• 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...

Kandahar said:
Interstate commerce clause.
Click to expand...

The constitution grants congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. To those who agreed to and ratified the compact, the word regulate meant "to make regular, to cause to function properly". The power was included in the constitution because under the articles states were erecting trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas. The intention was to create a free-trade zone among the several states, and congress was given the power to ensure that this occurred, that commerce among the states functioned properly.

So, no, I see nothing in the constitution that would grant the federal government power beyond ensuring that trade among the state is kept regular. This would not include forcing individuals to purchase health insurance, or anything else, for that matter.
 
Arbo said:
Is there some reason why there must be an amendment every so often that appeases you in order for things to be 'right'?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because the world changes, circumstances change, and political systems must change too.

That makes no sense to me. When things need fixing you fix them, when they don't, you don't mess with them.
Click to expand...

The only reason things "don't need fixing" for the most part (in terms of lots of new constitutional amendments) is precisely BECAUSE we don't follow an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. We practically never have, in the entire history of our nation...certainly not since 1803, when we had the Louisiana Purchase and Marbury v Madison. So if an originalist approach has never been used in the United States, why are you so sure that it would work well NOW, over 200 years after the establishment of the Constitution and 92 years since the last major change?
 
Kandahar said:
Yes. Because the world changes, circumstances change, and political systems must change too.
Click to expand...

I believe it is because you 'want' change. Not because any in particular is needed.
 
Centinel said:
The constitution grants congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. To those who agreed to and ratified the compact, the word regulate meant "to make regular, to cause to function properly".
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.

The power was included in the constitution because under the articles states were erecting trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas. The intention was to create a free-trade zone among the several states, and congress was given the power to ensure that this occurred, that commerce among the states functioned properly.
Click to expand...

Commerce among the states, as it applies to health care, cannot function properly in the absence of a national health care policy. For one specific example, the states that attempt to craft workable solutions to their own health care problems (e.g. Massachusetts) run the risk of becoming magnets for uninsured people from other states, which is one example of why national coordination makes sense. This is exactly why I have a problem with "originalism" as a constitutional doctrine; the Founding Fathers could never have fathomed large numbers of people moving from one state to another based on their economies or political policies...most people lived their whole lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their homes when the Constitution was written. The size and scope of interstate commerce has expanded to truly unimaginable proportions since then.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.
Click to expand...

Because of the redefining of words.

Yet again the wrong way to accomplish change.
 
Kandahar said:
It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.
Click to expand...
No, it gives congress the power to regulate (that is, to make regular) commerce among the states, same as it did when the ratifiers agreed to the deal. If you wish to change that, then the appropriate methods is through the amendment process.
 
Centinel said:
No, it gives congress the power to regulate (that is, to make regular) commerce among the states, same as it did when the ratifiers agreed to the deal.
Click to expand...

Already explained why a national health care policy DOES ensure that commerce between the states functions properly in post #104.

If you wish to change that, then the appropriate methods is through the amendment process.
Click to expand...

Already explained why that doesn't work in post #84.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, do we see conservatives saying they don't want their tax dollars going for burial plots (which they do)? One reason it wasn't include is because the cost for this is not as large a drain. And cheaper alternatives are more readily available. Here I could even be buried in my backyard. The problem is not as large, and the cost to others not as significant. So this difference is important.

that said, should the problem ever reach the level of cost and harm to others that lack of health care does, yes the government can and should be able to. And like with health care, to not do so would mean either letting people die untreated (as with health care) or stack up outside hoping someone will bury them (as with death).
Click to expand...


What exactly is the "cost to others" for people not being insured. What percent of our annual $2.7 trillion health care bill does this cost represent?
 
Kandahar said:
It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.



Commerce among the states, as it applies to health care, cannot function properly in the absence of a national health care policy. For one specific example, the states that attempt to craft workable solutions to their own health care problems (e.g. Massachusetts) run the risk of becoming magnets for uninsured people from other states, which is one example of why national coordination makes sense. This is exactly why I have a problem with "originalism" as a constitutional doctrine; the Founding Fathers could never have fathomed large numbers of people moving from one state to another based on their economies or political policies...most people lived their whole lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their homes when the Constitution was written. The size and scope of interstate commerce has expanded to truly unimaginable proportions since then.
Click to expand...


I am not a lawyer. So perhaps you could explain why the commerce clause is even included in this discussion. To the best of my knowledge this law did not change the barriers to interstate insurance, nor does it provide some sort consistent pricing between states.
 
I agree with the analogy. The government should not force people to buy private insurance or pay fines. With medicine today if you have an emergency no healthcare facility can turn you down. In a free market society and a capitalist healthcare model if people chose not to buy insurance then that is their choice to make. They can reap the consequences of that when they want a procedure done and will have to pay 100% out of pocket for it, but then again they save hundreds of dollars each month not buying health insurance. With our current healthcare model I think an individual mandate is wrong and removes someone's personal choice to plan out their healthcare decisions. I know some people who chose to not pay for insurance and put money into a medical savings account or another type of account in case there is an emergency. I know others (people my age specifically) who are healthy and just don't see the need for health insurance.
 
washunut said:
What exactly is the "cost to others" for people not being insured. What percent of our annual $2.7 trillion health care bill does this cost represent?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there would be dueling numbers in a debate, but I recall this number:

Total medical care expenditures among all of the uninsured in 2004 (including both those without coverage for all or part of the year) are almost $125 billion.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload...uld-full-coverage-add-to-medical-spending.pdf

I shoudl also point out that there are many facets to this debate. This but one. A significant one I think, but just one.
 
digsbe said:
With our current healthcare model I think an individual mandate is wrong and removes someone's personal choice to plan out their healthcare decisions. I know some people who chose to not pay for insurance and put money into a medical savings account or another type of account in case there is an emergency. I know others (people my age specifically) who are healthy and just don't see the need for health insurance.
Click to expand...
And if they've only saved $1,000 and they need a $10,000 operation then what? Just tell them "Oops - you messed up! Now you're gonna' die for your stupidity."? I'm actually good with that. As long as those people that wish to remain outside the modern heathcare system (or on an upfront cash only basis with it) are actually held to their decisions then I don't see a problem - let them make that choice.


Of course, as a society we've decided not to go down that road and having been around before you could walk into any emergency room demanding treatment I understand why we decided on the route we did. If the younger generation thinks us Old Fogeys got it wrong (really, our parents more than us) then let them return to a more barbaric time when people died outside of ER's for lack of money or health insurance.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Consider this: With the exception of the process to work out the initial kinks in the Constitution (1789-1804), and a few amendments passed at the barrel of a Union gun (1865-1870), there has been only one period in all of American history where major constitutional reforms were implemented: 1913-1920, at the height of the progressive era. That's it. In 200+ years. The utter dearth of important constitutional amendments throughout American history should be all the proof necessary to demonstrate that the amendment process is untenable for most things, and therefore the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted to fit modern circumstances.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that because it is too difficult to get the states to agree to a change of the rules you're just going to recommend that we "reinterpret" the rules to arrive at the goal you desire. Isn't the whole idea that the constitution represents an agreement among the states? Don't you have to go back to them to have them agree to changes in the rules to fit new circumstances?
 
Kandahar said:
It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.
Click to expand...
Why? Just because you wish for it to?

Commerce among the states, as it applies to health care, cannot function properly in the absence of a national health care policy. For one specific example, the states that attempt to craft workable solutions to their own health care problems (e.g. Massachusetts) run the risk of becoming magnets for uninsured people from other states, which is one example of why national coordination makes sense.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with commerce AMONG the states. That has to do with the welfare policies of one particular state. Massachusetts could simply change their welfare policies to deal with this problem as they see fit.

This is exactly why I have a problem with "originalism" as a constitutional doctrine; the Founding Fathers could never have fathomed large numbers of people moving from one state to another based on their economies or political policies...most people lived their whole lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their homes when the Constitution was written. The size and scope of interstate commerce has expanded to truly unimaginable proportions since then.
Click to expand...
The fact that more trade occurs among the states doesn't give congress any additional power. It just means that more goods are crossing state lines. This is an irrelevant fact. Congress has the authority to prevent states from erecting trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas. This power doesn't change, nor does it need to change, due to the volume of trade moving among the states.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sure there would be dueling numbers in a debate, but I recall this number:

Total medical care expenditures among all of the uninsured in 2004 (including both those without coverage for all or part of the year) are almost $125 billion.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload...uld-full-coverage-add-to-medical-spending.pdf

I shoudl also point out that there are many facets to this debate. This but one. A significant one I think, but just one.
Click to expand...

The reason I asked was that I saw a number which is supposed to be the unreimbursed expenses of $12 billion. Only the costs that do not get paid should be measured I think. If someone takes the risk of not being insured, then has to pay out of pocket that is their choice. The costs they do not paid are the ones all others have to cover in some way.

If the $12 billion is close to correct the need for a mandate seems to be a strawman thus the question.
 
washunut said:
The reason I asked was that I saw a number which is supposed to be the unreimbursed expenses of $12 billion. Only the costs that do not get paid should be measured I think. If someone takes the risk of not being insured, then has to pay out of pocket that is their choice. The costs they do not paid are the ones all others have to cover in some way.

If the $12 billion is close to correct the need for a mandate seems to be a strawman thus the question.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any way to get a completely accurate number, but as I said, this is but one element. The mandate is the mthod to pay for the program that we were left with after all the fear mongering. A public option or UHC would be better. However, the notion tht one can opt out is false. We know someone will guess wrong and we will pay for 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...

The false premise of the position taken by your wife is that each person dies once and you can fund cremation for about 50 bucks. So those who die destitute will be taken care of with state funds for the health and safety of others and we are a civil society and will use minor tax funds for this. Very few citizens of any party would oppose this small funding for those who die penniless for the health and safety of our society.

Regarding healthcare ... one person can have 10 hospitalizations each one costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and it is expensive to expect us to absorb those who choose to be uninsured or are simply unable to be responsible and purchase insurance.

I call this analogy a false premise based on the detriment and cost to society to absorb a lifetime of medical costs of millions of $ for each uninsured v. proper disposal of bodies only once deceased of those who die completely destitute for public safety.

Good thing your wife is not making political decisions ...
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
And if they've only saved $1,000 and they need a $10,000 operation then what? Just tell them "Oops - you messed up! Now you're gonna' die for your stupidity."? I'm actually good with that. As long as those people that wish to remain outside the modern heathcare system (or on an upfront cash only basis with it) are actually held to their decisions then I don't see a problem - let them make that choice.


Of course, as a society we've decided not to go down that road and having been around before you could walk into any emergency room demanding treatment I understand why we decided on the route we did. If the younger generation thinks us Old Fogeys got it wrong (really, our parents more than us) then let them return to a more barbaric time when people died outside of ER's for lack of money or health insurance.
Click to expand...


Very good point ... except one ED visit can cost 10,000. Surgery and inpatient for 7 days you are looking at about 60,000. You better have hundreds of thousands saved if uninsured and claim to simply not need it.

I prefer mandated insurance over triage teams throwing those who are uninsured out to the pasture.

At least you have an understanding of the system and EMTALA. Most people are clueless.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
Very good point ... except one ED visit can cost 10,000. Surgery and inpatient for 7 days you are looking at about 60,000. You better have hundreds of thousands saved if uninsured and claim to simply not need it.

I prefer mandated insurance over triage teams throwing those who are uninsured out to the pasture.

At least you have an understanding of the system and EMTALA. Most people are clueless.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you pointed out that it can get much, much worse than the paltry $10,000 I used as an example. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew what the logical (though not necessarily humane) alternative would be.

