Does the US Constitution allow states to write laws allowing someone else to use your body?

[ttwtt78640]

Why volunteer to reject health coverage that's already paid for? Would you?

Are you not seeing that basing medical care insurance premium costs on a progressive percentage of taxable income (rather than per person covered) is forcing those making “too much” to subsidize those making “too little”? The result is that some pay far less than the average annual premium cost and others pay far more than the average annual premium cost.

According to Biden that “lowers the cost for most working families”, but in reality it only changes who pays more of that cost.

 

[choiceone]

Are you not seeing that basing medical care insurance premium costs on a progressive percentage of taxable income (rather than per person covered) is forcing those making “too much” to subsidize those making “too little”? The result is that some pay far less than the average annual premium cost and others pay far more than the average annual premium cost.

According to Biden that “lowers the cost for most working families”, but in reality it only changes who pays more of that cost.

You seem to dislike this, but I don't. A study done around the turn of the 21st century showed that the reason for extreme discrepancies in pay was collusive or dangerously close to it. The reason big corporation CEOs got such high pay is that they were almost always on other corporations' boards of directors. When boards of directors decided on compensation for CEOs, they kept upping the pay because the directors were CEOs of the other corporations, so the directors were all raising the pay for themselves in each others' corporate roles.

What a complete rip-off. These guys were not "worth more." Some of them actually damn near bankrupted their corporations and still got pension packages worth tens of millions of dollars.

I don't have respect for capitalism at all any more, because what is worse than this is monopolization of real property by guys who engaged in corrupt buying, selling, manipulating of the market, and much more. Most rich people don't have any credibility any more because they are not inventive and do not practice noblesse oblige. Without such virtues, what good are they to society?

 

[ttwtt78640]

You seem to dislike this, but I don't. A study done around the turn of the 21st century showed that the reason for extreme discrepancies in pay was collusive or dangerously close to it. The reason big corporation CEOs got such high pay is that they were almost always on other corporations' boards of directors. When boards of directors decided on compensation for CEOs, they kept upping the pay because the directors were CEOs of the other corporations, so the directors were all raising the pay for themselves in each others' corporate roles.

What a complete rip-off. These guys were not "worth more." Some of them actually damn near bankrupted their corporations and still got pension packages worth tens of millions of dollars.

I don't have respect for capitalism at all any more, because what is worse than this is monopolization of real property by guys who engaged in corrupt buying, selling, manipulating of the market, and much more. Most rich people don't have any credibility any more because they are not inventive and do not practice noblesse oblige. Without such virtues, what good are they to society?

OK, but without that dreaded and “unfair” capitalism (with its built in income inequality) there is no (progressive rate individual income taxation) funding source for these utopian socialist programs.

 

[bluesmoke]

Actually people with jobs will pay for it. The costs will be relatively cheap compared to paying premiums, co-pays & whatnot. Also improving health care by eliminating the huge administration costs of billing numerous insurance companies, often more than once to get paid.

As long as the govt doesn't tax for health insurance like they do Medicare, where everybody pays. People with jobs don't necessarily have the income to cover such an add'l tax. Just as so many Americans don't have the income to pay FIT and thus pay none, but for such as Medicare and SS.

 

[Questerr]

Well, technically the Constitution once did contain sections allowing States with Slavery certain rights to do so (see Article IV Section 2 paragraph 3); to count Slaves as three-fifths of a person for Taxation and Representation (see Article I, Section 2 Paragraph 3).

However, while the 13th Amendment generally abolished slavery it still allowed "involuntary servitude, ...as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." That permitted prison labor (chain gangs), and still allows prisons to compel inmates to work.

Penal labor in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, even today the answer is "yes, under certain specific circumstances."

Of course, despite the OP's "forget the fetus for a moment" attempt to pretend this poll isn't really about abortion rights, it is leading to the argument that pregnancy is a form of bondage.

It is disingenuous to argue that the natural process whereby ALL human beings come into existence (including the mothers and fathers of every "inseminated ova") somehow equates to "allowing someone else to use your body." As if it is in fact "slavery" rather than an amazing biological mechanism which led to human existence itself, which is a false equivalence.

So to answer the actual underlying point; no, getting pregnant and carrying a child to term is not "allowing someone else to use your body." That is like stating everyone who can read this response exists as the result of "enslaving their mother's body."

It’s also disingenuous to argue that a fetus is a “person” with all the rights inherent therein, but so long as the Right continues to claim that fetus are persons, then the argument that an unwanted pregnancy is a form of involuntary servitude to another person stands.

If fetuses are persons, then they have all the rights AND RESTRICTIONS ON THOSE RIGHTS that any other person does. No person has the right to use the body of another person against that person’s will, even as a means of saving their life.

So either forced birth proponents are either forced to give up the argument that fetuses are persons, or they have to admit that they want those persons to have special rights no other person has.

 

[Questerr]

That's right, and it's overwhelmingly supported by people who are too old to be drafted.

I'd say that an income tax law also allows the government to use your body. If someone works 40 hours per week at 20 per hour, and the government confiscates $200 of their paycheck every week, then they are essentially a slave to the state for 10 hours per week.

Similarly, if a landlord demands 20% of your income in order to continue living on a piece of property they claim to own, you are their slave for 20% of your time working.

Nice to see you come out so hard against property “rights”.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Excellent point.

Amendment XVI grants government the "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."

This constitutional Amendment means that we must surrender a portion of our earnings, which means that (at least for some period of time) we are slaves to the government.

Q: What's the difference between the government demanding 25% of your earnings, and a robber who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands 25% of what you have in your wallet?

A: The government didn't break the law.

The federal government can print more money (calling it borrowing, of course) to pay for their spending - that requires no force at all, but does create inflation.

Inflation creates a situation where borrowing what took (some poor working slob) an hour to earn (at the time of the loan) to be repaid (with interest) years later for what then takes (some poor working slob) 3/4 of an hour to earn. That is an effective interest rate of negative 25%. Using borrowed funds to purchase assets multiplies the profits possible via (taxed at a lower rate) long term capital gains income. Capitalism (funded by credit) rocks!

 

[choiceone]

OK, but without that dreaded and “unfair” capitalism (with its built in income inequality) there is no (progressive rate individual income taxation) funding source for these utopian socialist programs.

I'm not suggesting that we get rid of capitalism. I'm giving the good reason for the social programs that are modifying it. FYI, these programs are far from utopian.

 

[choiceone]

It’s also disingenuous to argue that a fetus is a “person” with all the rights inherent therein, but so long as the Right continues to claim that fetus are persons, then the argument that an unwanted pregnancy is a form of involuntary servitude to another person stands.

If fetuses are persons, then they have all the rights AND RESTRICTIONS ON THOSE RIGHTS that any other person does. No person has the right to use the body of another person against that person’s will, even as a means of saving their life.

So either forced birth proponents are either forced to give up the argument that fetuses are persons, or they have to admit that they want those persons to have special rights no other person has.

I agree and think you would like this:

Congress Has Never Considered Fetuses Persons Within the Meaning of the 14th Amendment

Last month, the Louisiana legislature briefly considered a bill that would define a fetus as a person for the purpose of the state’s homicide law.

slate.com

It clarifies fully why a fetus is not a legal person. If anyone wants to say so, they will have no legal support if they do not pass a fetal personhood amendment.

 

[post]

Are you not seeing that basing medical care insurance premium costs on a progressive percentage of taxable income (rather than per person covered) is forcing those making “too much” to subsidize those making “too little”? The result is that some pay far less than the average annual premium cost and others pay far more than the average annual premium cost.

According to Biden that “lowers the cost for most working families”, but in reality it only changes who pays more of that cost.

The wealthiest are victims? Okay, got it! That seems awful! Thank the lord for the second amendment!

Will you receive an ACA premium subsidy? | healthinsurance.org

See if you're eligible for the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits (premium subsidies), how subsidies are calculated, and why they are more robust in 2023.

www.healthinsurance.org

"Will you receive an ACA premium subsidy? - Healthinsurance ...​

Instead, nobody purchasing coverage through the marketplace has to pay more than 8.5% of their household income (an ACA-specific calculation) for the benchmark plan."

Medicare Income Limits: How Income Affects Your Costs in 2024

Medicare income limits affect how much you pay for Medicare. Learn how your income bracket will affect your Medicare costs in 2024.

www.healthline.com

At what income level do Medicare premiums increase?
For example, when you apply for Medicare coverage for 2022, the IRS will provide Medicare with your income from your 2020 tax return. You may pay more depending on your income. In 2022, higher premium amounts start when individuals make more than $91,000 per year, and it goes up from there. Nov 16, 2021
"

Income tax rates were 90 percent under ... - PolitiFact​

https://www.politifact.com › nov › bernie-sanders › inc...
Nov 15, 2015 — During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he ...

How would you feel about a 94% tax rate? - CBS News​

https://www.cbsnews.com › news › how-would-you-fee...
Dec 7, 2011 — Roosevelt never got his 100% rate. However, the Revenue Act of 1942 raised top rates to 88% on incomes over $200,000. By 1944, the bottom rate ...

In 1940, the national debt was $43 billion, 49 percent of GDP. In 1981, debt was $998 billion, just 31 percent of GDP. After 12 years of Reagan Bush tax cuts,
debt was 63 percent of GDP. After Bush's son, debt was 82 percent of GDP.

U.S. National Debt by Year

The U.S. national debt grew to a record $34 trillion by the end of 2023. It was just $16 billion in 1930.

www.thebalance.com

1940

$43

49%

FDR increased spending and raised taxes

1981

$998

31%

Reagan tax cut

1993

$4,411

63%

Omnibus Budget Act

2009

$11,910

82%

Bailout cost $250B ARRA added $242B

2017

$20,245

104%

Congress raised the debt ceiling

2021

$29,617

124%

COVID-19 and American Rescue Plan Act

 

[choiceone]

One is compelled to have car insurance if one wants to drive on roads, (in most states) this is the state. Home insurance if you have a mortgage, this is the Lender.

ObamaCare is a compromise situation. Leaving millions uninsured & administered by the same entity who were the chief lobbyists against it, the private insurance industry. The R's tried to repeal it over 60 times.

Universal healthcare will cover everybody with minimum paperwork.

Obama and huge numbers of Democrats in Congress wanted single payer, not this monstrosity. The only reason we got this monstrosity is because the Republicans wouldn't let us have what the private insurance industry objected to.

 

[bluesmoke]

Are you not seeing that basing medical care insurance premium costs on a progressive percentage of taxable income (rather than per person covered) is forcing those making “too much” to subsidize those making “too little”? The result is that some pay far less than the average annual premium cost and others pay far more than the average annual premium cost.

According to Biden that “lowers the cost for most working families”, but in reality it only changes who pays more of that cost.

All taxes are forced. People shouldn't pay taxes, though, they can't afford to pay. If people were making living wages (at least COL levels) they could better afford to pay taxes. However, I agree with progressive taxes applied to as much as is practicable, like to SS taxes.