Why the individual mandate philosophically is right/ or wrong

[sactoking]

Because the class of people refusing to be insured can't "not participate" in the health care system. It's a slam-dunk certainty that a percentage of these people will fall ill and will require care. And for those who can't afford to pay for their care, society will bear the burden.

The uninsured use the health care system and are a financial burden on the rest of society.

Given the logical liberties assumed in that line of reasoning there is absolutely no economic activity or inactivity that cannot be somehow rationalized as interstate commerce; that's what I have a problem with.

Don't own a car? Well, buy one at the government's "insistence" since walking deprives the GMC plant in Louisiana of revenue.

Don't eat rice? Well, now you have to since eating Twinkies instead deprives the Calrose company of California of revenue.

Don't own a treadmill? You better get one since not owning one has been linked to obesity which is a health problem which is interstate commerce!

 

[piasabird]

A lot of younger people were choosing not to purchase health care at $800.00 a month and save a little money right after getting out of college. All of those people will now be saddled with being forced to buy healthcare while trying to pay back their college debt. The cost of the health care could be the difference between starving and having dinner.

 

[homercles337]

...the central feature of Obamacare...

This is the Republican input to Healthcare reform. Stop trying to pin this stupid shit on Obama. Its a handout to the Healthcare Industry and Republicans. You do realize that in these mere 5 words you have revealed yourself to be horribly ill-informed, right?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Do some of you people feel like your freedom's have been violated when the government mandates that a hospital must provide emergency care to you, regardless of your ability to pay? Unless you are willing to grant a hospital the right to let you die on their doorstep because you dont have insurance or cash, then stop bitching about the individual mandate. The mandate is just a stupid workaround to what we ultimately need and most other countries have, which is universal healthcare.

 

[BoberFett]

Do some of you people feel like your freedom's have been violated when the government mandates that a hospital must provide emergency care to you, regardless of your ability to pay? Unless you are willing to grant a hospital the right to let you die on their doorstep because you dont have insurance or cash, then stop bitching about the individual mandate. The mandate is just a stupid workaround to what we ultimately need and most other countries have, which is universal healthcare.

Of course the people who get treated for free at a hospital don't feel violated. But you can damn well be sure that the hospital has been violated. The doctors have been violated. The other patients of that hospital who subsidize that person have been violated.

But the answer to violation is not further violation. Two wrongs don't make a right. Unless of course you're the federal government at which point three wrongs make a righter, four wrongs make a righterer, and five wrongs make a rightererest...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

And since hospitals are people this all makes sense!

 

[BoberFett]

And since hospitals are people this all makes sense!

You would argue that hospitals grow from the ground organically and are self-running and self-administering?

Why so much loating of the construction worker who built the hospital? And why the hate for the nurses who work there? They should both work for free? Why, because you think the world owes it to you?

 

[theeedude]

That socialist Reagan signed the law that mandated hospitals treat all comers at the ER.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That socialist Reagan signed the law that mandated hospitals treat all comers at the ER.

He also worked with a monkey in films.

 

[BoberFett]

That socialist Reagan signed the law that mandated hospitals treat all comers at the ER.

And "liberals" hate Reagan, so that was clearly an awful policy and should be changed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I didn't say that I liked the commerce clause argument about health care. I only meant that the argument in the case of health care is a better argument than what was held in Raich. To me it is a better legal argument under current law, but I don't much like current law.

I personally would like the commerce clause to be rewritten to pertain only to financial instruments, the maintenance of standard weights and measures, and safety standards. To me the fact that health care is often interstate commerce doesn't provide a compelling philosophical reson for federal micromanagement of corporate operations.

I was using your comment merely to amplify on my point which is that there is effectively no protection from government insertion into anything as things stand. Everything has a potential cost which might influence something in another state. The CC effectively outweighs any other consideration. All that is required is the will to use it.

 

[woolfe9999]

Your point seems to be that we must accept what we are told to do and if we tolerate or approve one thing than we must bow to all.

No, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that it is inconsistent to call one tyranny while not being critical of the other at all. I can see making a distinction where one is worse than the other. I don't see that here. That doesn't mean it is beyond criticism.

However, "tyranny" sounds a lot like hyperbole to me in this context, unless virtually anything our government does can be called that. All government runs on the engine of taxation, and they have accountability at the ballot box, though limited, for both how much they tax, how much they spend, and what they spend it on. The reality is, in any democracy, the individual is going to be compulsorily taxed and will have minimal say in how that money is spent.

Lots of things can be called "tyranny." Locking people up without due process, torturing people, persecuting people for political dissent, etc. An elected government using your money for things you don't like doesn't strike me as one of them. And frankly, you could do worse than government requiring you to use your money for your own benefit. They could be taxing you and using it to benefit someone else, whether it is welfare for corporations or the poor. And in fact, they do.

I think words like "tyranny" and "police state" are being thrown around rather casually by Americans these days. Face it. We're drama queens. And make no mistake - the left has plenty of its own drama queens, many in the OWS movement. It's just too bad that we can't appreciate that real tyranny does exist in this world.

- wolf

 

[zinfamous]

I don't get it either. The Republicans are the loudest ones against it, but it is after most of them vehementaly supported individual mandates for healthcare for the previous 2 decades.

In fact, Gingrich several years ago referring to the mandate as a reason why he supported Romney and his leadership in MA.

funny.

 

[zinfamous]

And "liberals" hate Reagan, so that was clearly an awful policy and should be changed.

I don't think conservatives much like Reagan, either. (well, the ones that actually look at his record, and not the words that came out of his mouth. )

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that it is inconsistent to call one tyranny while not being critical of the other at all. I can see making a distinction where one is worse than the other. I don't see that here. That doesn't mean it is beyond criticism.

However, "tyranny" sounds a lot like hyperbole to me in this context, unless virtually anything our government does can be called that. All government runs on the engine of taxation, and they have accountability at the ballot box, though limited, for both how much they tax, how much they spend, and what they spend it on. The reality is, in any democracy, the individual is going to be compulsorily taxed and will have minimal say in how that money is spent.

Lots of things can be called "tyranny." Locking people up without due process, torturing people, persecuting people for political dissent, etc. An elected government using your money for things you don't like doesn't strike me as one of them. And frankly, you could do worse than government requiring you to use your money for your own benefit. They could be taxing you and using it to benefit someone else, whether it is welfare for corporations or the poor. And in fact, they do.

I think words like "tyranny" and "police state" are being thrown around rather casually by Americans these days. Face it. We're drama queens. And make no mistake - the left has plenty of its own drama queens, many in the OWS movement. It's just too bad that we can't appreciate that real tyranny does exist in this world.

- wolf

I've seen tyranny in it's most brutal form and had to deal with first hand in a way that most have not so what the masses think is immaterial to me. Nevertheless I do not believe that the rights of the people are not infringed upon until the threshold of bodily harm is reached.

Now why do I not object to taxation? Because it is explicitly provided for in the Constitution which I can cite if needed. It is something that was and is provided for. It is a thing we put forward in the rules.
We grant government the power to do so and that is an enumerated power. While one could argue if a given tax is used for legitimate purpose the concept of taxation for provided service is not in itself in question based on the language of the various Amendments.

Contrast this to the mandate in which the government declares that it can tell citizens they must purchase a thing for which there is no legal basis to require. Yes you needn't have it but you can be punished anyway. Create a tax on nothing and obey or be punished. Obviously our standards for what is acceptable differ. I feel needn't justify my behavior or do what I am told unless there is a proper law which has a proper Constitutional basis, not based on layer loophole seeking mentality. You believe that those who object are whining about the trivial. Perhaps principal is quaint and that we're so advanced as a society that we're beyond the concern for potential abuse. Perhaps those who feel that the rights of the people and restrictions as explicitly stated in the Constitution are more legitimate than political pragmatism and trust in our partisan leaders are seen to be inferior and unsophisticated. We whine and should be grateful they aren't arrested or physically abused. We've never seen suffering or we'd never object.
Consider me and the stereotyped others as the New White Mans Burden for the Enlightened.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

You would argue that hospitals grow from the ground organically and are self-running and self-administering?

Why so much loating of the construction worker who built the hospital? And why the hate for the nurses who work there? They should both work for free? Why, because you think the world owes it to you?

You owe me Bober, You owe me for having made me read this entirely unrelated stream of letters that are ostensibly sentences. You owe me for not understanding the difference between people, who are paid by an organization to do a job, and organizations, which are often subject to regulations.

