|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 24 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 22:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 20:49 Mortality wrote:
Interesting that most posters approve of Obamacare but believe it to be unconstitutional. Whether or not you like the general flavor of a federal policy, I don't see how you can approve of it if it oversteps constitutional authority. Allowing authority to disregard the constitution at whim is a quick road to tyranny. The thing is that, like others have said, there have been countless questionable laws passed in recent decades when it comes to constitutionality, so it's not something that's adhered to very strictly anymore. Continuing from my previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322937¤tpage=18#353I did some more searching for the source of your claim. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101741/cbo-obamacare-cost-deficit-lie-double-price-foxIt seems the 1.76 number you're talking about isn't in the CBO report at all. In fact, it's a made up number invented by journalists, who can't read or who are numerically illiterate. They arrived at that number themselves, by adding the cost (but not savings), from the 2012-2021 projections with the 2022 projection of $265 billion, and then compared it to a $900 billion costing that was originally claimed, probably for 2010-2020 (since projections are done for 10 years and the law was signed in 2010). I searched for about 15 minutes for a source for this $900 billion claim. And found nothing. So where's the source? It is highly deceptive that they are comparing the law over different time periods where the current projections include another 2-3 years of costs due to full implementation. It's even more deceptive that they talk only about costs, but not savings. Note that comparisons of the net fiscal effect of Obamacare is not possible under the 2012-2022 time horizon of the latest CBO report because CBO has only made cost projections for these years, but they have not made savings projections beyond 2021. Taking savings into account, the law will reduce the deficit by $210 billion dollars over 2012-2021. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf Table 1. Looking at Figure 1, as time goes on, the law will cost more, but it will save even more, so that on net, the deficit is reduced. Before linking something, I suggest you read it, just to make sure it says what you say it does.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/13/cbo-new-10-year-projected-cost-of-obamacare-is-1-76-trillion/
I suggest you don't make claims about highly deceptive sliding of years and costs around when that is exactly what you and others wailing about how it just isn't true are doing.
As for telling people to read links, I'd suggest you read your own TNR link.
In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion—the one in the press releases and the Fox story.
So yes, the number 1.76 trillion is accurate, so yes, the Obama Administration left out the huge price jump in year 11 (which was by design so as to make the 10 year cost under 1 trillion, looks better), but I guess history just ends in 2020 and we shouldn't be concerned at all about how costs have been end-loaded to make it more politically palatable now.
I will say I was wrong to say that it would double, it won't double in the misleading timeframe presented. Costs will just rise spectacularly past a certain point, which was the intention to avoid controversy over cost now.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293932/no-obamacare-s-costs-didn-t-double-patrick-brennan
The bill’s gross costs will be huge; ten years of full implementation, from, say, 2015–2025, will cost more than $2 trillion, since the bill ticks in at $250+ billion per year after 2021. This fact was perfectly evident in the 2010 estimate, which projected similar annual costs for years of full implementation, but it is worth noting that, in this sense, 2012–2022 is a closer approximation of the full size (though not net cost) of Obamacare than 2010–2019 and at $1.7 trillion, still isn’t even big enough.
Basically, the first ten years of Obamacare cost under 1 trillion dollars because it is 10 years of taking revenues for the program but only 6 years of paying out costs. Somehow, I don't think that that will be the case after the first ten years.
And I'm sorry that you couldn't find the 940 billion number, that speaks to your inability to find relevant information, not any shortcoming of mine. Obama himself said this to Congress:
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html
"Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years
|
On March 24 2012 16:13 .Wilsh. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 15:33 forgottendreams wrote:On March 24 2012 14:48 .Wilsh. wrote:I oppose obamacare or any federal health care system. Mainly because it is unconstitutional. Quick, but important constitutional lesson: To start off the Constitution states that in order for the federal government to have a power it must be given that power in the Constitution. This is called the enumerated powers doctrine. The enumerated powers of the Constitution are laid out in Article I Section 8. There are 18 powers (somewhat summarized): 1) Collect taxes, pay debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. 2) Borrow money. (We sadly use this one a lot today) 3) Regulate commerce with other nations and among the states. 4) Establish an uniform rule of naturalization. 5) Coin money and regulate the value. 6) Punish counterfeiting. 7) Establish post offices. 8) Promote the progress of science and useful arts. Also help inventors and authors secure right over their works. (Patients) 9) Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court. 10) Punish crimes on the high Seas. 11) Declare War. 12) Raise and support Armies. 13) Maintaining of a Navy. 14) Rules for land and naval forces. 15) Calling forth of a Militia. 16) (More Militia stuff) 17) Ruling over DC. 18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. So there are all the things that the federal government can do. I should quickly mention that Article I section 9 has more RESTRICTIONS of what the government can't do. Also the bill of rights RESTRICTS the federal government more. I really want to emphasize (especially to the Americans) that the founding fathers wrote a Constitution to restrict what the federal government can do so that it doesn't becoming to powerful and take away our rights or freedoms. Anyways as you can see no where in the Constitution does it allow for anything like federal health care. + Show Spoiler +Another reason that obamacare is unconstitutional is the individual mandate. The individual mandate forces people to buy health insurance from a private health insurance company. Where in the Constitution is that allowed?? That would be the same as forcing every American to buy a new car every year. What a joke!! Judges have actually said this is constitutional! These are judges who have sworn to protect the Constitution, but are really just pissing on it.
I'll leave you with some quotes that have popped into my head while writing this.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
-George Bernard Shaw
"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."
-Voltaire
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-James Madison
And one last one from my favorite historical figure:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Thomas Jefferson
Enumerated powers are one part of the equation and a rather part of it, most of the powers for the government derived the constitution are from implied powers that were envisioned by the framers to deal with the progress of time. Furthermore you rhetorically note there is nothing in the Constitution that would allow for health insurance because it isn't spelled out, that's really not how the Constitution works. If you want to be realistic about it using implied powers and legal precedent which "fills" in the Constitution, health insurance can be implied through 1) Provide for General Welfare 3) Regulate Commerce Between States 18) The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Legal precedent within the Commerce Clause has largely allowed for the health insurance to arise, however the individual mandate is certainly more controversial and will be the center of focus in the Court, but it would also be shortsighted to say its "unconstitutional" facially. I think it will be 5-4 with Kennedy splitting the vote in favor.... Here is some reading that summarizes quick aspects of it http://news.yahoo.com/legal-experts-see-close-win-health-reform-law-130207955.html Well based off that logic the federal government can do really anything. They could give homes to everyone, they could make you buy a TV you dont want, they could make you eat green beans, they could make you study German when you want to study Computer Science in college. They could literally do anything. Also its "provide general welfare of the united states" not "the general welfare of everyone." Why would the founders put in the 9th and 10th amendments if the federal government could imply any power??? That makes no sense. The 9th and 10th amendments are soooo important. Also the regulate commerce between states is such bullshit. The framers meant "to make regular" because tariffs between colonies were raping trade and making it impossible. The framers must be rolling in their graves when the see how such a small phrase could be manipulated to give the federal government infinite power. Things like Wickard v. Filburn in the 40s is just insane! I can't believe anyone could read that case and say to themselves, "that seems legit." I am not asking for the health care to be spelled out in the Constitution, obviously. But to just allow the federal government to imply any power is ludicrous. I quoted James Madison in my post. Here is story about why he said that. It is an amazing glimpse into what the framers thought about the federal government and what they could spend peoples money on. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/constitution.htmlI do not think I can get across how utterly irresponsible and ridiculous it would be to allow the individual mandate to be passed based off the commence clause. Honestly the government could FORCE you to buy anything! This is the complete opposite of what the founders wanted. And if anyone tells you otherwise they are either misinformed or lying.
I believe the argument for the individual mandate itself is based on the 16th amendment, while other aspects of the law are based on the interstate commerce clause. The penalty is really just a tax you have to pay if you don't have healthcare.
@DeepElemBlues, 1.47 trillion is less than we spend in one year on healthcare currently since at least 2007 so... I think you really need to contextualize that number next to the ridiculous level of expenditures that already occur on healthcare in America. Also according to CBO estimates the bill actually reduces the deficit so I'm not sure why you have decided to completely ignore savings and pretend its a reasonable argument. It actually saves $1.2 trillion over two decades.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-reid_letter_managers_correction_noted.pdf
Edit: Check out the general welfare clause: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
|
On March 25 2012 00:02 Nevermind86 wrote:
And before somebody repeats that the free market is an all-powerful-self-correcting thing and give the example of buying a steak and if you like it you come back and if you don't you don't... Well that's nonsense life is not so simple and that cannot apply when asking advice to a lawyer, bank manager or a medical doctor because what they tell you could be so complex that they can fool you and you cannot be certain. Comes to mind all those MD's telling people that the back pain would go away if they have a back surgery even when it has been proved long ago that those types of surgeries do not help with the back pain, guess what there are a lot of hardworking doctors still recommending it.
Unfortunately, one cannot come back after one dies.
|
On March 25 2012 00:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 24 2012 22:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 20:49 Mortality wrote:
Interesting that most posters approve of Obamacare but believe it to be unconstitutional. Whether or not you like the general flavor of a federal policy, I don't see how you can approve of it if it oversteps constitutional authority. Allowing authority to disregard the constitution at whim is a quick road to tyranny. The thing is that, like others have said, there have been countless questionable laws passed in recent decades when it comes to constitutionality, so it's not something that's adhered to very strictly anymore. Continuing from my previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322937¤tpage=18#353I did some more searching for the source of your claim. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101741/cbo-obamacare-cost-deficit-lie-double-price-foxIt seems the 1.76 number you're talking about isn't in the CBO report at all. In fact, it's a made up number invented by journalists, who can't read or who are numerically illiterate. They arrived at that number themselves, by adding the cost (but not savings), from the 2012-2021 projections with the 2022 projection of $265 billion, and then compared it to a $900 billion costing that was originally claimed, probably for 2010-2020 (since projections are done for 10 years and the law was signed in 2010). I searched for about 15 minutes for a source for this $900 billion claim. And found nothing. So where's the source? It is highly deceptive that they are comparing the law over different time periods where the current projections include another 2-3 years of costs due to full implementation. It's even more deceptive that they talk only about costs, but not savings. Note that comparisons of the net fiscal effect of Obamacare is not possible under the 2012-2022 time horizon of the latest CBO report because CBO has only made cost projections for these years, but they have not made savings projections beyond 2021. Taking savings into account, the law will reduce the deficit by $210 billion dollars over 2012-2021. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf Table 1. Looking at Figure 1, as time goes on, the law will cost more, but it will save even more, so that on net, the deficit is reduced. Before linking something, I suggest you read it, just to make sure it says what you say it does. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/13/cbo-new-10-year-projected-cost-of-obamacare-is-1-76-trillion/I suggest you don't make claims about highly deceptive sliding of years and costs around when that is exactly what you and others wailing about how it just isn't true are doing. As for telling people to read links, I'd suggest you read your own TNR link. Show nested quote +In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion—the one in the press releases and the Fox story. So yes, the number 1.76 trillion is accurate, so yes, the Obama Administration left out the huge price jump in year 11 (which was by design so as to make the 10 year cost under 1 trillion, looks better), but I guess history just ends in 2020 and we shouldn't be concerned at all about how costs have been end-loaded to make it more politically palatable now. I will say I was wrong to say that it would double, it won't double in the misleading timeframe presented. Costs will just rise spectacularly past a certain point, which was the intention to avoid controversy over cost now. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293932/no-obamacare-s-costs-didn-t-double-patrick-brennanShow nested quote +The bill’s gross costs will be huge; ten years of full implementation, from, say, 2015–2025, will cost more than $2 trillion, since the bill ticks in at $250+ billion per year after 2021. This fact was perfectly evident in the 2010 estimate, which projected similar annual costs for years of full implementation, but it is worth noting that, in this sense, 2012–2022 is a closer approximation of the full size (though not net cost) of Obamacare than 2010–2019 and at $1.7 trillion, still isn’t even big enough. Basically, the first ten years of Obamacare cost under 1 trillion dollars because it is 10 years of taking revenues for the program but only 6 years of paying out costs. Somehow, I don't think that that will be the case after the first ten years. And I'm sorry that you couldn't find the 940 billion number, that speaks to your inability to find relevant information, not any shortcoming of mine. Obama himself said this to Congress: http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.htmlShow nested quote +"Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years
That Yahoo article uses 900 not 940, which is why I didn't find it. And it still doesn't link to the source.
Again, why are you comparing costs over 2010-2019 to 2012-2022?
Why are you comparing 6 years of implementation to 9 years and calling it a fair comparison?
This is completely deceptive.
And why are you talking about costs only? Costs are meaningless alone. You need to look at the NET COST, i.e. cost minus savings, and while costs increase at a rapid rate, savings increase even more rapidly. And the CBO states clearly that savings are greater than costs in the report I linked.
Obamacare will reduce the deficit according to the CBO, not increase it.
And I did read my own link. The quote you took out of the TNR report was exactly why I wrote:
They arrived at that number themselves, by adding the cost (but not savings), from the 2012-2021 projections with the 2022 projection of $265 billion, and then compared it to a $900 billion costing that was originally claimed, probably for 2010-2020 (since projections are done for 10 years and the law was signed in 2010).
I suggest you read what I wrote before claiming incorrectly that I didn't read my link.
The problem here is not that the $900 billion is wrong or that the $1.7 trillion is wrong. They are both right. What is wrong is the claim that the cost of Obamacare has double by comparing the two. This comparison is wrong and invalid because the time frame is different. Not only that, it's also meaningless because it doesn't take into account the savings, which are still greater than the costs.
Moreover, the only valid comparison that can me made is 2012-2021, not 2012-2022. The comparison of 2012-2021 gives $-200 billion to the deficit, and over the 2012-2021, the CBO has revised down costs by $50 billion (it's on the very first page).
Also, next year's CBO report will update the cost for Obamacare and it will be higher than $1.7 billions, say it's $2.7 billion. I can assure you headlines will read: "Obamacare costs TRIPLED from 900 billion". No they didn't. The CBO projects 10 years in advance: 2013-2023. Then right-wing commentators will be comparing 2010-2019 with 2013-2023 (they won't ever mention the difference in time frame though), and you'll be lapping it up.
This is like observing that the total cost of running WoW servers has increased exponentially from when the game launched (because the longer the servers are on, the more Blizzard has to pay), and claiming: "Oh shit! WoW is bankrupting Blizzard!"
When the CBO actually claims that Obamacare's net cost is greater than 0, then come back to me.
|
While I certainly encourage the discussion of US politics by everyone, nobody should be commenting on things they don't understand. There are only a handful of people IN the US that understand the constitution as the founders meant it to be understood. I guarantee that number is virtually zero outside the US. Therefore, please, if you're not from the US, just don't argue about the constitutionality of something. I don't know the constitutions/laws/processes of your governments, but you don't see me commenting on them.
|
On March 25 2012 00:35 EternaLLegacy wrote:
While I certainly encourage the discussion of US politics by everyone, nobody should be commenting on things they don't understand. There are only a handful of people IN the US that understand the constitution as the founders meant it to be understood. I guarantee that number is virtually zero outside the US. Therefore, please, if you're not from the US, just don't argue about the constitutionality of something. I don't know the constitutions/laws/processes of your governments, but you don't see me commenting on them.
Why do you think people are going to comply with you asking them not to discuss the subject? Pretty snobby thing of you to say on a public, international forum.
|
On March 25 2012 00:35 EternaLLegacy wrote:
While I certainly encourage the discussion of US politics by everyone, nobody should be commenting on things they don't understand. There are only a handful of people IN the US that understand the constitution as the founders meant it to be understood. I guarantee that number is virtually zero outside the US. Therefore, please, if you're not from the US, just don't argue about the constitutionality of something. I don't know the constitutions/laws/processes of your governments, but you don't see me commenting on them.
