RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance)

RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 7:57:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The constitution does not require us to pay taxes to the IRS, but we do it. The Constitution did not allow for a personal "income tax". They had to pass the 16th Amendment - "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." - in order to allow the federal government to tax people directly. (As a total aside - I think this was a mistake. I believe that one of the checks on the Federal government was that it had to apportion taxes amongst the states - and the individual states decided how to collect them. Allowing the government to tax individuals directly greatly shifted the balance of power to the central government.) The federal government, according to how I read the Constitution does not have the power to require a citizen to possess homeowner's insurance, car insurance, or any other kind of insurance. Those requirements are either stare laws or requirements from the company loaning you the money to purchase the car or home to make certain that their investment will be repaid. I'm fairly certain that where I live, if you paid off your mortgage, you could choose not to insure your house. Regardless of how these people decide to play games with the law and their interpretations of it - I find it hugely disturbing that the solution they've come up with is to fine anyone who doesn't have health insurance for two reasons. One, it's a power the federal government doesn't currently have and certainly doesn't need - it sets an awful precedent. Two, the rich, the well-off and the gainfully employed already have health insurance. This is effectively a tax on the poor and uninsured. That's vile. [Edited to add the aside. And for typos.]

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:02:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy My thoughts are that it is not allowed if we followed the constitution. Unless we clean up the HFCS out of the food supply- anything we do on this is mute. I'm not sure I see the connection between High Fructose Corn Syrup in the food supply, and whether forcing the public to buy health insurance from corporations is constitutional. Our health model is selling as many pills as the highest prices possible. Not on actually curing and being healthy. HFCS is only one component of this flawed model. Such leads to obese people and diabetis. Look at the public now compared to the 80s. That is HFSC. And to those who think that is confined to USA. Not anymore it isnt- watch as they too become obese. My point is the FDA=- is the food and DRUG industry. The model is to maximize the dollars brought in- starting with pharmaceuticals.... and on down the line. A healthy food supply would mean less sick people. The more sick people the better for our current model. Also look at how the food pyramid replaces the 4 food groups. The gorcery store pretty much tells the story. They do sell healthy food but it is like 3%. Dude, I agree with you about high fructose corn syrup. I don't think it's good for you. I avoid it wherever I can - but I don't think you can compare HFCS with fining someone for not buying health insurance. You can choose not to drink beverages flavored with corn syrup, you can avoid candies, sweets, cereals, etc. with corn syrup in them. No one is forcing you to eat HFCS nor are they fining you or throwing you in jail for not eating HFCS. I also don't think you can blame HFCS on the Congress. I think it came into being because it's cheaper than regular sugar and so companies moved over to it (I could be wrong tho, I have no idea what the history of sweeteners is). It wasn't mandated by an act of the legislature. The health insurance deal, you don't have a choice - and that's what I object to.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:18:58 PM)
IM gainfully employed... full time... no benefits. The 16th Admendment, according to some, was never properly ratified, therefore not valid. But even some who believe that it wasnt properly ratified do believe taxes are legal because of the Internal Revenue Code quote: Title 26 covers the Internal Revenue Code. The Code itself is a collection of laws that were passed by Congress and bits and amendments were passed through the years. When people talk about AMT reform, they’re talking about passing amendments to adjust who gets affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax. http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/what-law-requires-us-to-pay-taxes.html

Fellow -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:21:29 PM)
USA constitution was written for a libertarian country. This country has died. The new constitution needs to be written to avoid such nostalgic protests.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:22:27 PM)
Black- I am against the health care reform bill. It is becoming a full time job to keep track of these numerous bad laws they are cramming.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl IM gainfully employed... full time... no benefits. The 16th Admendment, according to some, was never properly ratified, therefore not valid. But even some who believe that it wasnt properly ratified do believe taxes are legal because of the Internal Revenue Code quote: Title 26 covers the Internal Revenue Code. The Code itself is a collection of laws that were passed by Congress and bits and amendments were passed through the years. When people talk about AMT reform, they’re talking about passing amendments to adjust who gets affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax. http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/what-law-requires-us-to-pay-taxes.html Yup. It is true there is no law. Consider that the fed income tax was passed around the time as the Federal Reserve. 12-23 the federal reserve on a voice vote in congress where only 3 reps were there. This means 2 drunks put it in.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:26:24 PM)
quote: This is effectively a tax on the poor and uninsured. That's vile. You're ignoring the assistance for those who cannot afford it, as well as the catastrophic economic consequences for them if they become seriously ill. If the corporate option is unconstitutional (I'm not convinced it is), that leaves a government run plan, just as social security and medicare/medicaid. Frankly, that makes more sense to me. But it will never happen. The "unconstitutional" objection has nothing to do with Constitutional concerns--it's about not wanting health care reform at all (not to mention the long needed regulatory changes). That's vile.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:31:07 PM)
The Supreme Court has upheld the law... constitutional or not. No one can even begin to think the SC will shoot the country in the foot by labling taxes "unconstitutional". And its with that tax code that they will penalize people who do not have health insurance. to me, its not what the code was in place for... but then again the young are the group most likely to be hit by this penalty. The poor will have their out, as specified by the bill... they can obtain exceptions. The young will be hit, those making money, but deciding they dont need it because they are healthy. This is also the same group who indulge in many health risking habits... excessive drinking... speeding... high risk sports.. ect. It doesnt take a long term illness to run up a huge medical bill. I believe everyone SHOULD have access to health care. Right now, access means insurance. i always knew this would be a baby step process. and, as anyone who has raised children, growing pains are sure to follow.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:35:49 PM)
until we smoke out all the lawyers in DC- I am afraid the only thing we will see from now on- is crappy legislation with "gotchas" left and right.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:36:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl IM gainfully employed... full time... no benefits. Fair enough - let me ask you then - would you prefer the option to buy government provided or backed health insurance, or would you rather be forced to buy government provided or backed health insurance and fined if you do not? quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The 16th Admendment, according to some, was never properly ratified, therefore not valid. But even some who believe that it wasnt properly ratified do believe taxes are legal because of the Internal Revenue Code. Technically, if the 16th Amendment wasn't passed then the Internal Revenue Code would have been unconstitutional and I have no doubt that someone would have taken it to the Supreme Court. If Congress passed a law doing something like granting titles of nobility or whatever - that wouldn't make it legal. The Constitution would have to be modified to allow it. Admittedly, if the President went along with it and was willing to use the FBI or the military to support it - your protest that it was illegal wouldn't be worth much - but you'd still be right and it would still be illegal and unconstitutional. It's a very fine point but I'm a stickler for these things. Even if someone doesn't believe that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified, the Federal government does and those revenue guys are mean and, in some weird non-Euclidian warping of legalese, they don't have to abide by trial by jury or habeas corpus and any of the other nice protections we have from the law - they can just seize your assets and throw you in the slam.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:37:04 PM)
you believe its only lawyers?

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:45:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You're ignoring the assistance for those who cannot afford it, as well as the catastrophic economic consequences for them if they become seriously ill. I haven't read the final bill so you may have me there. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The "unconstitutional" objection has nothing to do with Constitutional concerns--it's about not wanting health care reform at all (not to mention the long needed regulatory changes). Actually, for me, it has exactly to do with Constituional concerns. To my mind, if you think a law or a legal system or whatever is bad, you change the law - not disregard it. Every time you bend, or ignore, or break a part of the legal system you damage it. It opens the door for others to do the same and their motives may not be as well-meaning or as altruistic. There are methods in place for modifying the Constituion and the legal system - and there are reasons the system was designed that way. To simply run roughshod over a law or a right or a protection you don't like, or because it's inconvenient or might delay something you want, shows a disregard for the law and a disdain for the rights of others and that makes it easier for the next guy to do something even more egregious. I think it's extremely rare for one crazed madman to end up with absolute power. I think that, over time, rights and rules and laws are eroded and broken and whittled away for ostensibly good reasons, for expedience, because "this cause" is so important it justifies overruling the system - until one day someone can just waltz in and go berserk - because people have been desensitized to actions that violate established laws or rules and simply accept them. I think we've been seeing that gradually happening here in the U. S. for a while.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:48:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl IM gainfully employed... full time... no benefits. Fair enough - let me ask you then - would you prefer the option to buy government provided or backed health insurance, or would you rather be forced to buy government provided or backed health insurance and fined if you do not? Lets remember why this reform began. 1) Bankruptcy from high medical bills due to underinsurance or lack of insurance 2) Lack of preventative care 3) Higher costs of both medical care and insurance premiums for those who do have insurance because of those who do not. In order to bring these in line ( and these are just the basics) everyone has to be insured. Else, higher costs to those who are insured because of the uninsured wont end. Bankruptcy due to medical costs will still occur. And waiting till you are sick to buy in wont help, nor will it be allowed.

QuirkyAnne -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:55:12 PM)
While I don't argue that purchasing it if you can afford it is a good thing, I don't think it can be considered constitutional. The other problem is that whole, "If they can afford it," bit. There are people who, no matter how desperately they want and beg for coverage, are REFUSED reasonably priced coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and even family medical history. Also, what about people like myself? I've worked for a famous restaurant chain for three years and have been able to get health coverage through my employer during that whole time and yet I refuse to because the coverage is not worth it. I'm a healthy person for the most part, but if I ever did become seriously ill or required major surgery, I would be better off having no coverage and having to rely on a hospital social worker to help cover my costs than the nearly useless "coverage" offered by my job. BTW, this actually happened to one of my co-workers. She wound up with a medical debt of over $20,000 even with our insurance and the social worker told her point blank that if she hadn't had insurance, the aid system through the hospital would have left her with a debt of around $8,000 or so. If the bill passes and we're forced to cover ourselves, they're going to have to pass more laws forcing insurance providers to make coverage available and costs adjusted for income and I just don't see that happening. Anne

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 8:56:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets remember why this reform began. 1) Bankruptcy from high medical bills due to underinsurance or lack of insurance 2) Lack of preventative care 3) Higher costs of both medical care and insurance premiums for those who do have insurance because of those who do not. In order to bring these in line ( and these are just the basics) everyone has to be insured. Else, higher costs to those who are insured because of the uninsured wont end. Bankruptcy due to medical costs will still occur. And waiting till you are sick to buy in wont help, nor will it be allowed. I believe that there are much better ways to provide medical care than the current plan they're looking to put into place. I'm not alone in this as a number of prominent figures, both liberal and conservative, oppose the bill. I do not at all cotton to the concept of the government forcing people to purchase anything. From my own experience, back when I was unemployed I had to drop my medical insurance after a couple of months as I could not afford it. Since I pretty much never use my health insurance (I'm one of those people who subsidize all the rest as I never recoup my premiums), I considered it a worthwile risk. Looking at the figures that both sides are bandying about I suspect that, at the time, I could not have afforded the government-backed plans either. I do not see how fining me for failing to comply would in any way have helped the situation.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 9:07:26 PM)
How would they fine an unemployed individual? Many who rail against this bill know little of what actually it contains. below 133% of poverty level... you cant afford it. the bill recognizes that... any proven hardships are exempted from the penalty, and you are subsidized... these are also many people who have access to that insurance now through medicaid, medicare. 133 - 400% poverty level... subsidized. above that, you can afford it, according to the language of this bill. again, hardships can occur and you can apply for the exceptions.

MzMia -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 9:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl How would they fine an unemployed individual? Many who rail against this bill know little of what actually it contains. below 133% of poverty level... you cant afford it. the bill recognizes that... any proven hardships are exempted from the penalty, and you are subsidized... these are also many people who have access to that insurance now through medicaid, medicare. 133 - 400% poverty level... subsidized. above that, you can afford it, according to the language of this bill. again, hardships can occur and you can apply for the exceptions. Thanks tazzygirl! You are bringing it! I am not sure how I feel yet about this health care bill, but damn it we do need "change". Happy Holidays!

tazzygirl -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 9:17:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuirkyAnne While I don't argue that purchasing it if you can afford it is a good thing, I don't think it can be considered constitutional. The other problem is that whole, "If they can afford it," bit. There are people who, no matter how desperately they want and beg for coverage, are REFUSED reasonably priced coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and even family medical history. Also, what about people like myself? I've worked for a famous restaurant chain for three years and have been able to get health coverage through my employer during that whole time and yet I refuse to because the coverage is not worth it. I'm a healthy person for the most part, but if I ever did become seriously ill or required major surgery, I would be better off having no coverage and having to rely on a hospital social worker to help cover my costs than the nearly useless "coverage" offered by my job. BTW, this actually happened to one of my co-workers. She wound up with a medical debt of over $20,000 even with our insurance and the social worker told her point blank that if she hadn't had insurance, the aid system through the hospital would have left her with a debt of around $8,000 or so. If the bill passes and we're forced to cover ourselves, they're going to have to pass more laws forcing insurance providers to make coverage available and costs adjusted for income and I just don't see that happening. Anne One of the bits and parcels of this bill is that all insurance policies will have to meet the standars set by the Committee appointed to oversee this reform. Those employer base policies that do not meet the standards will be subject to heavy fines and penalties... and the insurance companies wont be able to offer less than the mandated minimum requirements. Those laws are already included in the bills. Its a start. Its not perfect...

Arpig -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 9:17:52 PM)
Two words for you....Single Payer. It works, its cheaper & more efficient. And its constitutional as far as I understand it, since it could be mandated at the federal level & executed at the state level. But we all know it is never going to happen, at least until somebody with cojones gets elected.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate insurance) (12/23/2009 9:20:37 PM)
Agreed Arpig. But, as the bill stands now.. preventative care, availablity of insurance through an exchange, and the restriction of insurance companies from denying or dropping people due to pre-existing conditions are all a HUGE step forward.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875