You owe me because I had to reply this this inanity so that the less-aware would not mistake my lack of reply for acquiescence to your 'wit'; which itself would be a besmirchment of my eminent good name.

You owe me Bober, you owe me one internets.

 

[Sunburn74]

A lot of younger people were choosing not to purchase health care at $800.00 a month and save a little money right after getting out of college. All of those people will now be saddled with being forced to buy healthcare while trying to pay back their college debt. The cost of the health care could be the difference between starving and having dinner.

Perhaps with the country not going bankrupt over healthcare with more people pouring funds into the public pool, more money can be given to said needy college students.

Even if that wasn't true; look at the end of the day every bill/act/law helps some people and hurts others. When women got the right to vote, men were hurt in having their voting power watered down. But it was still the right thing to do.

 

[fskimospy]

That's the typical counter-argument I hear, but I don't think it holds water.

Let's take the first part, that a purely in-state transaction has interstate reach. That logic could be applied to every single transaction ever undertaken in the modern history of the United States. If I use a NV insurer and go to a NV doctor that is not an interstate transaction. If the NV insurer chooses to reinsure with a New Hampshire company or the doctor buys tongue depressors from Georgia those are separate transactions and not party to my transaction. Extending your argument, could you conceive of any possible economic transaction that would not be subject to the commerce clause?

Let's take the second part, that lack of activity is itself activity. That logic could be applied to every single transaction ever undertaken in the modern history of the United States. If I choose not to buy a car and instead ride the bus, riding the bus is an activity subject to regulation by someone but inactivity is, by definition, not activity. Extending your argument, could you conceive of any possible transaction that would not be subject to regulation?

Yes, I could think of a lot of transactions that would not be subject to such regulation. You could very well live your entire life without riding the bus. There exists nearly no American that will live their life without interacting with the health care system.

The idea that choosing not to participate in the health insurance industry is 'non participation' is simply a fantasy. It's a total joke, and you know it.

 

[Sunburn74]

I completely agree. Even if the mandate is somewhat unfair to you because you are extremist enough to somehow completely avoid the healthcare system in your complete lifetime, the fact of the matter is it applies to the majority of people in this country.

 

[xBiffx]

I completely agree. Even if the mandate is somewhat unfair to you because you are extremist enough to somehow completely avoid the healthcare system in your complete lifetime, the fact of the matter is it applies to the majority of people in this country.

It just so happens that the Constitution applies to all the people in this country. Even those that are extremist enough to somehow completely avoid healthcare. Without a doubt, they are being forced to buy something.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You could very well live your entire life without riding the bus.

But people are affected by public transportation in many ways. By using public transportation in congested cities the amount of pollutants would be reduced. That would alleviate related health care problems and since everyone participates in that it would be in the public interest to have people use it. Obviously no one can compel another to ride the bus, however it seems only right that those who do not pay a tax which would expand the opportunity to do so. You cannot shirk your responsibility.

 

[nonlnear]

I've seen tyranny in it's most brutal form and had to deal with first hand in a way that most have not so what the masses think is immaterial to me. Nevertheless I do not believe that the rights of the people are not infringed upon until the threshold of bodily harm is reached.

Now why do I not object to taxation? Because it is explicitly provided for in the Constitution which I can cite if needed. It is something that was and is provided for. It is a thing we put forward in the rules.
We grant government the power to do so and that is an enumerated power. While one could argue if a given tax is used for legitimate purpose the concept of taxation for provided service is not in itself in question based on the language of the various Amendments.

Contrast this to the mandate in which the government declares that it can tell citizens they must purchase a thing for which there is no legal basis to require. Yes you needn't have it but you can be punished anyway. Create a tax on nothing and obey or be punished. Obviously our standards for what is acceptable differ. I feel needn't justify my behavior or do what I am told unless there is a proper law which has a proper Constitutional basis, not based on layer loophole seeking mentality. You believe that those who object are whining about the trivial. Perhaps principal is quaint and that we're so advanced as a society that we're beyond the concern for potential abuse. Perhaps those who feel that the rights of the people and restrictions as explicitly stated in the Constitution are more legitimate than political pragmatism and trust in our partisan leaders are seen to be inferior and unsophisticated. We whine and should be grateful they aren't arrested or physically abused. We've never seen suffering or we'd never object.
Consider me and the stereotyped others as the New White Mans Burden for the Enlightened.