I personally would prefer everyone be insured as well :)


Ed:
but if the younger generation want to take their chances to me that's modern evolution in action. One can only hope they haven't reproduced before they have an accident they can't afford to recover from.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

You just made a good argument against tax credits. THANK YOU.
 
Shadow Serious said:
You just made a good argument against tax credits. THANK YOU.
Click to expand...

There may be good policy arguments against tax credits (in most cases), but the Supreme Court has never ruled them unconstitutional despite them being around for over 50 years.
 
Kandahar said:
There may be good policy arguments against tax credits (in most cases), but the Supreme Court has never ruled them unconstitutional despite them being around for over 50 years.
Click to expand...


Has there ever been a case regarding tax credits that they had been asked to review, if so please cite.
 
Kandahar said:
If we were following an "originalist interpretation" of the Constitution we would need a lot of them. I'm actually in the process of writing my own proposed US Constitution just for fun...I'll post it on here and/or on my website when I'm finished with it. But in the mean time, here are a few that I would propose, if we were to seriously adopt an originalist interpretation of the Constitution:
Click to expand...

See this is the problem here. You keep saying "if we were following an "originalist interpretation" of the Constitution". It does not have to follow exactly. That would be impossible considering we have things now that they didn't even dream of back then. However, following as closely as possible? That is doable. And has been done.

Kandahar said:
None of the ones passed since 1920 have been particularly important, in that they fundamentally changed the nature of our government. They've just been trimming around the edges.
Click to expand...

What you consider important is subjective. They were all obviously important enough to get 2/3rd's majority of both houses/states. Which was what you contested right? That getting amendments was "impossible"? The fact that there have been amendments since your cutoff date seems to prove you wrong about the impossiblity of the Constitution being amended.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes. Because the world changes, circumstances change, and political systems must change too.
Click to expand...

Just because things change this does not mean that an amendment must be employed every single time. Particularly if it can be implemented in other ways. The amendment process was suppose to only be for things that actually mattered. Not "just because times change".

Kandahar said:
The only reason things "don't need fixing" for the most part (in terms of lots of new constitutional amendments) is precisely BECAUSE we don't follow an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. We practically never have, in the entire history of our nation...certainly not since 1803, when we had the Louisiana Purchase and Marbury v Madison. So if an originalist approach has never been used in the United States, why are you so sure that it would work well NOW, over 200 years after the establishment of the Constitution and 92 years since the last major change?
Click to expand...

There are times to go the originalist route and times that we don't need to. When it comes to the federal government mandating that private citizens have to buy things then going the originalists route is best for the simple fact that any such mandate is an expansion of power. And the Constitution was and always will be about restraining the government, not the individual.

The times that we don't have to go the originalist route (in case you're wondering) has to do with the Spirit of the Law. Originalists like to tout the Letter of the Law while ignoring the Spirit of the Law. The Spirit of the Law is just as important as the Letter of the Law.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And if they've only saved $1,000 and they need a $10,000 operation then what? Just tell them "Oops - you messed up! Now you're gonna' die for your stupidity."? I'm actually good with that. As long as those people that wish to remain outside the modern heathcare system (or on an upfront cash only basis with it) are actually held to their decisions then I don't see a problem - let them make that choice.


Of course, as a society we've decided not to go down that road and having been around before you could walk into any emergency room demanding treatment I understand why we decided on the route we did. If the younger generation thinks us Old Fogeys got it wrong (really, our parents more than us) then let them return to a more barbaric time when people died outside of ER's for lack of money or health insurance.
Click to expand...

Then make medical bills, non bankruptable, where a person has to pay for, over a period of time with a low inflation adjusted interest rate.
There are more solutions than, have no insurance, file for bankruptcy and have insurance, not file for bankruptcy.

Hell, we can't bankrupt out of student loans, but we can with medical services, it makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom