Page 61 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371111 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #601
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    You are aleady required to pay Social Security and Medicare so how is this any different? Here is some of Charles Freid's (Reagan's Solicitor General) thoughts on the hearings.

    Reaganís solicitor general: ĎHealth care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.í - The Washington Post
    My favorite part:
    EK: To focus on Barnettís argument, however, is it possible that the government can buy us insurance using our tax money but canít compel us to buy insurance using our own money?

    CF: Iíve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them. I donít get it. It was comical to read the Heritage Foundationís brief attempting to explain why they were changing their position on this. Something needed to be done about this problem. Everyone understood that. So, the Heritage Foundation said letís do an individual mandate because it keeps it within free enterprise. The alternative was single payer. And they didnít want that, and Iím in sympathy with that. So now all of a sudden the free-market alternative becomes unconstitutional and terribly intrusive where a government imposition and government-run project would not be? I donít get it. Well, I do get it. Itís politics.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #602
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, I'm making an assessment [yadda yadda yadda]
    Alright, this multiquote **** getting really annoying. To sum up, I said what I meant and if you think otherwise, more power to you. You think anyone is under the impression that I'm shy about stating my opinion?

    "You didn't claim 'same effect' as. You said it meant as."

    What does that jabber mean?

    Re: your circular logic, this is one of those sad moments where, if someone is too dumb to see the pure dumbness of what he wrote, he's probably also too dumb to understand the explanation.

    "I made a perfectly fine statement; this is a highly childish response."

    Says you.

    And no, you have not distinguished the cases. You made the "no **** Sherlock" observation that the facts were different and that's about it.

    And re: the mandate, you are right -- it is no more a mandate than Paul Ryan's tax credit. Saying you don't give a **** about it doesn't address the subject. I'll pull a Harshaw here and say that you really DO give a **** about it, but you have no answer to it and so you're trying to blow it off. Don't deny it, because I know what you meant better than you do.
    Last edited by AdamT; 03-29-12 at 04:19 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #603
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    You are aleady required to pay Social Security and Medicare so how is this any different?
    Someone said the same thing in another thread. I'll repost my response here...

    This is actually different. You are not mandated to pay into social security in a technical sense. Let me explain based on my understanding of the court case that challenged SS and the governments argument.

    Social Security Taxes does not actually directly go to social security. IE there is no actual legitimate trust fund where the money you pay for social security goes directly into said fund and is used to pay back out to you. In reality, "Social Security Taxes" are simply a form of income taxes that goes into the general treasurey. At the same time, "Social Security benefits" are offered to people by the government at a specific rate. These benefits are paid for by the general treasurey fund which allocates moneys to Social Security (and in cases where it allocates less than it should, because its using SS money elsewhere, it gives it essentilaly an IOU).

    So with Social Security, in reality, you're not paying for social security in a direct sense. You're paying the government a tax called "social security tax" that goes into the pot with all the other taxes. The government is providing a general service called Social Security to you and it pays for it from that general fund. However, THEORITCALLY SPEAKING either one of those parts...the SS tax or the SS benefits...could go away while the other one remain in place as they don't DIRECTLY connect to each other from a fiscal stand point (though from a legislative stand point that's a different story).

    That is why, when SS was argued, it was able to avoid the notion of the government forcing you to pay for social security. It isn't. It's forcing you to pay for a tax. And along with that tax, they are implimenting a new government benefit.

    In the case of health insurance, or "burial insurance", there are a few issues that make it different than social security. First and foremost, you're not paying the GOVERNMENT money...you're paying a private company money. So its not the government directly taxing you, but rather overtly taxing you by forcing you to purchase something. Second, the government isn't providing the benefit in this case but rather its a private industry.

    Now, what this does mean however is that...as far as case law goes...it would be constitutional in a general sense to do a single payer system. In that case, an individual is paying a "health care tax" that goes into the general fund rather than paying SPECIFICALLY for health care. Along with this, government provides health coverage to its citizens as a benefit, not directly tied to the "health care tax" but theoritically having the deficit in the budget it would cause be covered by the new tax.

  4. #604
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Someone said the same thing in another thread. I'll repost my response here...

    This is actually different. You are not mandated to pay into social security in a technical sense. Let me explain based on my understanding of the court case that challenged SS and the governments argument.

    Social Security Taxes does not actually directly go to social security. IE there is no actual legitimate trust fund where the money you pay for social security goes directly into said fund and is used to pay back out to you. In reality, "Social Security Taxes" are simply a form of income taxes that goes into the general treasurey. At the same time, "Social Security benefits" are offered to people by the government at a specific rate. These benefits are paid for by the general treasurey fund which allocates moneys to Social Security (and in cases where it allocates less than it should, because its using SS money elsewhere, it gives it essentilaly an IOU).

    So with Social Security, in reality, you're not paying for social security in a direct sense. You're paying the government a tax called "social security tax" that goes into the pot with all the other taxes. The government is providing a general service called Social Security to you and it pays for it from that general fund. However, THEORITCALLY SPEAKING either one of those parts...the SS tax or the SS benefits...could go away while the other one remain in place as they don't DIRECTLY connect to each other from a fiscal stand point (though from a legislative stand point that's a different story).

    That is why, when SS was argued, it was able to avoid the notion of the government forcing you to pay for social security. It isn't. It's forcing you to pay for a tax. And along with that tax, they are implimenting a new government benefit.

    In the case of health insurance, or "burial insurance", there are a few issues that make it different than social security. First and foremost, you're not paying the GOVERNMENT money...you're paying a private company money. So its not the government directly taxing you, but rather overtly taxing you by forcing you to purchase something. Second, the government isn't providing the benefit in this case but rather its a private industry.

    Now, what this does mean however is that...as far as case law goes...it would be constitutional in a general sense to do a single payer system. In that case, an individual is paying a "health care tax" that goes into the general fund rather than paying SPECIFICALLY for health care. Along with this, government provides health coverage to its citizens as a benefit, not directly tied to the "health care tax" but theoritically having the deficit in the budget it would cause be covered by the new tax.
    All of which is just a long-winded way of saying that -- according to opponents of the mandate -- the government could implement an absolutely socialistic single player plan, but for some reason a minor tax penalty to encourage the purcahse of private insurance for private medical care is causing the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves. Are you saying you don't see any disconnect here?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #605
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I am currently reading through the Day 2 proceedings here and I just gotta say...I LOVE IT! So far anyways.

    Supreme court Oral Arguements
    Hey. For some reason i couldn't open your site.

    Redress posted a website on the 1st day, I believe, and it was really worth while for me to read them. I tried to wait until the afternoon, to go to the site, so I get the final post.

  6. #606
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    All of which is just a long-winded way of saying that -- according to opponents of the mandate -- the government could implement an absolutely socialistic single player plan, but for some reason a minor tax penalty to encourage the purcahse of private insurance for private medical care is causing the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves. Are you saying you don't see any disconnect here?
    Actually, it's saying one has case law to at least say that it's constitutional and that another has no such case law to suggest that it's constitutional.

    Sorry, I'm more interested in dealing with reality than your misguided dishonest attempt to spin my words into something differnt. Ask me a question about what I actually said rather than your worhless strawman reconstruction of my point and perhaps I may answer.

  7. #607
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy the Kid View Post
    Hey. For some reason i couldn't open your site.

    Redress posted a website on the 1st day, I believe, and it was really worth while for me to read them. I tried to wait until the afternoon, to go to the site, so I get the final post.
    It's the official transcript from Tuesday's oral arguments.

    The site is www_supremecourt_gov (substituting _ for .) and it's a *.pdf file so it's a safe site. Don't know why your browser wouldn't open it.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 03-29-12 at 04:43 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  8. #608
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    It's the official transcript from Tuesday's oral arguments.
    The site is www_supremecourt_gov (substituting _ for .) and it's a *.pdf file.
    Thanks. But as I stated, Redress posted a website - this one - SCOTUSblog - Monday. I've been on the site since she posted it for all us on the thread to read. But I do appreciate your efforts.

  9. #609
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Actually, it's saying one has case law to at least say that it's constitutional and that another has no such case law to suggest that it's constitutional.

    [...]
    Which is a sad note considering ...
    EK: To focus on Barnettís argument, however, is it possible that the government can buy us insurance using our tax money but canít compel us to buy insurance using our own money?

    CF: Iíve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them. I donít get it. It was comical to read the Heritage Foundationís brief attempting to explain why they were changing their position on this. Something needed to be done about this problem. Everyone understood that. So, the Heritage Foundation said letís do an individual mandate because it keeps it within free enterprise. The alternative was single payer. And they didnít want that, and Iím in sympathy with that. So now all of a sudden the free-market alternative becomes unconstitutional and terribly intrusive where a government imposition and government-run project would not be? I donít get it. Well, I do get it. Itís politics.
    CF = Charles Fried - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  10. #610
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    What difference does it make what they were doing right before they implemented universal coverage? You mean from a political perspective? Or in terms of how difficult it would be to implement?

    Unfortunately it's politically impossible at the moment, which should be obvious from the wild "end times", fire-and-brim-strone rhetoric that's surrounded the very modest AHCA proposals. Sooner or later we are going to have to do it, or else it's going to bankrupt us. Right now we're standing in a tunnel and a train is bearing down on us, and half us have our thumbs up our asses muttering incoherent jibberish about "socialism".
    Nonsense. Leave private insurers alone to keep jacking their rates, eventually they'll have to enter a death spiral. You know what that is right? Accelerating attrition as fewer and fewer can pay the premiums. Something the private insurance industry is doing is failing, so only by letting it fail can it learn from its mistakes and maybe figure out how to offer something sustainable. Don't chain the American people to the sinking ship by mandating we stay hooked in to this failed structure.

    And yes it does matter what was going on fiscally and how much health care was costing per capita right before these other countries implemented UHC. We want to entitle all people to limitless amounts of something that already costs more here than it does anywhere else in the world. How does that reduce the amount we devote to health care? It doesn't. It makes us commit to spending more.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 03-29-12 at 05:13 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •