buying the crops on the interstate market and thereby impacting the interstate price.
In that case 1) There was a national emergency. Which is when governments expand their power... which is why you need to keep your towel handy and DON"T PANIC at all times.
the farmer was trying to declare that a few acres of his land was for his chickens, the rest was for sale... so the court was trying to stop him from working around the governments workaround.
It doesn't matter because the commerce clause says that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Health care is interstate commerce. Therefor the government can regulate health care. Charging someone a penalty for not buying health insurance is just a WAY of regulating health care.
What CAN"T congress regulate by that logic?
All that being said, there are plenty of past examples of the government requiring people to buy certain products. For example, the militia acts passed in conjunction with the second amendment required that all able-bodied US males take part in regular drills as part of local militias... and purchase, at their own expense, the rifle, ammunition, and other materials required.
Which is a draft, which is for a specific and very limited enumerated power.
There are absolutely no grounds under which the Supreme Court could legitimately rule the individual mandate unconstitutional. Though that doesn't mean they won't.
There's quite a vast expanse of ground. The decision for an individual to enter into a very intimate relationship with a business is not an enumerated power of congress. By the 9th amendment that right therefore defaults to either the states or the individual.
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:As long as the taxes were raised across the board I'm fine with it.Gotcha...I see the distinction. So you're ok with, say, tax benefits for having children, because there is no specific tax levied only on people who do not? Isn't the net effect the same?
The net effect is quite different. I'm not compelled to go out and have kids to cover the extra 10 dollars a year I have to pay in taxes to make up for little Jimmy being a deductible expense. There's no effort to coerce me into having kids they're just trying to cut parents a break.
If it was a 100,000 dollar a year capitation and exemption then it would be different. Then its the government trying to push people towards parenthood. (And i'm waaay too ugly for that)
bugleyman |
The net effect is quite different. I'm not compelled to go out and have kids to cover the extra 10 dollars a year I have to pay in taxes to make up for little Jimmy being a deductible expense. There's no effort to coerce me into having kids they're just trying to cut parents a break.
If it was a 100,000 dollar a year capitation and exemption then it would be different. Then its the government trying to push people towards parenthood. (And i'm waaay too ugly for that)
It's actually several thousand dollars a year per child...at least for me. Even so, the amount seems rather irrelevant, at least from a legal justification standpoint. *shrug*
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:The net effect is quite different. I'm not compelled to go out and have kids to cover the extra 10 dollars a year I have to pay in taxes to make up for little Jimmy being a deductible expense. There's no effort to coerce me into having kids they're just trying to cut parents a break.
If it was a 100,000 dollar a year capitation and exemption then it would be different. Then its the government trying to push people towards parenthood. (And i'm waaay too ugly for that)
It's actually several thousand dollars a year per child...at least for me. Even so, the amount seems rather irrelevant, at least from a legal justification standpoint. *shrug*
Drat. We were so close there for a second. Let me try to explain that again.
Your exemption is several thousand dollars a year per child. But i do not pay several thousand dollars a year per child that you have. In fact, whether you double the exemption or end it all together chances are I'll still pay the same thing in taxes because the exemption is being diluted across all sources of income that the federal government has.
The burden is shared proportional to income. At worst my contribution would increase by a percentage equal to the percentage of the federal budget that the exemption costs.
CBDunkerson |
In that case 1) There was a national emergency. Which is when governments expand their power...
the farmer was trying to declare that a few acres of his land was for his chickens, the rest was for sale... so the court was trying to stop him from working around the governments workaround.
You're referring to the 1942 Wickard case... but there have been dozens of similar cases since then. Most recently Raich 2005, in which Scalia wrote for the majority: “Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce.”
Which is directly on point here... the individual mandate is a necessary part of the more general health care regulation. Without it people would be free to have no health insurance until they got sick and then the insurance companies would be required to cover them despite the pre-existing condition. Pay one premium after you get sick and we'll cover all your medical expenses. Great deal, but completely unsustainable.
What CAN"T congress regulate by that logic?
Anything which has no significant impact on interstate commerce.
Which is a draft, which is for a specific and very limited enumerated power.
So what are you arguing? Congress can't require people to buy a product... unless they 'draft' them first? And once upon a time the entire male population was 'drafted'? Ridiculous, but that was also just one example. Around the same time Congress also required ship captains to buy a product on behalf of their crews. Specifically, health care.
There's quite a vast expanse of ground. The decision for an individual to enter into a very intimate relationship with a business is not an enumerated power of congress. By the 9th amendment that right therefore defaults to either the states or the individual.
There is no requirement in the law that individuals enter into a relationship (intimate or otherwise) with any business. There is a requirement that they have health insurance or pay a fine. That requirement is for purposes of regulating interstate commerce and is absolutely a power of Congress.
Usagi Yojimbo |
CBDunkerson wrote:But is my own individual NOT buying of insurance interstate commerce?Quote:
It doesn't matter because the commerce clause says that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Health care is interstate commerce. Therefor the government can regulate health care. Charging someone a penalty for not buying health insurance is just a WAY of regulating health care.What CAN"T congress regulate by that logic?
Ooh, I got this one, BNW:
Talk about answers in prophecy!
" ...and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
Both the left and right wings have been pushing the limits of government power out for a good long time now.
BigNorseWolf |
Anything which has no significant impact on interstate commerce.
Can you give me an example of something like that?
“Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce.”
There isn't any economic activity to regulate if i don't buy insurance.
CBDunkerson |
CBDunkerson wrote:Anything which has no significant impact on interstate commerce.Can you give me an example of something like that?
This discussion.
Quote:“Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce.”There isn't any economic activity to regulate if i don't buy insurance.
Irrelevant and false.
Irrelevant because the Scalia quotation you are 'disputing' says that Congress "may regulate even noneconomic local activity". So, even if you were right about there being no economic activity... the thing you are ostensibly disagreeing with explicitly says that does not matter.
That said, your statement is also false because the health care itself is economic activity. Unless you are going to claim that no medical personnel were in any way involved with your birth and you otherwise have never and will never use any sort of health care you ARE engaged in the economic activity of paying people to help you maintain your health. Not buying insurance would exclude that particular economic activity, but doesn't make the health care activity magically cease to exist. So without insurance there is still economic activity and Congress can still regulate it... including regulating other activities which are NOT economic, but necessary as part of regulating health care. As per Scalia.
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:This discussion.CBDunkerson wrote:Anything which has no significant impact on interstate commerce.Can you give me an example of something like that?Quote:I'm in new york talking to you in _______ over a paizo server located in oregon?. So how is that not interstate trade that can be regulated? The internet has an enormous impact on interstate trade. Your typing could give you carpel tunnel syndrome. Are you slouching? That causes back problems. You're also not exercising right now, which increases your chance for a heart attack.
Time wasted in pointless internet conversations saps productivity of the american worker. The time you spent typing a response could have been used soldering Ipod cases for someone in Wisconsin. Thats interstate trade thats not happening because you're here.. get a move on! We have kids in china to compete with.
Quote:Quote:“Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce.”There isn't any economic activity to regulate if i don't buy insurance.Irrelevant and false.
Quote:Irrelevant because the Scalia quotation you are 'disputing' says that Congress "may regulate even noneconomic local activity". So, even if you were right about there being no economic activity... the thing you are ostensibly disagreeing with explicitly says that does not matter.Too many insults for too little point. Dial it back a bit.
You don't find it a little odd that the person you're quoting is almost a sure bet to nullify the individual mandate if not obamacare?
Quote:That said, your statement is also false because the health care itself is economic activity. Unless you are going to claim that no medical personnel were in any way involved with your birth and you otherwise have never and will never use any sort of health care you ARE engaged in the economic activity of paying people to help you maintain your health.Right. I get sick, i go to a doctor in my state. Thats interstate commerce.....
I don't go to the doctor that's still interstate commerce too, because somewhere an insurance company isn't getting money from me to pay for a woman in Wisconsin to have a baby.
Your reading makes the entire constitution completely irrelevant. There is no need to enumerate the powers of congress if everything is interstate trade.
Quote:Not buying insurance would exclude that particular economic activityNot buying insurance means that particular economic activity does not exist. You can't regulate what isn't there.
CBDunkerson |
I'm in new york talking to you in _______ over a paizo server located in oregon?. So how is that not interstate trade that can be regulated? The internet has an enormous impact on interstate trade.
Yes, because clearly all commerce on the internet would cease if this conversation ended.
Let's test that theory.
<plonk>
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:I'm in new york talking to you in _______ over a paizo server located in oregon?. So how is that not interstate trade that can be regulated? The internet has an enormous impact on interstate trade.Yes, because clearly all commerce on the internet would cease if this conversation ended.
Let's test that theory.
<plonk>
But this isn't just one conversation.
One person opting out of buying insurance doesn't significantly affect the interstate economy, but everyone doing so might.
If you total up the number of hours wasted at work on conversations like this you wind up with a significant loss of productivity.
If you want to go further and argue that non commerce is commerce that can be regulated, then the time you spend on this conversation is time you're not engaged in commerce soldering parts for Apple. The government can regulate that lack of non commerce and tell you to get working for them.
aatea |
I'd like to add to the discussion that you can satisfy the individual mandate by purchasing catastrophic coverage only. So if the idiot on the interstate who's driving drunk and on a suspended license without car insurance crosses the median and slams into your car, you'd be covered for the huge hospital bill to put you back together.
Admittedly, it's been a long time since I priced catastrophic coverage, but the last I checked, it can run around $20 to $50 a month. Would you be willing to spend $20 a month to have that level of coverage? It won't cover basic medical expenses, only the big stuff.
Caineach |
Alright, that's it. We've been talking about Obamacare for pages and pages and pages now, and I don't think I've seen a single whistleblower since the Original Post.
Citizen Duck, please tell me about the fate of whistleblowers under Obama's reign of terror.
Page 2, The White Knife posted this link about the Obama administration prosecuting people for one specific espionage law more than any other administration.
BigNorseWolf |
I'd like to add to the discussion that you can satisfy the individual mandate by purchasing catastrophic coverage only.
I don't believe this is the case.
What's the minimum coverage that I am required to have under the law?
Per § 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the current version of the tax code and section 5000A(f)(2) of the law :
(ii) COVERAGE MUST PROVIDE MINIMUM VALUE.—Except as provided in clause (iii), an employee shall not be treated as eligible for minimum essential coverage if such coverage consists of an eligible employer sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) and the plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs.
The tax and affordability rules are still being debated, but you essentially have to show that you have at least minimum essential coverage and value. This level of coverage is referred to as the "bronze level" in the pending exchanges and is equivalent to coverage that pays at least 60% of covered costs. So, whether you buy the insurance policy starting January 1, 2014 through one of the exchanges, in the standard market or have coverage through your employer or other qualified plan provider (VA, co-op, non-profit, etc.); you have to have at least a plan that pays a minimum of 60% of medical care costs (A 60% indemnity plan).
Although the law states that the plan must have 60% "actuarial value" , the Consumers Union has stated that this doesn't necessarily translate to 60% of the medical cost. It is anticipated that the rules will likely be refined to clarify the intent of the law being that the minimum plan should have at 60% medical costs covered. There are also rules regarding what types of coverage must be offered in that the plan must provide essential benefits that include ambulatory care, emergency care, hospitalization, maternity, mental health , substance abuse ,prescription drugs, rehab services, lab services, preventative care and pediatric dentist and vision care.
meatrace |
meatrace wrote:I think i have a hankering for cheeeeese@BNW-What's this obsession with Wisconsin all of a sudden?
While cheese is awesome, and Wisconsin does make an awful lot of cheese, it saddens me that everyone's conception of Wisconsin is reduced to that. It's like if someone said California and all you think is Hollywood. Like, what about Napa Valley? What about the Bay Area?
My house is not made of cheese, good sir.
aatea |
Aatea wrote:I'd like to add to the discussion that you can satisfy the individual mandate by purchasing catastrophic coverage only.I don't believe this is the case.
What you quoted is for employer-sponsored coverage. Yes, employers are required to provide a better plan.
Since I'm in HR :), I did some quick research, and there appears to be confusion in the insurance industry. Some people are saying that yes, catastrophic coverage will be considered individual coverage, and others are saying that it won't.
But here's a link to a news story about what insurance insiders are saying.
I think you have valid points about tax/no tax, but we need to do *something*. My leukemia medicine costs $6,000 per month -- for 30 pills. Thankfully, I have insurance so I only pay $35 (and the manufacturer does have programs to help those who can't afford it). And I did nothing wrong to get leukemia. Was it because my parents moved to a small textile mill town in the 70s where (although I can't prove it), I'm sure those textile mills were dumping God knows what kind of chemicals in the water -- and we drank well water? Was it the dental X-rays I had in my 20s? Was it the one summer I worked in one of those mills and was exposed to carcinogenic fumes for most of the summer? Nobody knows. But it's not like I'm a smoker or obese or any of those things. This just happened.
And that's my point. Sometimes bad things happen, and you need health insurance to help cover those expenses. I can't get health insurance on my own. Not surprisingly, they don't want to cover someone who could potentially have to have a bone marrow transplant (a multi-million dollar procedure), though it's been almost 9 years since my diagnosis.
Plus, if people go to the doctor early enough, these illnesses can be detected when all you have to do is take an expensive pill and not need an expensive bone marrow transplant.
BigNorseWolf |
I think you have valid points about tax/no tax, but we need to do *something*. My leukemia medicine costs $6,000 per month -- for 30 pills.
I have no problem with something being done about that. My problem is that when its time to pay the bill Obama care wants me to chip in the same amount as Romney.
What you quoted is for employer-sponsored coverage. Yes, employers are required to provide a better plan
It still has to be a bronze plan, which i think runs 300 a month in ny.
"The bronze plan is not catastrophic coverage," said Carvin, who represents the National Federation of Independent Business.
"It's got all the minimum essential benefits in it," he added. "It's got to have wellness, preventive, contraceptives — all kinds of things a 30-year old would never need. It's not remotely catastrophic."
thejeff |
It still has to be a bronze plan, which i think runs 300 a month in ny.
"The bronze plan is not catastrophic coverage," said Carvin, who represents the National Federation of Independent Business.
"It's got all the minimum essential benefits in it," he added. "It's got to have wellness, preventive, contraceptives — all kinds of things a 30-year old would never need. It's not remotely catastrophic."
A 30 year old would never need "wellness, preventive, contraceptives"?
Kirth Gersen |
[See, I would ask NYC or New York State. If you said NYC then I'd ask what borough. If you said Bronx THEN I'd ask what kind of gun you carry.
/joke
Maybe joking, but with an element of truth. I'm from up near Albany, and a lot of the people up there, if you asked what kind of gun they carried, would answer "a blunderbuss."
Freehold DM |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Would you like to trade with new york? Everyone asks what kind of gun i carry.
See, I would ask NYC or New York State. If you said NYC then I'd ask what borough. If you said Bronx THEN I'd ask what kind of gun you carry.
/joke
heh. Also IN
REINSTATE BROOKLYN AS A FREE AND INDEPENDENT CITY! BRING BACK THE DODGERS!
BigNorseWolf |
A conversation in the sahara desert. Three guys are walking with be through the desert in between two sections of town.
Can i have your hat, shoes, glasses, etc
Me: No, they're prescription/the only one in the country my size.
Locals: There's three of us.
Me: ... Look, I weigh more than the three of you put together and I'm from new york.
Locals. "Oh.. new york" put hands up and back away.