• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandated Burial Plot

Should the government be able to regulate this market in advance as stated below?

  • Total voters
    21
Arbo said:
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?
Click to expand...

The mistake made by some many "Constitution lovers"..
These problems, these situations simply did not exist at the time of the Constitution...So how in the world could the framers have written anything..
News flash !
Today, things are different...
And, its our government's responsibility to handle this care of the people - but only the financial end...IN MY OPINION.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not semantics at all, unless the congress had unlimited power to tax in any and every way it wishes which is not the case as there are limitations placed upon the government with regards to how and what they can tax. Simply because you dislike the notion of how one can look at the argument makes their opinion no less relevant than your own.

In the case of stating "If you purchase something, we will take less of your taxes away", the only entity with a negative effect DIRECTLY on them is the Government. If the Citizen chooses to go against what the government is urging him to do, he takes no damage to where he would be financially had the government not acted at all.

In the case of stating "If you don't purchase something, we will take more of money away from you in taxes", the only entity with a negative effect DIRECTLY on them is the CITIZEN. If the citizen chooses to go against what the government is urging him to do, he directly takes damage to where he would be financially had the government not acted at all.

This is why many conservatives don't have a LARGE issue with tax credits (though some even have issues with those because its government interfering with the market in the first place, which they feel they have no role in doing). However, if you went:

"We're going to raise your income taxes by $500. We're also going to offer a tax credit of $500 for those who purchase solar panels". Then conservatives would have an issue because in this particular case, you're not actually giving a tax credit but essentially instituting an end around attempt to force individuals to purchase something. Again, in this particular case, an individual who goes against what the government is urging him to do is damaged in a direct fashion compared to a situation where the government took no actoin at all.

Notice throughout I've been stating direct. Things such as "public services" are not a "direct" side effect of such situations imho
 
earthworm said:
The mistake made by some many "Constitution lovers"..
These problems, these situations simply did not exist at the time of the Constitution...So how in the world could the framers have written anything..
News flash !
Today, things are different...
And, its our government's responsibility to handle this care of the people - but only the financial end...IN MY OPINION.
Click to expand...

This is the mistake made by people that see the Constitution as standing in the way of how they want thing's to be.

The framers could not foresee much of how the world has changed, but they did their best to account for such things. One way in which they did that, was to allow for a system that could amend the constitution in the event it needed to be. Pretty brilliant thinking on their part. The problem is, it's not easy to admend the constitution, so those that seek to 'drastically change' America don't want to go down that LEGAL path for change, as they know they will fail. Instead they work around it, and redefine and reinterpret what the constitution says, heck, at times, they just completely ignore it.

If people thing health care is governments job, then amend the damn constitution. Quit making excuses and illogical and lame arguments.
 
earthworm said:
The mistake made by some many "Constitution lovers"..
These problems, these situations simply did not exist at the time of the Constitution...So how in the world could the framers have written anything..
News flash !
Today, things are different...
And, its our government's responsibility to handle this care of the people - but only the financial end...IN MY OPINION.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. Our constitution was written somewhat broadly while still being relatively deliniated and narrow. I do not believe our governments responsability is to handle the care of the poeple or to do good or to do what's moral or anything like that. I believe attempting to use government to "do good" or "care for people" or other such things is actually a recipe for disaster and destruction in the long run. It is not the basis of the social contract of this country and I believe is largely against the spirit and basis for what this country was founded on. I believe the strength and benefit of the constitution was that it gave a rather limited picture of what government was supposed to do, but was relatively generalized in regards to how they should do those limited thing, allowing it leeway in the future to address unforseen issues regarding those limited duties while at the same time hopefully, if people kept to the spirit and intent of it, keeping government limited to specific generalized duties rather than expanding to be a tool the people use to "take care of people".

Morals, ethics, views of what is "good" and "bad", views of what is "Caring" for people and what is "ruling" them, views in regards to what's "fair" and what's "just" and on are extremely subjective and vary person to person due to a myraid of reasons. That is the pitfall and issue with attempting to make government be something that is not limited and narrow in nature but vast, as you create a situation where it is majority rule of what constitutes those above things and then through the force of government the majority forces that upon the minority. A majority and minority that often, in such a diverse and expansive country as ours, is strikingly narrow in terms of the difference in size. This causes increase discontent and discord and damages society and government.

What you just described is to me personally and in my opinion, the single biggest mindset that is rooted in the destruction of what this country was founded on and what will lead it to eventually crumble. The notion that it is the responsability of GOVERNMENT, and not of the individual people, to be responsable for the "care" of its people.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...


I should not be forced to purchase something I may never use or utilize.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
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
Click to expand...

Who's going to pay transportation costs for the corpse?
 
Zyphlin said:
It's not semantics at all, unless the congress had unlimited power to tax in any and every way it wishes which is not the case as there are limitations placed upon the government with regards to how and what they can tax. Simply because you dislike the notion of how one can look at the argument makes their opinion no less relevant than your own.
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't say it did...

In the case of stating "If you purchase something, we will take less of your taxes away", the only entity with a negative effect DIRECTLY on them is the Government. If the Citizen chooses to go against what the government is urging him to do, he takes no damage to where he would be financially had the government not acted at all.

In the case of stating "If you don't purchase something, we will take more of money away from you in taxes", the only entity with a negative effect DIRECTLY on them is the CITIZEN. If the citizen chooses to go against what the government is urging him to do, he directly takes damage to where he would be financially had the government not acted at all.
Click to expand...

I think this reasoning is due to the cognitive bias known as loss-aversion: People value what they already have and might lose, more than they value what they don't have and might gain. ANY tax creates "negative effects" upon anyone whom it is imposed on, and ANY tax credit creates "negative effects" upon anyone whom does not receive it. These are merely accounting differences; at the end of the day, both the government and the people end up with the same number of dollars in their pocket whether the transaction is called a tax credit or a penalty. And as such, I find it difficult to believe that anyone is "harmed" more in one situation than in the other.

This is why many conservatives don't have a LARGE issue with tax credits (though some even have issues with those because its government interfering with the market in the first place, which they feel they have no role in doing). However, if you went:

"We're going to raise your income taxes by $500. We're also going to offer a tax credit of $500 for those who purchase solar panels". Then conservatives would have an issue because in this particular case, you're not actually giving a tax credit but essentially instituting an end around attempt to force individuals to purchase something. Again, in this particular case, an individual who goes against what the government is urging him to do is damaged in a direct fashion compared to a situation where the government took no actoin at all.
Click to expand...

That specific example was actually my very next question. OK, so if that would be unconstitutional, how can you possibly determine if the government is doing an end runaround? I think you would agree that both of those elements (taxing everyone $500 and offering a $500 credit to those who buy solar panels) are constitutional in and of themselves...but somehow when they are combined they are no longer constitutional?

I don't see how anyone, including the courts, could possibly make this determination. Our tax code is incredibly complex. There are hundreds or thousands of deductions, credits, exemptions, and different types of taxes. If, for example, the government overhauled the tax code, and one of the provisions was to increase the solar tax credit by $500, and another provision was to increase the taxes on the wealthy by 1%, how could you possibly determine if the two were related? And does this mean that any tax credits for private products must necessarily increase the deficit (if they can't be offset by tax increases elsewhere)?

Notice throughout I've been stating direct. Things such as "public services" are not a "direct" side effect of such situations imho
Click to expand...

OK, well someone who doesn't benefit from the solar panel tax credit could claim "direct harm" because he had to pay more in taxes for a given level of government services than he otherwise would, in order to pay for the tax credit. That's taking money directly out of his pocket, no?
 
Arbo said:
The framers could not foresee much of how the world has changed, but they did their best to account for such things. One way in which they did that, was to allow for a system that could amend the constitution in the event it needed to be. Pretty brilliant thinking on their part.
Click to expand...

Not really. We have the most difficult to amend constitution in the entire world. The only reason our system is able to function at all is because we typically DON'T follow the original intent of the Constitution.
 
Kandahar said:
Not really. We have the most difficult to amend constitution in the entire world. The only reason our system is able to function at all is because we typically DON'T follow the original intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, really. It was made difficult to amend for a reason: To avoid stupid amendments thrown through at a whim. If it was easy, then the bible thumpers would already have put through an amendment to ban gay marriage. That would be just as stupid as this 'mandate'.
 
Kandahar said:
Not really. We have the most difficult to amend constitution in the entire world. The only reason our system is able to function at all is because we typically DON'T follow the original intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but as a couple of centuries have passed, it would be near impossible for our founding fathers to have anticipated everything that would transpire. And we can not fully know how they would have addressed the issue that have come up or aply the law to them.
 
Arbo said:
You are not thinking for yourself because you refuse to do your homework and read the constitution and federalist papers, instead relying on the words of others that support your views.
Click to expand...

I've read those. Don't fool yourself. This is impart why I know it isn't as clear as you pretend. Now, focus.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not only that, but as a couple of centuries have passed, it would be near impossible for our founding fathers to have anticipated everything that would transpire. And we can not fully know how they would have addressed the issue that have come up or aply the law to them.
Click to expand...

Another horrible (but typical) liberal excuse. They addressed government, they wanted it limited. There is nothing today that is not covered in some fashion. The problem liberals have, is they WANT certain things in there, that do not belong there, as they are not part of what government should be part of or be involved in.

Boo Radley said:
I've read those. Don't fool yourself. This is impart why I know it isn't as clear as you pretend. Now, focus.
Click to expand...

Ah, a liar I see. At least now I know to have zero faith in anything you post.
 
