Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.

The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.

The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.

In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.

I'm a registered Democrat and have always believed in the system up to this point. I could care less that it is an opinion piece. It brings facts to light. I've read opinion pieces by Democrats also, and STILL I am leaning the opposite way...mostly because of the controversial nature of our current administration.

I AM NOT AGAINST a healthcare system...what I am against is the slight of hand, sneak in the night way the Democrats are going about trying to get it passed and the clauses they insist upon inserting into it. WHY does it HAVE to force you to buy health insurance? Why can't it be an elective?

As to the statement that by my arguments "the FBI and the CIA are unconstitutional" I do not feel that way at all. For one thing, they were formed to protect the US and enforce Federal laws. I have absolutely nothing against that.

So by your argument, it ISN'T unconstitutional for the government to tell you that you MUST purchase a 13" black and white television ONLY or you will pay a penalty? Or maybe you MUST purchase a hybrid vehicle or pay a penalty? How about if you are only allowed to have one child per household. Would that be ok?

[SadisticNature]

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

[steelish]

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

For one thing, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 WAS unconstitutional and went unchallenged. There is still much controversy surrounding it and it has had 200 amendments to it since it passed.

And, in the words that so many like to use...the Health Care bill is going to set PRECEDENCE for the possibility of other Congressional interference into our every day lives. I find it hard to believe that the proponents of this bill (the ones who are not politicians) are 100% certain that this bill will be good and right for the future of our country.

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun )

[DuncanONeil]

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun )

Need I really say this? The Global Warming "scientific reports"! I believe they have been shown to be opinion pieces. Or at least suspect of being so!

[steelish]

Need I really say this? The Global Warming "scientific reports"! I believe they have been shown to be opinion pieces. Or at least suspect of being so!

I know, I know...I thought of it even as I wrote that, but a REAL scientist writes the facts. I no longer consider those people REAL scientists.

Unfortunately, they have now given science a bad name. I'm hoping (as with most things) the bad apples there do not spoil the bushel.

[DuncanONeil]

The issue at hand is not health care, but helath insurance. The all inclusive health insurance is one of the major contributers to the high cost of health care.
Were we the people still responsible for choosing and paying for a portion of our health care prices would not be so high.
Case in point Lasik surgery is not covered in most plans yet since inception the price of such surgery has dropped. It is a completely consumer driven product. As such has improved its equipment and lowered its cost at a quick pace.
High deductible with medical savings accounts would be a good start, tort reform, interstate competition. But the Dems don;t like these ideas as there is a huge measure of personal responsibility inherent in them.

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

[DuncanONeil]

Or purchase the brand new Tahoe produced by Amish motors!

I'm a registered Democrat and have always believed in the system up to this point. I could care less that it is an opinion piece. It brings facts to light. I've read opinion pieces by Democrats also, and STILL I am leaning the opposite way...mostly because of the controversial nature of our current administration.

I AM NOT AGAINST a healthcare system...what I am against is the slight of hand, sneak in the night way the Democrats are going about trying to get it passed and the clauses they insist upon inserting into it. WHY does it HAVE to force you to buy health insurance? Why can't it be an elective?

As to the statement that by my arguments "the FBI and the CIA are unconstitutional" I do not feel that way at all. For one thing, they were formed to protect the US and enforce Federal laws. I have absolutely nothing against that.

So by your argument, it ISN'T unconstitutional for the government to tell you that you MUST purchase a 13" black and white television ONLY or you will pay a penalty? Or maybe you MUST purchase a hybrid vehicle or pay a penalty? How about if you are only allowed to have one child per household. Would that be ok?

[steelish]

Or purchase the brand new Tahoe produced by Amish motors!

I hear it's one horse-power! (but requires more frequent maintenance)

[DuncanONeil]

I hear it's one horse-power! (but requires more frequent maintenance)

I suppose! If you want to consider fueling and washing as maintenance.