Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

The rightwing has the WRONG issues! Totally wrong! Obamacare will survive in the Supreme Court.

My car wouldn't start today. It was out of gas, the battery was dead, and some squirrels had eaten through the spark plug wires. I went to get gas, but someone shouted at me "That won't work you fool -- the battery is dead!" I went to get my jumper cables, but someone else shouted at me "You idiot -- it needs gas!". I went to purchase some new plug wires, but yet another helpful person yelled "Are you blind? It is out of gas!"

The above story is not true. It is but a fable. Yelling we have to do this or that because the apparent alternative is an obvious non-starter is not necessarily a good way to resolve problems.

Sometimes you just have to break out the old bicycle and start pedaling if you're even going to get where you're going.

[tmicou]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Using the 10th Amendment, everything would be unconstitutional in America: including Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, Federal Deposit Insurance in banks and credit unions, maybe even child-labour laws and minimum-wage laws.

You are correct, SS! And aside from child-labor laws, all those social programs are working so well now, aren't they -- models of efficiency, and so fiscally sound? Perhaps, we should try following our Constitution again.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

This is foolishness. The whole point of government is to get people to pay for services en masse.

It's the raison d'etre. To say this is illegal is just blind ideology.

[Ghent12]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

This is foolishness. The whole point of government is to get people to pay for services en masse.

It's the raison d'etre. To say this is illegal is just blind ideology.

The primary question is "how" and that is quite clearly outlined in the Constitution. Public-private partnerships to force individuals to buy a commercially available product is inherently anti-American and Unconstitutional. No overly vague notion of a social contract should be seen as superior to the written document that was meant to be the supreme law of the land.

[BK]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Fire Departments were originally Private Companies when Fire Fighting first began. If you didn't want your Building to burn you bought Fire Insurance from a Private Fire Company - and you Put a special Fire Insurance Seal on your building - if you wanted Fire Fighter to put the Fire out you better have you Fire Insurance seal ........eventually the Fire Fighters were able to join the Government employees.
Libraries were originally private organizations- eventually their employees became Government Employees that we can't live without.

I like Fire Fighters and Librarians- but, these are just two examples of how Government slowly evolves or devolve into a Monster that can't be controlled and it devours the Citizens of a Republic and all that they are able to earn.
Fire Fighters are now empowered with the 'Smoke Detector Checking' role and have the ability to prevent a landowner from selling or renting their property.

Buying Health Insurance mandate will evolve into Health Insurance is a Government service and Medical Professionals are required Government employees - you can't have a republic without a well staffed hospitals that are dues paying Union Members.

[c1ue]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Not sure what you mean here but government itself is only an imaginary entity, consisting in reality of individuals who are members.

Government may not be a physical embodiment in toto, but it absolutely is not imaginary. It has physical components such as people, property, and intellectual property. It has revenue and spends money - both fiat and precious metals. It consumes and creates.

The problem you are experiencing is the difficulty in distinguishing between roles.

If I incorporate, c1ue Inc. would be a legal entity separate from c1ue the person.

Sure, c1ue Inc. is imaginary, but under the law it has an almost completely separate existence - and in fact can be completely separate if c1ue the person sold c1ue Inc.

So again, I am unclear as to why you insist on conflating politicians in the 1800s owning private fire companies vs. modern day fire fighting as a social service.

Ownership or, more specifically, possession is demonstrated by control. If a member or members of government have control over the fire fighting business (who can become fire fighters, how they can go about fighting fires, how they are funded, etc) then government effectively owns the fire fighting company. The very fact that they are tax funded means they are government controlled. I sure as hell can't start my own private competing fire fighting company here in Los Angeles.

And again, this description is correct for today.

But it was not correct in the 1800s where there were both private fire fighting companies (which I believe, but do not know for a fact, are illegal today) and said private fire fighting companies were neither paid by taxes nor by government mandated fees like a power or water utility.

Simply because a politician controls a company - be it a fire fighting one or anything else - does not automatically dictate that said company is government.

Where did I say, or even insinuate, that every attempt to convert economic power into political power succeeds?

This is again completely nonsensical. If you state that a politician's control of a private fire fighting company constitutes a conversion of economic into political power, yet you also say it doesn't always succeed, then you then add yet more burden to yourself. You must now show that the politician's control of a private fire fighting company constituted successful conversion of economic power into political power - in addition to the previously stated burden of proof that said politician didn't already have political power, or said politician didn't have economic power via other means, or said politician did or did not convert other economic power into political power.

By any measure, you have not moved the bar forward at all.

This is foolishness. The whole point of government is to get people to pay for services en masse.

It's the raison d'etre. To say this is illegal is just blind ideology.

Uh no.

The point of government is to allow people to collectively pay for services which no individual clearly benefits, but the collective does. Implicit in this process is that the amount of spending is to be limited via removal of the profit incentive. This used to be axiomatic.