Arbo said:
Another horrible (but typical) liberal excuse. They addressed government, they wanted it limited. There is nothing today that is not covered in some fashion. The problem liberals have, is they WANT certain things in there, that do not belong there, as they are not part of what government should be part of or be involved in.



Ah, a liar I see. At least now I know to have zero faith in anything you post.
Click to expand...

They also found they needed a stronger federal government, which is what the articles of confederation failed, as it was too weak. And limited doesn't mean absent. How far and how limited is the issue.

Not only that, there as been two hundred years of law added to and precedence to consider as well. There is a larger picture here than you give credit to.

Now, I know it is hard for some to discuss without name calling. Hell, it may even be what appeals to people coming here. But make a choice. Do you want to discuss or name call. I can do either.

:coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Yet, if you guess wrong, someone else will have to carry you.
Click to expand...

So you make me buy this stuff for death because you know for sure that I will use it or utilize it. If I were in an accident that my body was never recovered then what? You going to give me my money back?

It doesn't come down to guess work.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
It's not that it wasn't the intent or the ultimate goal of those who pushed for health care reform on the left. The issue was simply that they didn't have the votes needed to make it happen, even despite their super majority in congress. They didn't even have the votes and support needed to get their initial drafts of this version of health care reform done and had to continue to water it down. If they had the votes to get single payer I'm sure that's the direction they would've gone....even with a super majority, they simply didn't have the needed support for that.
Click to expand...

I never said the democrats were competent. If they were they probably could have gotten it done. It's just shows their incompetence that they couldn't with a freaking supermajority.
 
Arbo said:
Yes, really. It was made difficult to amend for a reason: To avoid stupid amendments thrown through at a whim.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it also means that plenty of sensible amendments cannot be passed. There's no way that our government could continue to function with an 18th-century constitution that is so difficult to amend, if we actually tried to follow the original intent.

No one is suggesting it should be easy to amend the Constitution. But by making it nearly impossible to amend, the framers guaranteed (whether intentionally or accidentally) the necessity of a "living document" approach to the Constitution rather than an originalist approach.

If it was easy, then the bible thumpers would already have put through an amendment to ban gay marriage. That would be just as stupid as this 'mandate'.
Click to expand...

:roll:
Don't bother to couch your argument in progressive terms; it doesn't fool me. What you are asking is to turn the clock back to 1789 (with the exception of a few amendments since then). "Amend the Constitution" is simply not a viable solution for much of anything. Like I said, ours is the hardest constitution in the entire world to amend...not to mention the oldest. So unless you think that a bunch of dudes in wigs in the 18th century had all the political solutions for all time, something has to give...because an originalist approach combined with a nearly-impossible amendment process are simply not compatible with the modern world.
 
barbarian_style said:
So you make me buy this stuff for death because you know for sure that I will use it or utilize it. If I were in an accident that my body was never recovered then what? You going to give me my money back?

It doesn't come down to guess work.
Click to expand...

I know for sure someone uninsured will use it. I linked the numbers yesterday. There is no guess work that a significant number will use it. And that those responsible enough to be insured will pay for it.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know for sure someone uninsured will use it. I linked the numbers yesterday. There is no guess work that a significant number will use it. And that those responsible enough to be insured will pay for it.
Click to expand...

Who cares if an uninsured will use it, what does that have to do with forcing people to buy something that there is nothing saying FOR SURE that I will use it or even you for that matter.
 
Last edited:
barbarian_style said:
Who cares if an uninsured will use it, what does that have to do with forcing people to buy something from you that there is nothing saying FOR SURE that I use it or even you for that matter.
Click to expand...

A lot. Others have to pay for their irresponsibility. It's the same reasoning for requiring auto insurance. Someone else is armed by your irresponsibility. It would be another issue if only you had to pay for it.
 
Boo Radley said:
A lot. Others have to pay for their irresponsibility. It's the same reasoning for requiring auto insurance. Someone else is armed by your irresponsibility. It would be another issue if only you had to pay for it.
Click to expand...

We are already paying for the irresponsibility through taxes. I don't need the government telling me that I have to purchase something for someone else's benefit much less for something that can't really be said I will even use it.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Frankly I'm sick of people trying to die for free, I support manadatory burial insurance!!!!!!! And just think what it costs for them to die in the Emergency Room. :mrgreen:
 
barbarian_style said:
We are already paying for the irresponsibility through taxes. I don't need the government telling me that I have to purchase something for someone else's benefit much less for something that can't really be said I will even use it.
Click to expand...

You're paying more in hospital bills. Cost has to cover what government doesn't pay. You pay more than you would if it came out of your taxes.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're paying more in hospital bills. Cost has to cover what government doesn't pay. You pay more than you would if it came out of your taxes.
Click to expand...

I am speaking of death insurance not health insurance, nice spin but stay on topic.

It already comes out of my taxes so I would be paying the same. If I am forced to buy something you say I should have for your benefit not mine as an individual responsibility is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom