Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Federally mandated health insurance is a tax by another name....therefor no problem.
    Except that it isn't a tax, nor anything like a tax. It is a requirement that you pay a third party for a service against your will (in the case that it is against your will).

    KAM
  2. #22  
    The constitution in the US has a history of amendments. If this new health care reform is truly illegal and defeated in the courts then I'm sure an amendment could be whipped up.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    The constitution in the US has a history of amendments. If this new health care reform is truly illegal and defeated in the courts then I'm sure an amendment could be whipped up.
    You're joking right? While an amendment could in fact be proposed, there is no way in hell that it would pass.

    KAM
  4. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    The constitution in the US has a history of amendments. If this new health care reform is truly illegal and defeated in the courts then I'm sure an amendment could be whipped up.
    If 3/4s of states approve, and there doesn't seem to be nearly that much support amongst the people for such a thing.
  5. #25  
    Time will tell.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  6. #26  
    I may be wrong on this, and I'm sure many in here will not hesitate to say so, but I believe there is a difference between a state mandating something (such as a car fee) and the Federal Government doing so.

    I have said this in here before, while I feel the mandate by the Federal Government is unconstitutional, I could not argue the same thing if my state, South Carolina, made it a mandate. I may think it is unfair, but, there are many things in life that are "unfair" but yet we must do.

    I admit I'm somewhat stuck in the middle in that I understand you can't force insurance companies to waive pre-existing conditions and not some how get the healthy folks to enroll to offset the increased claims of the unhealthy that will surely occur. It simply can't work in my opinion. So my big issue is who is doing the mandate. It may seem like a trivial disagreement, but, I feel very strongly about following the document that our Government was based on. This document is clearly what separates us from other countries.

    That's about all I got to say about that.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    The constitution in the US has a history of amendments. If this new health care reform is truly illegal and defeated in the courts then I'm sure an amendment could be whipped up.
    Please refer to Article V of the Constitution. Here is a link to help you: The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    Seriously....read it some time....it's an awesome document. Be sure to read the 27 Amendments as well. There are very good changes to the document that needed tweaking as things changed. These folks that wrote the Constitution were pretty smart and is amazing how well it was thought through.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. #28  
    It's a great document, no argument there. However as the 27 amendments show it needs changing from time to time. I have now lived under the constitutions of 2 nations and constitutional change was very important in both.

    If this reform is found to be unlawful I would hope to see 28 amendments.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    It's a great document, no argument there. However as the 27 amendments show it needs changing from time to time. I have now lived under the constitutions of 2 nations and constitutional change was very important in both.

    If this reform is found to be unlawful I would hope to see 28 amendments.
    And if that were to occur....a 28th Amendment stating that the Federal Government had the power to control and require everyone to have health insurance, I'm afraid I could not raise this as an issue. I would be blown away, however, if 3/4's of the state legislations approved such an Amendment.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    If Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and federal income tax are constitutional I fail to see how healthcare reform is not. Sounds like a good way for these States to toss money they don't have in the trash bin.
    Before a constitutional amendment was passed, the supreme court struck down federal income tax.

    Socialized medicine may well require the same thing. It will be fun watching the fireworks!
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Except that it isn't a tax, nor anything like a tax. It is a requirement that you pay a third party for a service against your will (in the case that it is against your will).

    KAM
    By definition, it is a tax. Everyone has to pay it, and it is mandated by the federal govt, just like social security and medicare taxes.

    That's one of the semantic games played in congress, to have this not seen as a tax.

    A federal mandate on all citizens (except congress that is exempt so they can have their own insurance) is a tax. Mandate is a congressional word so they can avoid tax.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    By definition, it is a tax. Everyone has to pay it, and it is mandated by the federal govt, just like social security and medicare taxes.

    That's one of the semantic games played in congress, to have this not seen as a tax.

    A federal mandate on all citizens (except congress that is exempt so they can have their own insurance) is a tax. Mandate is a congressional word so they can avoid tax.
    I would disagree....how could it be a tax if the "tax" can vary based on your age, sex, or plan chosen? Now, if it was a universal healthcare plan, I would give you on that as it would be the same for everyone. You might say that people pay different amounts of tax because of different income levels, but it doesn't discriminate against you based on your age or sex. In addition, this mandate is forcing you to pay money to a private company, not directly to the government. I see your point, but not sure it could really be considered a tax when it doesn't even go to the government (other than the fee you will be charged with if you don't enroll for coverage).
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    By definition, it is a tax. Everyone has to pay it, and it is mandated by the federal govt, just like social security and medicare taxes.

    That's one of the semantic games played in congress, to have this not seen as a tax.

    A federal mandate on all citizens (except congress that is exempt so they can have their own insurance) is a tax. Mandate is a congressional word so they can avoid tax.
    And Amish and Scientologists(?) are also exempt. That one will be interesting to defend in the courts...
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    By definition, it is a tax. Everyone has to pay it, and it is mandated by the federal govt, just like social security and medicare taxes.

    That's one of the semantic games played in congress, to have this not seen as a tax.