On March 24 2012 09:04 EternaLLegacy wrote:
Poll is open to Europeans and Canadians. I guarantee most people in the US, even on this internet forum, would love to see this disaster of a law shot down.
Let me be absolutely clear. If it is not, then government can literally do anything it wants. If this doesn't get shut down by the courts then the constitution will have finally failed entirely.
Yeah... I think I found at least one person in this thread who doesn't understand the constitution. Plus, your comment that implies the founding fathers actually agreed on what the constitution meant shows an absence of historical education on your part.
I recommend the Oxford history of the United States. (http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-United-States/lm/R3W3WGWMB5IJ3V)
|
On March 25 2012 00:24 paralleluniverse wrote:
Unfortunately, one cannot come back after one dies.
Are you trying to say that morals are tied to religion? I'm an atheist sir doesn't mean I'll go around doing the wrong thing just to eat more and drink.
|
On March 25 2012 01:44 Nevermind86 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 00:24 paralleluniverse wrote:
Unfortunately, one cannot come back after one dies. Are you trying to say that morals are tied to religion? I'm an atheist sir doesn't mean I'll go around doing the wrong thing just to eat more and drink.
I'm trying to say competition is a bit wonky in health insurance. If you eat at a restaurant, and don't like their food, then you can choose to eat another place next time.
If you buy health insurance and realize you don't like it after getting sick, there may not be a next time for you to buy it at another place.
|
If Obamacare doesn't get repealed it will mean a new status quo and who knows for how long one will last. It will prevent an acceptable plan from being put into policy. In the mean time the huge costs of the healthcare system will continue to be a huge drag on the whole US economy, making everything in life expensive and significantly damaging the US's abilit to compete on the world market.
That's why most so called liberals and former Obama voters are against Obamcare.
You need to cut away all the insurance company bureaucracy and you need to give the government the purchasing power to buy in huge quantities to get stuff cheap and to have leverage when negotiating the price. If not you will never get anywhere close to even the worst systems in other industralized countries because they all have these elements.
|
On March 25 2012 00:35 EternaLLegacy wrote:
While I certainly encourage the discussion of US politics by everyone, nobody should be commenting on things they don't understand. There are only a handful of people IN the US that understand the constitution as the founders meant it to be understood. I guarantee that number is virtually zero outside the US. Therefore, please, if you're not from the US, just don't argue about the constitutionality of something. I don't know the constitutions/laws/processes of your governments, but you don't see me commenting on them.
I think that the diversity of opinions and perspectives is what makes this kind of discussion interesting.
As for the bolded part, whether the constitution should be interpreted "as the founders meant it to be understood", or as a "living" document that is interpreted according to the times is a fundamental question that shouldn't be ignored.
|
On March 25 2012 00:24 paralleluniverse wrote:
Unfortunately, one cannot come back after one dies.
This is what I said:
On March 25 2012 01:44 Nevermind86 wrote:
"And before somebody repeats that the free market is an all-powerful-self-correcting thing and give the example of buying a steak and if you like it you come back and if you don't you don't... Well that's nonsense life is not so simple and that cannot apply when asking advice to a lawyer, bank manager or a medical doctor because what they tell you could be so complex that they can fool you and you cannot be certain. Comes to mind all those MD's telling people that the back pain would go away if they have a back surgery even when it has been proved long ago that those types of surgeries do not help with the back pain, guess what there are a lot of hardworking doctors still recommending it.
It would be good if you paid more attention to what you read... What I mean is the argument about buying a steak is flawed when compared to asking advice to an MD or something because you cannot possibly know if what they tell you is true because it's quite complex knowledge, that means you could get cheated. Which is why I believe the people that bring that argument about the free market-buying a steak don't realize it's not that simple in real life.
Hard individualism is not necessarily a bad thing but it shouldn't be a goverment policy [I'm not american but you guys think it should], sadly the argument about "I don't want to help others, lazzy people" shouldn't apply, I mean if there are the means to help other people doing very little then it should be done rather than not done, because then people die or get horrible for life injuries [like myself], but then americans spend that much money to invade other countries for their own good and spread democracy... whatever obviously my opinion doesn't matter.
A funny fact: The US government has this agency USAID - stands for US aid - to help spread democracy, like for example funding politicians in my country Venezuela to run for public office and protect US interests... but they've been trashed in elections for the last 13 years... one of the candidates in the last primaries lived in the US and Europe for the last 30 years... he had this huge campaign propaganda everywhere and only got 35.000 votes, lol. Resources needed for your own health =/.
|
On March 25 2012 01:44 Nevermind86 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 00:24 paralleluniverse wrote:
Unfortunately, one cannot come back after one dies. Are you trying to say that morals are tied to religion? I'm an atheist sir doesn't mean I'll go around doing the wrong thing just to eat more and drink.
Western morals are very closely tied to religion. In fact, most of your morals stem from centuries of christian beliefs your ancestors had.
Denying that would be pretty stupid, imo.
|
There is actually academic studies (wouldn't call it true science) that look into how customers make decisions and if this shows that yes or no, you get benefits when you make health care market driven where customers go out and shop for the best health care deal.
You guess the answer, lol.
Many countries have tried many different systems. Some do very well, some very poor. But no, all this testing is completely irrelevant to the US because the US is special. Australia has a good system? Well, their distances are so large and they all live in cities. Austria has a good system. Well it's a tiny country. Belgium has a good system? Well they all live in relatively tiny cities and towns, etc etc.
Nope, the US must find it's own brand new system that is best only for the US. Good luck guys.
Western morals are very closely tied to religion. In fact, most of your morals stem from centuries of christian beliefs your ancestors had.
All religions stole their 'morals' from more secular traditions, lol. Except for the really bad ones. They just made those up or stole them from tribalism or something else very silly and made them 'holy.
|
From an economic standpoint i hope this doesn't become law. From a law standpoint idk where it will go but with our freedoms being striped left and right im seriously weary of larger government. Its amazing how both right and left politicians are pointing the way to tyranny like this. Bush => patriot act = destroys 4th amendment. Obama => indefinite detention act = destroys the 5th and 6th amendments. Larger government with less individual freedom is a dangerous path to down, and like i said its both left and right parties doing it no matter what rhetoric they say.
|
On March 25 2012 06:03 methematics wrote:
From an economic standpoint i hope this doesn't become law. From a law standpoint idk where it will go but with our freedoms being striped left and right im seriously weary of larger government. Its amazing how both right and left politicians are pointing the way to tyranny like this. Bush => patriot act = destroys 4th amendment. Obama => indefinite detention act = destroys the 5th and 6th amendments. Larger government with less individual freedom is a dangerous path to down, and like i said its both left and right parties doing it no matter what rhetoric they say.
Size is subjective and (at least from the average person's perspective) unquantifiable. Exactly how big should government be to operate efficiently? How about government watchdog agencies which seem to be underfunded and understaffed? The problem seems to be the increase of powers in fewer hands- namely the Executive Branch. Checks and Balances more easily circumvented with "smaller" government. I don't believe that the actual size of government has anything to do with less individual freedom, in fact it might actually be the reason for disgraceful types of examples of legislation you posted.
|
On March 24 2012 23:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 20:49 Mortality wrote:
Interesting that most posters approve of Obamacare but believe it to be unconstitutional. Whether or not you like the general flavor of a federal policy, I don't see how you can approve of it if it oversteps constitutional authority. Allowing authority to disregard the constitution at whim is a quick road to tyranny. I don't know the constitution well enough to say whether it is constitutional or not, but I wouldn't care if it wasn't, because I believe it causes a net benefit to our country. I don't think the constitution should ever stand in the way of something that causes a net benefit.
The Constitution places limits on the power of the federal government to prevent abuses by simple majority in Congress; if they want to pass legislation outside of their enumerated powers, we have an amendment process to the Constitution. This is necessary because determining whether something is actually a net benefit is tough. In 1917, Congress thought banning alcohol was a good idea for the country, but they had to amend the Constitution to do it. We all know how well that turned out. After the commerce clause cases over the New Deal in the 30's and 40's, Congress banned marijuana and other drugs without an amendment.
Since then, Congress has used the commerce clause to justify just about anything: it's hard to think of a single activity that has absolutely no relation to the economy. Whether you think the Constitution is a "living document" or should be interpreted according to the founders' intentions (whatever you think those were), it is undeniably meant to be a limit on the power of the federal government. Article 1 Section 8 lists the powers of Congress, but if the power to "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" is read as broadly as Congress wants, we may as well wipe out the entire section and replace it with "Congress has the power to do anything it wants." That's essentially the state we're in today.
I don't know whether the individual mandate is a good idea, but I do know that requiring citizens to buy health insurance is outside of Congress's power. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will very likely hold otherwise.
|
On March 25 2012 06:03 methematics wrote:
From an economic standpoint i hope this doesn't become law. From a law standpoint idk where it will go but with our freedoms being striped left and right im seriously weary of larger government. Its amazing how both right and left politicians are pointing the way to tyranny like this. Bush => patriot act = destroys 4th amendment. Obama => indefinite detention act = destroys the 5th and 6th amendments. Larger government with less individual freedom is a dangerous path to down, and like i said its both left and right parties doing it no matter what rhetoric they say.
Exactly this. The right wing in America imposes more government control through corporatism, militarism, and reduced civil liberties. The left wing imposes more government control through greater economic control, regulation, and taxation. Neither side succeeds in rolling back the extensions of power of the other party.
This is why it makes no difference which party gets elected. They are both inching us towards statism and totalitarianism. I usually think at some point the American people will wake up to this fact, until I see so many posts like this:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
On March 24 2012 01:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
If it's unconstitutional, could an exception be made if it's something really beneficial? Not implying that it is beneficial or not, but "what if"
On March 24 2012 02:40 bblack wrote:
For some reason those guys seem to feel that their constitution is holy and all should abide by it.
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
On March 24 2012 23:23 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't think the constitution should ever stand in the way of something that causes a net benefit.
I blame the educational system for failing to teach the people something as basic and as obvious as the importance of enumerated powers.
|
Surprising statistic I just found. Recall that one of the defenses of the individual mandate is that health insurance is special in that almost everyone will get it in their lifetime.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm
16.3% of Americans don't have health insurance in 2009. Now I'd wager that a lot of those people probably won't ever get it, or otherwise cannot afford it.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/fig4_3.cfm
There were 226 million Americans over the age of 18 in 2006. Of these, 203 million were licensed drivers. Thus 11.2% did not have a driver's license. Now, I'd wager this number goes down over time, so it may be the case, or at least be close, that about as many Americans never get insurance as those who never get a drivers' license, if not even fewer for the latter.
However, numbers aside, it is the case that if you go to the hospital in deep shit, they are forced to treat you. So in that case, it can make sense, in the sense that the mere fact that you are alive can be considered "economic activity" with regards to the interstate commerce of health care - but can we say health care is interstate? Perhaps for the supplly/demand of buying drugs and other hospital supplies? With regards primarily to the hospitals anyways it seems pretty much non-interstate except in the case of border hospitals.
Curious though, I think I can kind of accept the argument for the individual mandate more. I don't know though, still feels really iffy. Why can't Congress just suck up their political balls and do this via taxation? It's clearly not a purely market solution anyways since insurers are not allowed to charge properly exorbitant rates to people with serious medical conditions. Kind of reminds me how lenders were forced to give home loans to low-income minorities who could not afford them.
|
This is why it makes no difference which party gets elected. They are both inching us towards statism and totalitarianism. I usually think at some point the American people will wake up to this fact, until I see so many posts like this:
Truer words never spoken, but I still submit that it has nothing to do with the "size" of government. I see it instead as an increase and concentration of power of the Executive Branch. It's hard to fault Congress though, considering their popularity polls and how the average citizen wants legislation pushed through and any debate on issues will label them as bureaucratic (indefinite detention clause had 30 mins of deliberation, for example). Totalitarianism is much more efficient after all lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
