The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete control

[iliveonramen]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

Those are very high...actually I just followed the link and they are right...but it's looking at how much is spent for disabled individuals...which of course will be much higher than the regular population.

The States That Spend The Most (And Least) On Healthcare For The Poor - 24/7 Wall St.

Based on this article...the top figure is Alaska with 11k per recipient.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

I don't see the relevance

A big part of PPACA is adding (expanding availability) to medicare but making it cost 2% of the persons earnings. My point is to show that 2% of 133% of the poverty rate is NOTHING compared to the KNOWN cost of medicare, so the rest can be assumed to be tax money.

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

that is sedition.

Nonsense. Allow me to ask again. ...Given that this is a supreme court precedent how do we undo it? I am open to suggestions.

So Thunder, is it possible to undo a Supreme Court precedent? If so how?

The only remedy that is certain is a revolution leading to despotism (the usual case) or a new government with a new Constitution. Revolutions are very dangerous things. They usually lead to despotism no matter how laudable the initial goal.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

that is sedition.

There is no such thing as sedition in America. Nothing can be done to silence dissent. If that weren't true I would be in prison instead of pouring out my little heart on DP. This is America's political culture. Any thing goes as long as there is no overt physical act.

I readily admit this is a terrible state of affairs, but what is to be done? Once a bell is rung, it can't be unrung.

 

[Objective Voice]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

sure it did it constitutionalized forcible gooverment sponsorship of industrys.

You mean like the tax subsidy corporations receive for the portion of monthly insurance premiums they pay on behalf of their employees? (And mind you, the employee doesn't receive that same tax benefit.)

Or the tax subsidy oil companies recieve even when they show a profit on top of the subsidy?

How about the argiculture industry that's still receiving tax subsidies long after the Dust Bowl?

Pharmasautical companies?

We could play this game all day, but the fact is private industries have been receiving such tax breaks for years.

As to the tax penalty being upheld as constitutional under Congress' taxing power, I think the Right has once again :spin: the issue in an uncharacteristic fashion. There are tax pentalies written into our tax code for a wide variety of things, but most generally require you to pay a tax first or perform a certain administrative function before imposing a penalty. In this case where the enforcement mechanism for complying with the individual mandate is concerned, there is no "pre-tax" requirement before the "tax penalty" would be imposed. Instead, the penalty would work exactly like the "fine" does with not having auto insurance. If you don't have insurance, you pay a fine (penalty). Those who argue that tax penalties are not written into the Constitution have too strict a reading of this document. Not everything Congress or the President are authorized to do are written in the Constitution. Folks (pundits) always seem to forget that one part of the Constitution where it says "Congress has the power to write laws...". Back to the issue at hand...

Why did Justice Robert throw out the mandate under the General Welfare clause and the Necessary and Proper clause, but uphold it under Congress' taxing power? I believe there were two reasons for this:

1) The General Welfare clause has been over-used by Congress as justification to do just about anything. In this case, there was no immediate danger to the country if the population didn't have health insurance. Sure, the cost may have continued to rise over the years with or without health care reform, but the health and wellness of the nation was not at risk. And if it were, that's what the CDC is for.

2) The Necessary and Proper clause likewise doesn't quite work. Yes, it is necessary to get health care cost under control. And yes, it is necessary to find ways to make health services as accessible to the population as possible, but since less than 1/6th of the population is without "affordable" access to health care, the need was far more overblown than necessary under this clause (pun intended).

There are legal precedents as well for not justifying upholding the individual mandate under General Welfare and Necessary and Proper as outlined in Justice Robert's opinion, but the short and skinny of it was neither clause really met constitutional muster. However, by acknowledging Congress' taxing power, Justice Robert was simply saying, "this is the enforcement remedy Congress choose to resolve a problem within our health insurance and health services industry and though not a direct tax, tax penalties have long been part of the tax code. As such, it falls within Congress' power to tax whether directly (i.e., income tax, excise tax, use tax) or indirectly (i.e., fines, fees and penalties)."

 

[YoungConserv]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

You mean like the tax subsidy corporations receive for the portion of monthly insurance premiums they pay on behalf of their employees? (And mind you, the employee doesn't receive that same tax benefit.)

Or the tax subsidy oil companies recieve even when they show a profit on top of the subsidy?

How about the argiculture industry that's still receiving tax subsidies long after the Dust Bowl?

Pharmasautical companies?

We could play this game all day, but the fact is private industries have been receiving such tax breaks for years.

As to the tax penalty being upheld as constitutional under Congress' taxing power, I think the Right has once again :spin: the issue in an uncharacteristic fashion. There are tax pentalies written into our tax code for a wide variety of things, but most generally require you to pay a tax first or perform a certain administrative function before imposing a penalty. In this case where the enforcement mechanism for complying with the individual mandate is concerned, there is no "pre-tax" requirement before the "tax penalty" would be imposed. Instead, the penalty would work exactly like the "fine" does with not having auto insurance. If you don't have insurance, you pay a fine (penalty). Those who argue that tax penalties are not written into the Constitution have too strict a reading of this document. Not everything Congress or the President are authorized to do are written in the Constitution. Folks (pundits) always seem to forget that one part of the Constitution where it says "Congress has the power to write laws...". Back to the issue at hand...

Why did Justice Robert throw out the mandate under the General Welfare clause and the Necessary and Proper clause, but uphold it under Congress' taxing power? I believe there were two reasons for this:

1) The General Welfare clause has been over-used by Congress as justification to do just about anything. In this case, there was no immediate danger to the country if the population didn't have health insurance. Sure, the cost may have continued to rise over the years with or without health care reform, but the health and wellness of the nation was not at risk. And if it were, that's what the CDC is for.

2) The Necessary and Proper clause likewise doesn't quite work. Yes, it is necessary to get health care cost under control. And yes, it is necessary to find ways to make health services as accessible to the population as possible, but since less than 1/6th of the population is without "affordable" access to health care, the need was far more overblown than necessary under this clause (pun intended).

There are legal precedents as well for not justifying upholding the individual mandate under General Welfare and Necessary and Proper as outlined in Justice Robert's opinion, but the short and skinny of it was neither clause really met constitutional muster. However, by acknowledging Congress' taxing power, Justice Robert was simply saying, "this is the enforcement remedy Congress choose to resolve a problem within our health insurance and health services industry and though not a direct tax, tax penalties have long been part of the tax code. As such, it falls within Congress' power to tax whether directly (i.e., income tax, excise tax, use tax) or indirectly (i.e., fines, fees and penalties)."

This is different because none of your examples are yours components of citizenship where as Aca require you to do something for just breathing.

 

[Mithros]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

We should be careful not to conflate the recognition that the government has the power to make a dumb law with the support of such a law.

There's a truth that many people seem to have forgotten (esp Scalia and Thomas). While we have many rights, the government does the ability to pass laws that we don't like. Laws don't become unconstitutional because we don't like them.

Besides being an example of extreme judicial activism, what effects would Scalia's dissent impart on the country? First, if the government does not have the right to impart a penalty on someone for inaction, how can they impart a benifit FOR action. The mortgage deduction is essentially a penalty on people who don't own a house. The first time home buyer tax credit was a penalty for everyone who wasn't a first time home buyer. The child tax credit is a penalty for everyone who does not have children.

Constitutionality of laws is NOT a left right thing, it's not liberal or conservative.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

We should be careful not to conflate the recognition that the government has the power to make a dumb law with the support of such a law.

There's a truth that many people seem to have forgotten (esp Scalia and Thomas). While we have many rights, the government does the ability to pass laws that we don't like. Laws don't become unconstitutional because we don't like them.

Besides being an example of extreme judicial activism, what effects would Scalia's dissent impart on the country? First, if the government does not have the right to impart a penalty on someone for inaction, how can they impart a benifit FOR action. The mortgage deduction is essentially a penalty on people who don't own a house. The first time home buyer tax credit was a penalty for everyone who wasn't a first time home buyer. The child tax credit is a penalty for everyone who does not have children.

Constitutionality of laws is NOT a left right thing, it's not liberal or conservative.

That "mortgage interest deduction" is NOT constitutional unless the gov't can show a "compelling state interest" in making it so, thus beating the "equal protection under the law" hurdle. One could assume that promoting home ownership would survive a SCOTUS challenge, as a compelling state interest. Using your example, but expressing the law as a penalty for NOT buying a home, would never pass congress, since a "renter's tax" would be unpopular. The "uninsured tax" is unpopular but, since it applies to a tiny minority, it is politically safe (85% now get medical insurance from their employer or the gov't). Since the tax law IGNORES employer provided medical insurance as income, or taxes it at a rate of ZERO, the PPACA law had a hard time making the tax law treat it as a deduction, so they had to enforce it as a penalty. ;-)

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

All I'm pointing out is that this law sets a dangerous precedent.