    A federal mandate on all citizens (except congress that is exempt so they can have their own insurance) is a tax. Mandate is a congressional word so they can avoid tax.
    I don't agree that it is a tax, although, you may be right--they could try the same bait and switch that the FDR administration did. It isn't honest, but not beyond them.

    KAM
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    It's a great document, no argument there. However as the 27 amendments show it needs changing from time to time. I have now lived under the constitutions of 2 nations and constitutional change was very important in both.

    If this reform is found to be unlawful I would hope to see 28 amendments.
    Well, you can be for whatever you want, but given that the bar is much higher for an amendment, and given the narrow margins here, this is highly unlikely.

    I agree--it does need some changing and with one or two exceptions (prohibition) we've had a great record of changing it for good reasons, and to me that speaks to the legitimacy of the process.

    KAM
  16.    #36  
    Whether it is a tax or not is not going to be the primary issue, I believe. The best bet for overturning the bill is going to reside in the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause as it applies to the individual mandate. While the Court has interpreted the Clause extremely broadly in past cases, there has been recent rules that specifically state the commerce clause is not unlimited. The Defenders of the legislation will argue that the Fed has the power to regulate commerce among the States and thus can require individuals to purchase health care. The problem they will likely have is that never before has the Court stated that NOT engaging in interstate commerce can be regulated. That is, can the Fed force me to purchase a product from a private entity whether I want to or not, thereby focing me to participate in interstate commerce? I would submit, that if the Fed can do that, there are no limits imposed upon the commerce clause at all, and the rest of the document, including all other articles and amendments are of no value. Why not seize my property then, since I engage in interstate commerce? Why not tell me my speech is part of interstate commerce as well and regulate that? What behavior of mine could possible be beyond regulation, and therefore control, if my mere existence means I can be regulated under the commerce clause? It may be that the individual mandate goes to far, and if it does, since forcing people to purchase insurance is the lynch-pin to the health care overhaul, the bill collapses. But if the Court upholds it, and states the commerce clause is completely unlimited, then can we continue to call ourselves truely free?
    VisorPhone Clone
    (Please do not thank me - I find it scary)
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Socialized medicine may well require the same thing. It will be fun watching the fireworks!
    The thing is that what has just passed the house is not even close to socialized medicine. Trust me....I moved here from a place that has it. Not even close.

    The US will never have true socialized medicine. Doing so would require another civil war.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I would disagree....how could it be a tax if the "tax" can vary based on your age, sex, or plan chosen? Now, if it was a universal healthcare plan, I would give you on that as it would be the same for everyone. You might say that people pay different amounts of tax because of different income levels, but it doesn't discriminate against you based on your age or sex. In addition, this mandate is forcing you to pay money to a private company, not directly to the government. I see your point, but not sure it could really be considered a tax when it doesn't even go to the government (other than the fee you will be charged with if you don't enroll for coverage).
    The tax is not paid to a private company. Rather, you have a choice, buy insurance, or pay a tax to the federal government. No one has to pay for private insurance if they do not want to. However, those who do not buy private insurance, and therefore rely upon the public for catastrophic medical insurance, in the form of guaranteed emergency room access, are required to offset those costs by paying the federal government a tax. Such laws are perfectly constitutional, and have been so recognized by the Supreme Court since the 1930s. Even this reactionary right wing court would not strike down this law.
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by sir_mycroft View Post
    Whether it is a tax or not is not going to be the primary issue, I believe. The best bet for overturning the bill is going to reside in the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause as it applies to the individual mandate.

    SNIP

    But if the Court upholds it, and states the commerce clause is completely unlimited, then can we continue to call ourselves truely free?
    The Commerce Clause is the "gateway" to all sorts of over-extensions of federal power. The rulings that have used this are outrageous in some cases.

    We are very near the point already where the "commerce clause" can be interpreted to mean anything, which of course violated the entire premise of limited government.

    However, it is totally illogical to follow the reasoning that the government can FORCE you into commerce, which then makes you subject to the commerce clause. That's circular reasoning at best.

    The original purpose of the commerce clause is to "make regular" (in other words, remove arbitrary or strange barriers) commerce between States, not to CONTROL all commerce.

    KAM
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by sir_mycroft View Post
    The problem they will likely have is that never before has the Court stated that NOT engaging in interstate commerce can be regulated.
    The question is whether it has an effect on interstate commerce. Your decision to not have insurance does effect interstate commerce. When you get in a car accident, you are going to be taken to the hospital, and incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges. You will not be able to pay for these charges. Guess where many of the goods you used in the emergency room came from. Yep, interstate commerce. Now, these vendors and medical personnel have not been paid for their goods and services. But, under federal law, there is a mandate that the care be provided regardless of ability to pay. By passing this HCR, the above problem would be greatly minimized. Therefore, congress has a rational basis, under their authority to regulate interstate commerce, to impose a tax on those individuals who do not obtain insurance.

    Even this court will not return to Lochner era jurisprudence and strike the bill down. Face it, like it or not, we have now joined the rest of the industrialized world in enacting universal health care. Now, maybe we can improve on our 43rd ranking in infant mortality, and 47th ranking in life expectancy.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions