PDA

View Full Version : By the way



HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 08:24 PM
I want you all to remember that the same congresscritters and politicians who are screaming, "oh no, it's unconstitutional to force people to pay money to a private company," are exactly the same crew who wanted to privatize social security.

That is all.

Truculent Sheep
23rd March 10, 08:42 PM
Mais naturellement. It will be a great day when politicians publicly admit they are pragmatists, sometimes cynics, occasionally whores, and not the moral exemplars they spend most of their time claiming they are.

Cullion
24th March 10, 01:25 PM
I want you all to remember that the same congresscritters and politicians who are screaming, "oh no, it's unconstitutional to force people to pay money to a private company," are exactly the same crew who wanted to privatize social security.

That is all.

You do realise that people can be opposed to both of those propositions, right ?

Fearless Ukemi
24th March 10, 02:02 PM
Technically it is not unconstitutional because this is set up as a new form of taxation. Basically, you can pay the tax or you can buy insurance. The insurance is a choice or you are forced to pay the tax.

We'll see wha the courts say, but I think this is going to fly. However, I do not like it.

HappyOldGuy
24th March 10, 02:06 PM
You do realise that people can be opposed to both of those propositions, right ?

Sure. But I couldn't come up with a single name. Not even your boy RP.

WarPhalange
24th March 10, 02:06 PM
You do realise that people can be opposed to both of those propositions, right ?

Sure. But the people who are screaming bloody murder are the one sucking the dicks of the people who want to privatize everything and their mothers.

Cullion
24th March 10, 02:23 PM
Sure. But I couldn't come up with a single name. Not even your boy RP.

Ron Paul doesn't think you should be taxed extra if you refuse to take out a private retirement programme.

HappyOldGuy
24th March 10, 02:27 PM
Ron Paul doesn't think you should be taxed extra if you refuse to take out a private retirement programme.

He voted for it. He thinks it should be a transitional step on the way to completely dismantling social security, but he voted in favor meaning he believes he had the constitutional authority to do so.

EvilSteve
24th March 10, 02:31 PM
Guess we'll find out soon enough about that whole constitutionality thing...



A successful legal challenge of health care reform wouldn't just bring down the legislation signed into law by the president on Tuesday, but could topple Medicare and Social Security as well, according to a prominent lawyer.
Legal challenges to health care reform are focused on the requirement that starting in 2014, individuals must buy health insurance or pay a penalty for going without it. Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, said on a conference call with reporters that a challenge of the constitutionality of the so-called "individual mandate" also applies to the constitutionality of longstanding programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
"There are ways in which the the challenges to the validity of the mandate do implicate Medicare and Medicaid," said Lazarus, who has written a brief (http://acslaw.org/) arguing for the constitutionality of health care reform. "The people who are challenging the constitutionality of the mandate are people who believe that Medicare and Social Security ought to be unconstitutional also. The arguments they're making would certainly call those programs into question.
"Essentially, Medicare is a program which requires people to pay rather substantial taxes ultimately to be in a position to receive benefits of health coverage when they're over 65," Lazarus continued. "This program is a tax-and-spend program as well as a regulatory program. In order to get to the point where you could declare the program unconstitutional, you'd have to involve 200 years of precedent under the spending clause and Congress's tax-and-spend powers.
"You couldn't really challenge this program without throwing some question over Medicare and Social Security."
Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California, disagreed. "If [health care reform] were invalidated, I don't think it would have any adverse effect with regard to Medicaid or Medicare," he said. "The Supreme Court has said Congress can create any spending program it believes would serve the general welfare. I think the only question is, can Congress tax those who haven't purchased health insurance? That's not an issue that would implicate Medicare or Medicaid."
Neither Chemerinsky nor Lazarus thought a legal challenge of health care reform had any chance of success.


"This whole campaign challenging the constitutionality of health care reform is just the latest chapter in a long pageant of conservative right-wing scare tactics designed to frighten people into thinking health care reform is a horrific change for America," said Lazarus. "It really is a natural heir to the 'death panels', a natural heir to the 'government takeover.' These lawsuits that are being filed now, if you take a look at them, frankly they're embarrassing from a legal standpoint. They're totally frivolous. I'm confident they'll be summarily dismissed even by conservative federal judges."

Cullion
24th March 10, 02:34 PM
He voted for it. He thinks it should be a transitional step on the way to completely dismantling social security, but he voted in favor meaning he believes he had the constitutional authority to do so.

Was he voting for a bill where you had a choice of paying into a private fund of your choice or face a charge ? If so, fair enough.

Phrost
24th March 10, 02:41 PM
You know what's funny?

I'm not completely against UHC, let alone insurance reform. I just think that health care should be a State issue.

Robot Jesus
24th March 10, 02:50 PM
I think making it a state issue would be a great Idea. I don't think it will self destruct, but if it does that will protect a number of states. also if it works as well as I think it will it will eviscerate the republican party in the states that opted out.

the only issue would be if insurance companies "rig" it to fail using the states that op out. they could forgo a few years of profit in order to kill this as an issue, try to only really function in states without reform, and then blame the reform when in reality it's the companies that are to blame.

Cullion
24th March 10, 03:47 PM
The last time I studied this I was forced to admit that state provided healthcare seemed to work well in Denmark, much better than in the UK, and countries with comparable standards of state care tended to be funding them with unsustainable deficits or with fortunate natural resources (like Norwegian Oil & Gas) which other countries don't have access to.

As far as I could tell the two main things that picked Denmark out from the pack was that they kept firm local oversight over things, and Denmark also has an extremely low level of public servant corruption compared to countries like France or the UK.

That example might be an indication that it would be better for you to try this on a state and/or municipal basis. It also gives people who really don't want to take part a relatively easy option of relocating without having to leave the nation of their birth.