The ruling did not set a precedent, but rather affirmed Obamacare is allowed under the already existing power to tax.

Look at this list. The government already punishes you for not buying a hybrid, for not adopting a child, for not having two children, for not being married, for not taking care of an old person, etc. This power -- right or wrong -- is well established and in practice.

 

[rocket88]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

We should be careful not to conflate the recognition that the government has the power to make a dumb law with the support of such a law.

There's a truth that many people seem to have forgotten (esp Scalia and Thomas). While we have many rights, the government does the ability to pass laws that we don't like. Laws don't become unconstitutional because we don't like them.

Besides being an example of extreme judicial activism, what effects would Scalia's dissent impart on the country? First, if the government does not have the right to impart a penalty on someone for inaction, how can they impart a benifit FOR action. The mortgage deduction is essentially a penalty on people who don't own a house. The first time home buyer tax credit was a penalty for everyone who wasn't a first time home buyer. The child tax credit is a penalty for everyone who does not have children.

Constitutionality of laws is NOT a left right thing, it's not liberal or conservative.

It's strange how "legislating from the bench by extremist ideologue judges" was such a bad thing when Roberts was nominated, and now Conservatives are pissed that Roberts isn't an extremist ideologue judge who legislates from the bench.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

The ruling did not set a precedent, but rather affirmed Obamacare is allowed under the already existing power to tax.

Look at this list. The government already punishes you for not buying a hybrid, for not adopting a child, for not having two children, for not being married, for not taking care of an old person, etc. This power -- right or wrong -- is well established and in practice.

Yet it is the FIRST in a list of tax penalties for simply NOT buying a specific good or service. This precedent is dangerous indeed, as by law it can apply to only 52% of the population, since 48% percent now pay no FIT at all. If you view letting you keep ANY of your wages as a privilege then I suppose it is no big deal, but it sets a BAD precedent for adding MANY unfunded mandates (or tax penalties result) for ANYTHING that most have, yet some choose not to buy. What is next? Smoke detectors, set-back thermostats, cars getting 30+ mpg, energy star appliances, painting your roof white, establishing a wildlife habitat on plots over 1/4 acre...

 

[Mithros]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

Yet it is the FIRST in a list of tax penalties for simply NOT buying a specific good or service. This precedent is dangerous indeed, as by law it can apply to only 52% of the population, since 48% percent now pay no FIT at all. If you view letting you keep ANY of your wages as a privilege then I suppose it is no big deal, but it sets a BAD precedent for adding MANY unfunded mandates (or tax penalties result) for ANYTHING that most have, yet some choose not to buy. What is next? Smoke detectors, set-back thermostats, cars getting 30+ mpg, energy star appliances, painting your roof white, establishing a wildlife habitat on plots over 1/4 acre...

What's the difference? Semantics?

Paying less in taxes for taking action is the same as paying more for not doing something.

 

[Mithros]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

That "mortgage interest deduction" is NOT constitutional unless the gov't can show a "compelling state interest" in making it so, thus beating the "equal protection under the law" hurdle. One could assume that promoting home ownership would survive a SCOTUS challenge, as a compelling state interest. Using your example, but expressing the law as a penalty for NOT buying a home, would never pass congress, since a "renter's tax" would be unpopular. The "uninsured tax" is unpopular but, since it applies to a tiny minority, it is politically safe (85% now get medical insurance from their employer or the gov't). Since the tax law IGNORES employer provided medical insurance as income, or taxes it at a rate of ZERO, the PPACA law had a hard time making the tax law treat it as a deduction, so they had to enforce it as a penalty. ;-)

Just out of curiosity, why would the government need to show a compelling state interest to implement a deduction?

 

[YoungConserv]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

The ruling did not set a precedent, but rather affirmed Obamacare is allowed under the already existing power to tax.

Look at this list. The government already punishes you for not buying a hybrid, for not adopting a child, for not having two children, for not being married, for not taking care of an old person, etc. This power -- right or wrong -- is well established and in practice.[/QUOTE

no they reward me for buying one. This sets up the government to be able to force you to buy something as a component of citizenship and punish you if you don't.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

no they reward me for buying one. This sets up the government to be able to force you to buy something as a component of citizenship and punish you if you don't.

YoungConserv, someone who probably doesn't even pay taxes, is whining that the big bad gubbmint is making him do things in return for being a citizen of the US.

No wonder he's against the individual mandate, he must think free riders on our health care system are the truest Americans.

 

[Shadow Serious]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

What's the difference? Semantics?

Paying less in taxes for taking action is the same as paying more for not doing something.

People act in what they think is their own best interest. Whether it is or not is not the question.

In some cases the government does compel people to act in the interest of society.

An example of that is when children are born the birth parents have a legal obligation to provide for them.

Since the government does compel this, it is recognized in tax law allowing a portion of income to be deducted before taxes are computed.

Likewise when a corporation is required to upgrade some equipment for example, a better scrubber on a coal power plant for the environment the company can deduct that expense.

A equivalent in tax law would be a credit for an expense for insurance.

Instead there is a penalty.

Don't have a child? Penalty.

Don't have a approved scrubber? Penalty.

The government can only give out so many credits before they have to actually give out money.

But with penalties there is no end to how many they can give out.

And with Congress hunger for money there is little outside of needing to get re-elected to avoid giving in to it.

 

[radcen]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

That "mortgage interest deduction" is NOT constitutional unless the gov't can show a "compelling state interest" in making it so, thus beating the "equal protection under the law" hurdle. One could assume that promoting home ownership would survive a SCOTUS challenge, as a compelling state interest. Using your example, but expressing the law as a penalty for NOT buying a home, would never pass congress, since a "renter's tax" would be unpopular. The "uninsured tax" is unpopular but, since it applies to a tiny minority, it is politically safe (85% now get medical insurance from their employer or the gov't). Since the tax law IGNORES employer provided medical insurance as income, or taxes it at a rate of ZERO, the PPACA law had a hard time making the tax law treat it as a deduction, so they had to enforce it as a penalty. ;-)

I've always viewed "compelling interest" as being almost code-speak for "We know it's not technically Constitutional, but we're going to allow it anyway because we think it's a good idea... and we dare you to try and do anything about it."

The ruling did not set a precedent, but rather affirmed Obamacare is allowed under the already existing power to tax.

Look at this list. The government already punishes you for not buying a hybrid, for not adopting a child, for not having two children, for not being married, for not taking care of an old person, etc. This power -- right or wrong -- is well established and in practice.

What's the difference? Semantics?

Paying less in taxes for taking action is the same as paying more for not doing something.

Not really (the same). An enticement to encourage a desired behavior is not the same as taxing as a punishment to coerce people into a desired behavior. Looking solely at the money aspect is shortsighted and incomplete. It's more than just that.

Nobody gets all butt-hurt if a person chooses to not take advantage of a tax credit. You don't want to buy a home? Fine, don't buy a home. No skin off anybody's nose. On the other hand, the whole mindset behind taxing for non-use is corrupt in concept, even if it is legal, and is rife with the potential for abuse. One can claim people still have a choice, but when the "choice" is like choosing between handing over your lunch money to the schoolyard bully, or getting beat up, it's not much of a choice, is it?

Disclaimer: Note that I am a "flat tax" advocate, so I would prefer that we not have even credits/deductions, but they are at least more intellectually honest than penalties.

 

[YoungConserv]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

YoungConserv, someone who probably doesn't even pay taxes, is whining that the big bad gubbmint is making him do things in return for being a citizen of the US.

No wonder he's against the individual mandate, he must think free riders on our health care system are the truest Americans.

Actually I do I make 60k a year straight out of college and pay into my own health care. I pay nearly 25 of my income in taxes!

 

[radcen]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

People act in what they think is their own best interest. Whether it is or not is not the question.

In some cases the government does compel people to act in the interest of society.

An example of that is when children are born the birth parents have a legal obligation to provide for them.

Since the government does compel this, it is recognized in tax law allowing a portion of income to be deducted before taxes are computed.

Likewise when a corporation is required to upgrade some equipment for example, a better scrubber on a coal power plant for the environment the company can deduct that expense.

A equivalent in tax law would be a credit for an expense for insurance.

Instead there is a penalty.

Don't have a child? Penalty.

Don't have a approved scrubber? Penalty.

The government can only give out so many credits before they have to actually give out money.

But with penalties there is no end to how many they can give out.

And with Congress hunger for money there is little outside of needing to get re-elected to avoid giving in to it.

I disagree that not having a kid... and thus not being to take the deduction... is a penalty, but I wholeheartedly agree with your point that I highlighted in red.

 

[Mithros]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

Again, there's a huge difference between saying that the government can and the government should.

Contrary to the belief of many (including Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), the Supreme Court is not a political body that strikes down laws they don't like. I can dislike a law, and still say that it's constitutional.

The government can certainly make you pay a penalty for not doing something. However, they cannot make it illegal not to purchase something OR make the penalty punitive.

There are 50 Million uninsured who incur $50 Billion in unpaid hospital bills. That means the average uninsured individual generates $1000 per year in unpaid bills. The penalty for not having health insurance is $700. (Romneycare's is about double). If you don't want health insurance, you don't have to get it. You just pay a fine, which is only about 70% of the amount (on average) that you're going to cost the rest of us. Furthermore, the IRS is expressly BARRED from using any kind of criminal enforcement mechanisms to get you to pay.

It's obviously constitutional.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

Again, there's a huge difference between saying that the government can and the government should.

Contrary to the belief of many (including Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), the Supreme Court is not a political body that strikes down laws they don't like. I can dislike a law, and still say that it's constitutional.

The government can certainly make you pay a penalty for not doing something. However, they cannot make it illegal not to purchase something OR make the penalty punitive.

There are 50 Million uninsured who incur $50 Billion in unpaid hospital bills. That means the average uninsured individual generates $1000 per year in unpaid bills. The penalty for not having health insurance is $700. (Romneycare's is about double). If you don't want health insurance, you don't have to get it. You just pay a fine, which is only about 70% of the amount (on average) that you're going to cost the rest of us. Furthermore, the IRS is expressly BARRED from using any kind of criminal enforcement mechanisms to get you to pay.

It's obviously constitutional.

This sounds crazy, is the fine (that does not really have to be paid) simply included in this massive mess to generate CBO "revenue" to make it appear to cost less? The whole idea of FIRST mandating free ER care and then taxing those that MIGHT use it is INSANE. Why not simply fine AND jail those that refuse to pay for ER care rendered? That seems to work for many other forms of theft and fraud. The gov't seems to take great pains in avoiding actually solving ANY problem directly.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

Just out of curiosity, why would the government need to show a compelling state interest to implement a deduction?

Because of that pesky little 14th amendment that demands "equal protection under the law". To tax the identical amount of INCOME of two citizens differently requires a REASON, as that deduction treats those citizens differently, even though their INCOME is the same. The 16th amendment grants the federal gov't ONLY the power tax the income of citzens, from all sources, NOT the power to tax it differently based on how it was SPENT. To do that, or any other "separate but equal" or "separate and NOT equal" the state must show a "compelling state interest" for a law to do so, or that law is in violation of the 14th amendment.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

Actually I do I make 60k a year straight out of college and pay into my own health care. I pay nearly 25 of my income in taxes!

Eh, it was a 50/50 shot.

But the point is you can't live in a society without paying something into it. Your single sentence replies seem like little more than a naive parroting of orthodox Randian slogans.

Obamacare IS a free-market solution to a problem; rising health-care costs, which are due to millions of people without health insurance who pass their costs on to the people who do have health insurance. That's the inherent problem in our health care system; a large segment of people cannot pay for a necessary service they will ultimately be forced to use at some point. This increases the cost of the services hospitals provide because so many people are coming in for necessary procedures but without the ability to pay for it. Hospitals loose money, and must make up for it by charging more for procedures, but this doesn't affect the free riders, it only effects the ones with the means to pay for the services; the ones with insurance. Raising the cost of final medical bills to insurance companies increases their rates, further ensuring that the people without health insurance can't afford it, because of the rising costs associated with them not having insurance in the first place!

(phew!)

The solution is to ensure everyone has insurance, which is a pool to spread the costs and risks around in. The bigger the pool with the more participants, the lower the overall cost for everybody. But instead of creating a single-payer plan, they chose a path that would utilize the natural competition between insurance companies in a free market to keep the cost of universal coverage off the government's tab (for the most part).

Obviously, I'm glossing over the basics fairly quickly, but I don't understand your concern with this bill. I don't think you do, either.

 

[radcen]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

The government can certainly make you pay a penalty for not doing something. However, they cannot make it illegal not to purchase something OR make the penalty punitive.

Penalties are punitive, by definition. Both terms derive their root concept and meaning from "punish(ment)".

...the IRS is expressly BARRED from using any kind of criminal enforcement mechanisms to get you to pay.

Traditional draconian civil enforcement mechanisms still apply, I'm sure. Please forgive me if I view the lack of criminal enforcement as significant comfort.

 

[YoungConserv]

Re: The supreme court just opened the flood gates to more government and corprete con

But the point is you can't live in a society without paying something into it.


So what do you think of have the country not paying income tax? Also I love how the liberals allways point to Canada and Europe for health care but ignore the massive taxes on the middle and Lower classes to make it work.