Your statement would be gospel however to a bureaucrat/kleptocrat.

And you fail again to reconcile the forced consumption of a service provided by outright for profit entities.

Even the Defense Department can say no when LockMar or whatever provides a substandard product, or even choose to forgo an entire category of new weapons (defense services or products).

[DSpencer]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

This is foolishness. The whole point of government is to get people to pay for services en masse.

It's the raison d'etre. To say this is illegal is just blind ideology.

I don't agree that the first part is the proper goal of government.

Regardless, all I can say about the second part is that I just believe you are wrong. It's true that the government does not follow the laws much of the time. It's true that the supreme court will probably find this law constitutional. However, it doesn't change the fact that we have a constitution, the constitution does not grant this type of power to the federal government and no reasonable (and honest) person would argue that the founders intended for the federal government to have this kind of power.

You apparently don't want to the government to follow the constitution and you're in luck, because they don't and won't. However, that doesn't mean that reading the words in the constitution and applying them in a common sense way is "blind ideology".

Thanks to tmicou for pointing out the difference between federal powers and state/local.

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Government may not be a physical embodiment in toto, but it absolutely is not imaginary. It has physical components such as people, property, and intellectual property. It has revenue and spends money - both fiat and precious metals. It consumes and creates.

The problem you are experiencing is the difficulty in distinguishing between roles.

If I incorporate, c1ue Inc. would be a legal entity separate from c1ue the person.

Sure, c1ue Inc. is imaginary, but under the law it has an almost completely separate existence - and in fact can be completely separate if c1ue the person sold c1ue Inc.

I feel like we're getting into a semantics battle again, but I'll try and elaborate. What matters here is control over property. Government may arguably consist of things and ideas but only individual humans in government can act and therefore manipulate government property. Everything else is either passive or imaginary. C1ue, Inc may be "recognized" as a separate entity but can I interact with C1ue, Inc? Can C1ue, Inc drive the company car or meet with investors? No, whatever individuals actually have control over assets listed under C1ue, Inc are the only true owners/possessors of said assets, no matter what any documents state.

So again, I am unclear as to why you insist on conflating politicians in the 1800s owning private fire companies vs. modern day fire fighting as a social service.

Politicians in the 1800's wielded significant influence over which fire companies thrived and which ones did not through selective protection and financial support. That constitutes government control over private property.

And again, this description is correct for today.

More semantics or you misunderstand me.

But it was not correct in the 1800s where there were both private fire fighting companies (which I believe, but do not know for a fact, are illegal today) and said private fire fighting companies were neither paid by taxes nor by government mandated fees like a power or water utility.

How do you think those truly private companies fared against the ones colluding with politicians? Political intervention in the market distorts it in favor of those aligned with political power.

Simply because a politician controls a company - be it a fire fighting one or anything else - does not automatically dictate that said company is government.

At least you can acknowledge that if a politician has control over a company, then, de facto, government has control over a company. Rather than get into a semantics battle with you over the word "own", I'll stress that control is the more important factor. Example: What matters more to you, that you own your car or that you control it? Would you feel OK if you paid for your car and were said to own it, but I was the one who took your keys and drove it every day? Ownership means nothing without control.

This is again completely nonsensical. If you state that a politician's control of a private fire fighting company constitutes a conversion of economic into political power, yet you also say it doesn't always succeed, then you then add yet more burden to yourself.

You have either completely misunderstood me or are deliberately putting words into my mouth. I simply stated that economic power (the power of voluntary exchange) can be used to purchase political power. My points were: 1) Economic power by itself is not bad; 2) Political power is almost always bad; 3) People often conflate the two because economic power is used to purchase political power (lobbies, campaign contributions, bribes, etc).

You must now show that the politician's control of a private fire fighting company constituted successful conversion of economic power into political power

I never stated that was the case originally. The premise I was stating there was that the politician's control of the fire fighting company demonstrated government ownership (control) of said fire fighting company. The causes of said control were irrelevant to that point.

- in addition to the previously stated burden of proof that said politician didn't already have political power, or said politician didn't have economic power via other means, or said politician did or did not convert other economic power into political power.

Again, that was not what I stated and irrelevant to the point I was actually making in my referenced quote.

By any measure, you have not moved the bar forward at all.

I may not have for you, but that's understandable given the misinterpretations you've had of my statements so far.

[c1ue]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

I feel like we're getting into a semantics battle again, but I'll try and elaborate. What matters here is control over property. Government may arguably consist of things and ideas but only individual humans in government can act and therefore manipulate government property. Everything else is either passive or imaginary. C1ue, Inc may be "recognized" as a separate entity but can I interact with C1ue, Inc? Can C1ue, Inc drive the company car or meet with investors? No, whatever individuals actually have control over assets listed under C1ue, Inc are the only true owners/possessors of said assets, no matter what any documents state.

It is hardly semantics when the realities of interacting with c1ue Inc. are clearly defined, as are interactions with c1ue the person.

As for your questions:

1) yes, c1ue Inc. can meet with investors. Much as a lawyer can represent you in a court, so too can a person represent c1ue Inc. in an investors meeting.

2) c1ue Inc. can drive a car - assuming c1ue Inc. has empowered an individual whether owner or employee to drive said car on c1ue Inc. business.

As for control - you still refuse to recognize that a single individual can have control over multiple areas both private and government, and that there are supposed to be clear lines governing behavior in any single segment. There are also specific laws preventing certain conflicts of interest, though absolutely not comprehensive in any way.

The point remains - simply because multiple lines of control extend to an individual does not automatically confer unilateral behavior amongst all lines.

A simple example: A person who is both a chairman of the Sierra Club and also the majority shareowner of a strip mining company. Clearly said person cannot be automatically acting in a unilateral interest as these two different lines of control are mutually conflicting.

At least you can acknowledge that if a politician has control over a company, then, de facto, government has control over a company. Rather than get into a semantics battle with you over the word "own", I'll stress that control is the more important factor. Example: What matters more to you, that you own your car or that you control it? Would you feel OK if you paid for your car and were said to own it, but I was the one who took your keys and drove it every day? Ownership means nothing without control.

Again, while said politician can control a company such that it behaves as the government would want it to, said control does not constitute government policy.

Rather it constitutes the individual's inherent lack of ethics.

You still cannot understand the difference. The government isn't controlled by any one politician or even a 10% subsect of all politicians. You automatically assume that any politician acts in the interests of government when in fact different politicians have different interests. Thus government cannot have a single interest which any single politician follows.

Or with yet another analogy: just because one lemming is part of a lemming horde, doesn't mean that lemming goes off the cliff with all the others. It might just decide to kick back behind a rock and chew some roots while the others proceed on ahead; said lemming doesn't represent the horde and is merely a component.

\You have either completely misunderstood me or are deliberately putting words into my mouth. I simply stated that economic power (the power of voluntary exchange) can be used to purchase political power. My points were: 1) Economic power by itself is not bad; 2) Political power is almost always bad; 3) People often conflate the two because economic power is used to purchase political power (lobbies, campaign contributions, bribes, etc).

So let me get this straight. You conflate a politician owning a private fire fighting company as a government behavior. Yet you do not conflate economic power with political power or the reverse.

So what exactly are you saying? Seems like you're saying nothing.

I never stated that was the case originally. The premise I was stating there was that the politician's control of the fire fighting company demonstrated government ownership (control) of said fire fighting company. The causes of said control were irrelevant to that point.

See above lemming example. By your definition, a policeman owning a dry cleaning shop means said dry cleaning shop is controlled by the government.

But it isn't.

It is controlled by the policeman and whatever managers handle said establishment in said policeman's absence.

I may not have for you, but that's understandable given the misinterpretations you've had of my statements so far.

Your statements are so vague and poorly constrained that it is impossible to interpret correctly without being you.

And your responses thus far have equally been unilluminating.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

I don't agree that the first part is the proper goal of government.

Regardless, all I can say about the second part is that I just believe you are wrong. It's true that the government does not follow the laws much of the time. It's true that the supreme court will probably find this law constitutional. However, it doesn't change the fact that we have a constitution, the constitution does not grant this type of power to the federal government and no reasonable (and honest) person would argue that the founders intended for the federal government to have this kind of power.

You apparently don't want to the government to follow the constitution and you're in luck, because they don't and won't. However, that doesn't mean that reading the words in the constitution and applying them in a common sense way is "blind ideology".

Thanks to tmicou for pointing out the difference between federal powers and state/local.

Sadly in America, the Constitution has become Holy Scripture. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th C. What the Founders might have intended (or might not have intended) is all so-much Bologna-Sausage.

I guess we can thank the religious-right for the mess that America is in now, especially: the faith-based currency, the faith in the Constitution, the faith in the courts, the faith in the "invisible hand" of free-markets, the faith in "the Founders", the faith in growth, the faith in tax-cuts, the faith in trickle-down economics, the faith in deficit-spending, the faith in boosterism, nationalism, English-only, border walls, the "In God We Trust", the flag salutes, the public school curriculum, etc.

May I ask the religious-right in America: What will happen to you when you get sick? Who is going to pay for your care? Why do Americans now have the shortest life-span in the developed world? (America has the for-profit private healthcare system.)

When you are on your death-bed, will it really matter what "The Founders" wrote in the Constitution?

[Ghent12]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

May I ask the religious-right in America: What will happen to you when you get sick? Who is going to pay for your care? Why do Americans now have the shortest life-span in the developed world? (America has the for-profit private healthcare system.)

Life span is a misleading factor in determining health care quality, so you should not use it as a talking point when railing against privatized health care. America is the king of violent deaths among the "developed" countries and also subject to an obesity epidemic--both factors which are only tangentially related to health care.

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

(America has the for-profit private healthcare system.)

I challenge the latter half of your premise. There is virtually nothing private or free-market about an industry with such extensive government intervention. In fact, I'd say the United States' health care industry is second only to its military industry in the amount of intervention.

[cbr]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Idealogy aside, we all know that the very last remote vestiges of the US Constitution as a respected document were LONG gone by 1934.

Still, this bill goes SO FAR AFIELD of the founding intent it is absolutely inconceivable to me that ANYONE could EVER dream that the federal government could legally force people to buy health insurance.

The federal government existed for two and only two sole purposes: protect the united states and their citizens from foreign powers, protect US citizens from violations of the constitution and bill of rights by the governments of the united states.

That was before two hundred years of corrupt federal legislators adding new illegal laws to the books, corrupt presidents and exponentially burgeoning executive agencies and bureaucratic overreach (for which no legal mandate exists whatsoever except cowered acquiescence by the sheople long ago), browbeaten Supreme Court Judges rubber stamping the gradual erosion of traditional US government and citizens' rights, and so on and so on....

Nowadays, if you walk to the geographical center of the largest US state (Alaska), and fart loudly, the Federal Government will tax it and regulate it because they say they can hear it and smell it from Washington DC so it affects interstate commerce.

It was a shock to me that this legislation could have even been dreamed up with a straight face by any American; and another shock that enough sheople figured they'd get the bill for it, for them to actually dare to start arguing about it!

You can argue about the pragmatic ability of the US to compete internationally in the modern world under its intended and proper form of government; but the evidence is certainly in that we can't compete anymore given the corrupted evolution of our federal government into an oligarchical-FIRE-hostaged-overreaching-Federal bureaucratic behemoth anyway!

So, since I'm dreaming, lets abolish all the executive agencies, immediately repeal LITERALLY 99% of all federal legislation passed since 1815, vote in some competent state and local officials, and get to work...

Or maybe we should just use a crusty old document in a partisan effort to chip little tiny chunks away off a massive bipartisan federal socialist effort to gain information and control over US citizens and increase tax revenues, all on the pretense of a health care bill which adds another huge layer of government administrative expense on top of an already mushroomed top heavy set of regulators and insurers at the expense of the producing class. That sounds better I guess.

[DSpencer]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Sadly in America, the Constitution has become Holy Scripture. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th C. What the Founders might have intended (or might not have intended) is all so-much Bologna-Sausage.

I guess we can thank the religious-right for the mess that America is in now, especially: the faith-based currency, the faith in the Constitution, the faith in the courts, the faith in the "invisible hand" of free-markets, the faith in "the Founders", the faith in growth, the faith in tax-cuts, the faith in trickle-down economics, the faith in deficit-spending, the faith in boosterism, nationalism, English-only, border walls, the "In God We Trust", the flag salutes, the public school curriculum, etc.

May I ask the religious-right in America: What will happen to you when you get sick? Who is going to pay for your care? Why do Americans now have the shortest life-span in the developed world? (America has the for-profit private healthcare system.)

When you are on your death-bed, will it really matter what "The Founders" wrote in the Constitution?

The Constitution has become holy scripture in America? How do you come up with this nonsense?

I'm not part of the religious right.

If you think that faithful adherence to the Constitution is what got us in this mess, you must live in a different country or maybe a different planet.

I don't think the Constitution is some kind of holy scripture or perfect structure for government. Nonetheless, the founders were much smarter than you are and the country would be much better off had we continued following their plan.

If you spent less time ranting about how "the religious right" ruined the country and more time reading about the ideas the founders had, you might realize that they foresaw the problems we have today with remarkable accuracy. They even tried to prevent them, but sadly, a long list of idiots (from the left and right) have undone all their efforts.

When I'm on my deathbed, it's much more likely that what will matter is that a bunch of modern day bureaucrats designed a healthcare system that was nonfunctional and I died sooner as a result.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

I would argue that the most important reason why American businesses are unable to compete in the world is that American businesses are paying for the cost of America's for-profit private healthcare system.

I am a pragmatist: I favour solutions which work well, and socialized-medicine works well in other countries. American businesses can not compete because America's competitors have socialized-medicine, and American businesses do not have socialized-medicine. So, the cost of for-profit private healthcare is passed onto consumers by higher prices for American products. The bottomline is that for-profit private healthcare in the U.S. breeds lawsuits and inefficiency (such as defensive and needless healthcare), and those costs are passed onto consumers in the price of American products.