Health Care Summit (Live Thread)

[Rhinox]

So congress just passed a 1 year extension on the Patriot act. It's on its way to obama to sign.

What a coincidence! it happened the same day as the summit and will probably be buried in the headlines.

Oh those crafty fuckers! Good move Obama

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...-act-to-obama/

[Not not Mattaru]

No response Swampykins? Oh well, I'm going to go watch figure skating because I'm a big drippy liberal vagina.

[Olo401]

Our entire judicial system is based on a slippery slope fallacy then.

Correct. That's one of the purposes of judicial review.

There is a difference b/w WILL happen, and CAN happen. One is a fallacy, one is not.

Yes there is a difference. That's not the point though. Suggesting that it CAN happen is STILL a slippery slope argument.

And this is some of what the Repub's have suggested.

Allow insurance to be sold across state lines.
Eliminate mandates.
Tort reform (limit non-economic damages)
Change it so it's not attached to employment.

The first item is already in the bill.
The second item was a proposal by MCCAIN during his campaign for president. It also would be completely unnecessary if there were a public option in the Senate bill.
The third item is fine, and should be in the bill. But the cost savings is so negligible that it won't cause any change in insurance costs.

This last item really takes the cake though, and I'm amazed that you would even mention it much less suggest or admit that someone in the Republican Party actually thinks it's a viable idea. Without employer-based bulk pools of insurance, EVERYONE would be paying INDIVIDUAL PREMIUMS which cost exponentially more than they would in a large group. And then you'd have people not getting insurance because they can't afford the non-bulk premiums, which would drive costs up at an even faster rate than they are now.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Yes there is a difference. That's not the point though. Suggesting that it CAN happen is STILL a slippery slope argument.

Damn, you were so close. Being a slippery slope argument doesn't make it a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when you say it WILL happen.

And I responded to you NOTNOT.

Direct tax = unconstitutional.
The slippery slope thing.
Your rational for commerce and government is completely wrong.
Choosing to engage in commerce and being forced are both different. That it is not semantics.

[Olo401]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG! Providing insurance for people who don't have it IS NOT THE SAME as forcing people to buy it.

How many times does it need to be said before it sinks into your thick skull?

[Not not Mattaru]

Damn, you were so close. Being a slippery slope argument doesn't make it a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when you say it WILL happen.

And I responded to you NOTNOT.

Direct tax = unconstitutional.
The slippery slope thing.
Your rational for commerce and government is completely wrong.
Choosing to engage in commerce and being forced are both different. That it is not semantics.

Direct tax is a type of tax and many different types of taxes can be direct taxes. An income tax is a type of direct tax. Income tax is in the constitution. Its not uncommon knowledge.

My slippery-slope issue is not what Olo is talking about. I'm saying even if it is not a slippery-slope issue the point is non-unique in the first place because the passage of health care would not change the status quo in that regard. By the way non-unique means your argument is not unique to your side and therefore can not be claimed to exist only in your discourse.

Even so, the point that something can happen requires a determination of probability to decide if it is worth worrying about. It still isn't important because you are non-unique.

You can't be forced because you always have a choice. The government merely adds incentives/disincentives. Leave the system. You are creating the government bogeyman for no reason here.

Government and commerce: oh tellll me whhyyy whyyy.

[Olo401]

And what's this bullshit that taxes are unconstitutional Swampy? It's in Article I, Section 8.. the FIRST sentence.

[Not not Mattaru]

And the income tax is Sixteenth Amendment. Don't worry Swampdonkey is obviously more fit to make judgments on constitutional law etc. but has to publish his rulings on BG.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I didn't say taxes are unconstitutional, I've never said that. I said direct taxes are. And I already said the income tax is not unconstitutional earlier in this thread.

And you're right Olo, providing insurance is not forcing someone to buy it. Mandating that they do buy it is forcing them however.

Edit: Govt. collecting taxes has nothing to do with the commerce power NOTNOT.

[Not not Mattaru]

I didn't say taxes are unconstitutional, I've never said that. I said direct taxes are. And I already said the income tax is not unconstitutional earlier in this thread.

And you're right Olo, providing insurance is not forcing someone to buy it. Mandating that they do buy it is forcing them however.

Edit: Govt. collecting taxes has nothing to do with the commerce power NOTNOT.

Syllogism time:
A: Direct taxes are unconstitutional.
B: The income tax is a direct tax.
Conclusion: The income tax is unconstitutional.
Is what you are saying.


Commerce stuff

I think how I linked that got mixed up, my fault. Go to post 254, check "And I can't believe people can't see the difference b/w regulating commerce people choose to engage in, and simply forcing people to engage in commerce."

I was responding to that with "Commerce. My point is that the government already does that because the government does not exist separate from the economy and takes in revenue via taxes." Which means the government acts as a proxy to use taxpayer money to obtain things in the market that a person may on their own not support or ever buy.

Point being either way the government is still a proxy mandating where the money goes the only difference is the direct actor purchasing, which is nominal at best.

I am not going into interpreting the Commerce Clause.

[Darus Grey]

I didn't say taxes are unconstitutional, I've never said that. I said direct taxes are. And I already said the income tax is not unconstitutional earlier in this thread.

And you're right Olo, providing insurance is not forcing someone to buy it. Mandating that they do buy it is forcing them however.

Edit: Govt. collecting taxes has nothing to do with the commerce power NOTNOT.

Actually the vast amount of taxes we pay are unconstitutional, because they ARE direct taxes, including income taxes.

As a society we just stopped caring about that at some point, and many of our current taxes we think nothing about were put into place at the height of executive branch power.

The reason nothing comes of this is because for the last 100 years the federal and state governments have built their "empire" so to speak on top of them, and no sane judge will strike them because of the damage they would do to society this late in the game. The supreme court ruled that the constitutional amendment in question that allowed these taxes did infact "not allow any new powers of taxation"... i.e. they were unconstitutional before, and still are.

So the debate has nothing to do with the constitutionality, because their status is clear. The issue is...what are you going to do about it?

And the answer...is NOTHING.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Syllogism time:
A: Direct taxes are unconstitutional.
B: The income tax is a direct tax.
Conclusion: The income tax is unconstitutional.
Is what you are saying.


Commerce stuff

I think how I linked that got mixed up, my fault. Go to post 254, check "And I can't believe people can't see the difference b/w regulating commerce people choose to engage in, and simply forcing people to engage in commerce."

I was responding to that with "Commerce. My point is that the government already does that because the government does not exist separate from the economy and takes in revenue via taxes." Which means the government acts as a proxy to use taxpayer money to obtain things in the market that a person may on their own not support or ever buy.

Point being either way the government is still a proxy mandating where the money goes the only difference is the direct actor purchasing, which is nominal at best.

I am not going into interpreting the Commerce Clause.

I guess I didn't finish the syllogism. The 16th amendment allows for the income tax thus its fine. Nothing allows for the tax equated with the mandate.

In your example there, the govt. is not forcing anyone to do anything that isn't legal under the constitution. Taxing is there, as is spending, both in your example and the constitution. Currently, the way the commerce power is interpreted congress doesn't have the power to force people to buy something. The supreme court is going to have to pervert the hell out of it in order to make it constitutional, not only that but it will have to find a way to distinguish health insurance from every other product on the market so that congress is somehow limited to health insurance only.

[Not not Mattaru]

Actually the vast amount of taxes we pay are unconstitutional, because they ARE direct taxes, including income taxes.

Thank god someone at least accepts logic.

Moreover, yeah, I don't care. Getting rid of the majority of taxes would be a giant shock to the system.

[Darus Grey]

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.

Just thought I'd point that out for reference, where the SCOTUS ruled that the 16th amendment added no new powers of taxation.

To reiterate since the obvious comeback is that the SCOTUS over-tuned the ruling of the POLLOCK case, this happened *during the height of executive power in this country* when the legislature and the SCOTUS were under the thumb of the president, it was a unconstitutional ruling that is held to this day ONLY by the circular logic of the SCOTUS ruled that way so it must be constitutional...ignore that they were essentially coerced.

[Not not Mattaru]

I guess I didn't finish the syllogism. The 16th amendment allows for the income tax thus its fine. Nothing allows for the tax equated with the mandate.

In your example there, the govt. is not forcing anyone to do anything that isn't legal under the constitution. Taxing is there, as is spending, both in your example and the constitution. Currently, the way the commerce power is interpreted congress doesn't have the power to force people to buy something. The supreme court is going to have to pervert the hell out of it in order to make it constitutional, not only that but it will have to find a way to distinguish health insurance from every other product on the market so that congress is somehow limited to health insurance only.

When I pay taxes, what do I buy? Do I have a choice (barring going Thoreau on it)?

I just fail to see how the near future it is beyond a conspiracy theory to think the government is going to tell me if I want to bone I need to buy a condom, and everyone would be like k cool. Health care is just so radically different because the system that surrounds it and health is something that effects everyone. I refuse to see it as myopically as you because there is simply no precedent for it around the globe.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying it's possible. I merely used the Ipad as an example to represent the absurdity of the power Congress would have.

[Not not Mattaru]

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying it's possible. I merely used the Ipad as an example to represent the absurdity of the power Congress would have.

Possible and improbable. Because there is always the check that people have on the government. There are some shitty shitty dumb people in elected positions of the federal government (there are even dumber ones at the state level), I have sat in on hearings and half the crowd starts laughing at the ridiculous shit senior politicians may say. But there are smart people with smart people around them too.

Shit has been much worse than it has been than it is now and branches of government have had even greater power, but we are still here. I'm not too worried.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What's possible and not improbably are some lesser, not so absurd laws. Is it really so hard to imagine congress requiring people to purchase say multi-vitamins or pay a tax? Politicians are obsessed with prevention so why not that?

[Not not Mattaru]

What's possible and not improbably are some lesser, not so absurd laws. Is it really so hard to imagine congress requiring people to purchase say multi-vitamins or pay a tax? Politicians are obsessed with prevention so why not that?

Maybe if it was an earmark for a multi-vitamin subsidy. I think if a senator said "hey guys I want to make a bill makin people eat multi-vitamins" they would probably be laughed off, or there would be enough exposure on it to have a collective what the fuck.

If politicians are obsessive on prevention, why hasn't it been done yet? They figure, nah health care (which is still a very questionable analogy) would be easier? Can we get the fuck out of lala land for a second here.

Make a claim, give me real warrant, some precedence, not a bunch of what-ifs or counter-factuals. Leave it to TV pundits for fear mongering, you aren't getting paid for it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's a legitimate question. 90% of the cases I read contain that type of analysis. "If we are to rule this way, then X can happen." And it seems like 100% of the time dissents use that exact analysis in attacking the majority's opinion.

Whether you like it or not, that's how the law is often determined.