Mandated Burial Plot

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.

The question about burial insurance was the one posed by Justice Alito during Tuesday's questioning. The solicitor-general attempted to draw a distinction between health insurance and burial insurance...but my view is that they ARE legally the same, and the government CAN mandate that people purchase burial insurance if it desires (at least to the extent that it affects interstate commerce). Whether it SHOULD mandate burial insurance is a separate question for Congress to decide, but I see no constitutional problem with 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...

Your wife is a smart cookie.

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...

Using the same logic they use to support the health care mandate, this makes sense. But that they did not include such a thing shows the single focus they have, as well as makes you wonder about the 'real' intent of a 2700 page law that nobody read.

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).

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?

Arbo said:

Using the same logic they use to support the health care mandate, this makes sense.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

But that they did not include such a thing shows the single focus they have, as well as makes you wonder about the 'real' intent of a 2700 page law that nobody read.

Click to expand...

Huh? So because Congress is able to do X and it's also able to do Y, any bill that includes X should also include Y?

That doesn't make any sense. There is a difference between Congress have the power to do something, and Congress actually choosing to exercise that power.

Yes Congress can regulate this market. Can they mandate it in advance? No they cannot.

Given that the indigent probably cannot afford life insurance and most indigent are near penniless when they die and given that family nor the possessions of the deceased will cover the costs of even the most basic burial, I don't see how a mandated life insurance would solve the issue. I would assume that today, the state takes care of the issue and works with local funeral homes and I'm sure those funeral homes either just break even or lose money on these burials / cremations. I'd be in favor of a tax credit for the funeral homes instead of attempting to force those who have nothing, life insurance.

We again get into the scenario where the mandate for life insurance is passed. The person is too poor to afford it, so they are exempted (assumed), they die. We're right back where we started that the state has to pick up the tab. So the only real issue solved here is that those who have the money, or have the family who refuse to pay are covered. The poor are still paid for by society via that same burden.

As for pre-purchasing it again falls into the same scenario, unless such a fee is automatically taken out of a persons paycheck by law to a certain amount - let's say $10,000 and is held in a trust or account (Death / Burial Account) which the government cannot touch, so that when the person dies that money is automatically used. If more is needed, it must be added by the estate or by family. That I might go for as an alternative as it's just good planning we all should be doing anyway, since we'll all end up the same sooner or later.

Boo Radley said:

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...

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?

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

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...

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.

justabubba said:

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

Click to expand...

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

StarTribune Minnesota said:

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.

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11burial.html?_r=1

Your Star said:

The question I have is why is the mandate in such question when you are already mandated to pay into social security?

Click to expand...

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.

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 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...

Kandahar said:

Interstate commerce clause.

Click to expand...

So here we have another liberal that has never read the Constitution.

Kandahar said:

One man's tax credit is everyone else's penalty.

Click to expand...

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.

Your Star said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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...

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 Care Reform FAQ.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.e...#search="health care reform; commerce clause"

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.

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Seems rather foolish that they didn't pass a single payer system in the first place then.

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Your Star said:

Seems rather foolish that they didn't pass a single payer system in the first place then.

Click to expand...

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.

Your Star said:

Seems rather foolish that they didn't pass a single payer system in the first place then.

Click to expand...

True. It would have been better. But the exploding heads would have been much harder to clean up.

:coffeepap

Boo Radley said:

Not sure why you want the same things repeated, but ok:

Click to expand...

It is a terrible shame when people are unable to think for themselves. There is a huge jump from regulating insurance to forcing someone to buy from private industry. So again, when you finally read the constitution and figure out where the enumerated powers give the fed's such a power, let us know.

Arbo said:

It is a terrible shame when people are unable to think for themselves. There is a huge jump from regulating insurance to forcing someone to buy from private industry. So again, when you finally read the constitution and figure out where the enumerated powers give the fed's such a power, let us know.

Click to expand...

What you mean is, if someone doesn't simply believe you, they are not thinking for themselves. I merely believe this question isn't clear cut. Many things, especially law and language, have room for disagreement. I've seen solid arguments on both sides. not from you, but form others. I fall on the side that it is legal. But being smart enough to see the gray area doesn't mean I don't think.

Boo Radley said:

What you mean is, if someone doesn't simply believe you, they are not thinking for themselves. I merely believe this question isn't clear cut. Many things, especially law and language, have room for disagreement. I've seen solid arguments on both sides. not from you, but form others. I fall on the side that it is legal. But being smart enough to see the gray area doesn't mean I don't think.

Click to expand...

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.