View Poll Results: Should the government be able to regulate this market in advance as stated below?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 12.50%
  • No

    19 79.17%
  • Other

    2 8.33%
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 167

Thread: Mandated Burial Plot

  1. #11
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    I'll ask you again here, can you show us where in the Constitution federal government has the power to force people to purchase from private industry?
    Interstate commerce clause.

    And just to be clear, the federal government isn't "forcing" anyone to purchase anything here. It is giving them a choice between getting health insurance or paying $700. The government does this sort of thing in the reverse all the time; it gives people tax credits for everything from buying solar panels to buying fuel-efficient cars, and those tax credits are indisputably constitutional.

    If you'd like to suggest that penalizing someone for NOT buying something is different than rewarding them for buying something, I'd simply like to point out that the economic consequence is exactly the same in both situations. One man's tax credit is everyone else's penalty.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-29-12 at 12:09 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #12
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    do you really think those folks without a burial plan actually get buried at taxpayer expense
    hell no
    they are cremated, and their ashes are disposed with other garbage
    who is going to complain about such an outcome
    Hmm... just a quick look and I found a few articles about this. Indigents do get buried at taxpayers expense - usually at the local / county levels.


    Indigent burials, and cost to public, on rise | StarTribune.com

    Quote Originally Posted by StarTribune Minnesota
    In Hennepin County, there are hundreds of indigent funerals every year.

    This year the county will spend about $1.2 million on indigent burials and funerals, about $250,000 more than was budgeted, said Curt Haats, chief financial officer for the county's Human Services and Public Health Department. To close that gap, the county will tap its reserve fund -- the same fund that the County Board recently voted to shore up with $12 million in additional property tax revenues.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11burial.html?_r=1
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

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

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    The question I have is why is the mandate in such question when you are already mandated to pay into social security?
    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. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So talking ot my relatively apolitical wife about the health care law last night and the arguments made in court, she brought up an analogy that I actually thought was rather on point and one I wanted to expand on.

    People die. When people die, if there is no family or no one able to provide for their burial we do not simply leave the dead decaying body to lie out and about. Someone bears the cost to go forward with disposing of the body either thorugh burial or cremation. And when that's ont a family member its putting an unnecessary financial burden on portions of society. Everyone, in some fashion, will enter into this market place at some point. There is no an individual who at some point in their life will be involved in some fashion with this particular market. We don't know when an individual may enter this market, and the entrance to it could be sudden and without any forthought.

    As such, should the government be able to regulate this market in advance by mandating that every individual do one of the following two things or be levied a tax penalty?:

    1. Purchase Life Insurance, assuring that everyone who dies will have some money doled out that will cover after-death costs. To go along with this, regulation will be put on Life Insurance that it must cover ALL forms of death at least to a minimum amount, including suicide.

    2. Purchase a burial plot and coffin or pre-purchase cremation services.
    I like this but disagree with the conservative stance..
    IMO, any insurance must never be mandated...
    How do the English, or the Canadians handle this ?
    We should buy a "death service" ahead of time.....but who really wants to do this ???
    Not I , and I may have but hours or years to go....

    But, the second option is the better, IMO.
    Oh, for the so-called poor, a cheap way....burial at sea...

  5. #15
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Interstate commerce clause.
    So here we have another liberal that has never read the Constitution.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

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

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    One man's tax credit is everyone else's penalty.
    However there is one major difference.

    In one case, the government is rewarding a citizen for doing something in the private sector by essentially limiting ITSELF in terms of how much money it'll take from that person.

    In the other case, the government is punishing a citizen for not doing something in the private sector by limiting the INDIVIDUAL in terms of how much money they get to keep.

    In the first example, the damaged party is the government...IE, the government takes in less money due to the action, and therefore it is limiting itself. In the second example, the damaged party is the citizen...IE, the citizen is the one that is losing out on his money.

    The government is perfectly free to chooes that it should take less than what it's legally allowed to take. However, it should not be acting to force an individual to limit their own wealth if they choose not to engage in the purchase of something on the private sector.

    The damaged party in this case is what signifies the difference between a tax break and a tax penalty in such a case.

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    The difference being that the taxpayers having to pay for burial service, it does not increase the cost of the service for the rest of us. Also there are varying options such as cremation, burial at sea,etc. So while they may seem the same on the surface, there are some differences.

    The question I have is why is the mandate in such question when you are already mandated to pay into social security?
    Excellent point.
    In the future, I'd like to see health, death care and retirement care all combined..
    And, Zyphin 's wife does possess way above average common sense..(one smart cookie)
    Burial at sea, my idea, I am a penny-pincher...lol

  8. #18
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    I'll ask you again here, can you show us where in the Constitution federal government has the power to force people to purchase from private industry?
    Not sure why you want the same things repeated, but ok:

    Thus, the "substantial effects test" is still the law of the land. Pursuant to it, at least four members of the Supreme Court will likely conclude Congress has the power to regulate health insurance based on its power to regulate interstate commerce (i.e. the health care industry).

    (snip)

    Are mandates to purchase health insurance Constitutional?

    Five cases have been heard at the federal District Court level since 2010. Three judges have held it constitutional and two judges have held it unconstitutional.

    Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?

    ● Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that “substantially affect interstate commerce.” And Congress can regulate even intrastate activity if it is “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity is regulated.”
    ● It has been the law of the land for decades the Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate insurance.
    ● Requiring individuals to purchase insurance (or pay a fee) is well within Congress’s Commerce Clause power under this well established law.

    http://www.hacd.net/documents/Health...form%20FAQ.pdf

    In short, Congress had ample authority to enact the individual mandate. Absent a return to a
    constitutional jurisprudence that has been rejected for more than seventy years, and, even more
    radically, an upending of Chief Justice Marshall’s long-accepted view of the Necessary and Proper
    Clause, the individual mandate is plainly constitutional.

    http://scholarship.law.georgetown.ed...ce%20clause%22

    My point is the issue is debatable, and that no matter what you or I think, the court will decide this point. Both sides cite the constitution. Both sides have merit.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Seems rather foolish that they didn't pass a single payer system in the first place then.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  10. #20
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    In the first example, the damaged party is the government...IE, the government takes in less money due to the action, and therefore it is limiting itself. In the second example, the damaged party is the citizen...IE, the citizen is the one that is losing out on his money.
    Whether it's "his money" or "the government's money" is merely a semantic distinction, which is entirely determined by acts of Congress (i.e. the tax code) in the first place. To draw the distinction about which party is "damaged" or losing out on "their" money makes the assumption that the dollars inherently belong to one or the other of them. But if you accept that the dollars the government collects in taxes legitimately belong to the government, then why wouldn't the money it collects from the mandate legitimately belong to the government as well?

    The government is perfectly free to chooes that it should take less than what it's legally allowed to take.
    How is the amount that it's "legally allowed to take" determined in the first place, if not through legislative acts like the IRS Tax Code or the Affordable Care Act? And how would the government choose to take less than that, except through other legislative acts which change the amount they are legally allowed to take?

    I'm having a hard time understanding your view here...acts of Congress cannot impose some obligation on its citizens that is any more or less than the government is "legally allowed to take," because the acts of Congress themselves are legally binding.

    However, it should not be acting to force an individual to limit their own wealth if they choose not to engage in the purchase of something on the private sector.
    No one is being forced to limit their own wealth; those who don't engage in it simply incur a fixed-dollar obligation to the government.

    The damaged party in this case is what signifies the difference between a tax break and a tax penalty in such a case.
    There is no specific "damaged party"...just parties who end up with money at the end and people who don't, in accordance with federal legislation. You could just as easily say that anyone who doesn't buy solar panels is "damaged" by the tax credits, because they are being deprived of tax money which could otherwise provide them with public services and/or give THEM a tax cut.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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