This is all very moving, but it's best for the sake of one's sanity not to cling to the notion that the Constitution actually limits the federal government. Checks and balances stopped existing when the seventeenth amendment was ratified. Our schools teach our children that checks and balances describe the relationship between the three branches of the federal government (never mind the fourth) when that was never the most important check/balkance structure at all. The most vital checks and balance in the system was that there was a body within the federal machine that actually had an incentive to curtail federal powers. This no longer exists.

You can't fence power in with words, no matter which layer of the law they are placed in, if there isn't somebody with an incentive and the power to enforce them. The notion that the Constitutionally enumerated powers constrained the federal government was only a viable belief when there was somebody within the machine of the federal government with an incentive to do so. Even then it was a tenuous belief, but now it is mere fantasy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is all very moving, but it's best for the sake of one's sanity not to cling to the notion that the Constitution actually limits the federal government. Checks and balances stopped existing when the seventeenth amendment was ratified. Our schools teach our children that checks and balances describe the relationship between the three branches of the federal government (never mind the fourth) when that was never the most important check/balkance structure at all. The most vital checks and balance in the system was that there was a body within the federal machine that actually had an incentive to curtail federal powers. This no longer exists.

You can't fence power in with words, no matter which layer of the law they are placed in, if there isn't somebody with an incentive and the power to enforce them. The notion that the Constitutionally enumerated powers constrained the federal government was only a viable belief when there was somebody within the machine of the federal government with an incentive to do so. Even then it was a tenuous belief, but now it is mere fantasy.

I'm not saying that you are wrong but let's not pretend that we're operating within a Constitutional framework anymore. It's what some want and the ruling party will make it so. I can appreciate an honest scoundrel more than one who clings to their fantasy that it's as things are supposed to have been.

 

[nonlnear]

I'm not saying that you are wrong but let's not pretend that we're operating within a Constitutional framework anymore. It's what some want and the ruling party will make it so. I can appreciate an honest scoundrel more than one who clings to their fantasy that it's as things are supposed to have been.

I don't think of it so much as whether we are operating "within" or "outside of" any particular legal constructs. I don't believe in the Rule of Law. (Unusual, I know, for somebody with largely libertarian views.) To me the letter of the law is always of secondary importance to the institutions that apply, interpret, and enforce it.

I agree with you in a sense, that we are not operating under a Constitutional system. However only insofar as our current system does not conform to a reading of the Constitution that is in keeping with the original meaning of the sections that are in force. Looking at our government as one of many human machines that is "governed" to varying degrees of farcicality, by a Constitituion things appear more consistent with other human experiences. Take, for example, the Constitution of Russia:

Section 1 Chapter 2 Article 19
1. All people shall be equal before the law and in the court of law.
2. The state shall guarantee the equality of rights and liberties regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property or employment status, residence, attitude to religion, convictions, membership of public associations or any other circumstance. Any restrictions of the rights of citizens on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be forbidden.
3. Man and woman shall have equal rights and liberties and equal opportunities for their pursuit.

This is typical of legal machines. It is incredibly endearing (and I mean that without any sarcasm, as it is truly one of the things about the USA that I love the most) that so many Americans believe that the text of their Constitution is capable of being less of a joke than that of Russia. One distinct feature of the USA is that the citizens truly love their Constitution, viewing it as a touchstone of their identity, in a way that other countries simply don't. However this also engenders an unfounded belief that somehow the American government is, in spite of human nature and the force of history, capable of delivering governance that is truly consistent with the letter of the law.

Despite the ardent claims promulgated by the legal profession to the contrary, the law is not a set of texts. The law is people. Those people commit acts which are shaped by institutional incentives and, occasionally, a set of words printed on paper somewhere far away. The degree to which those people's actions conform to said words depends not on the virtue of the words or the people, but on the incentives of those people's bosses. I don't beleive the self-evidence of these claims is contestable. (I would appreciate being shown to be wrong!)

 

[cybrsage]

Stop trying to pin this stupid shit on Obama.

Who signed it into law, happily doing it?