|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 03:00 AM EDT |
As a retired Federal Civil Servent, I have been under
ObamaCare for more than 40 years. If you will recall, he
stated that his goal was to extend to everyone the kind of
insurance system enjoyed by Congress.
Under this setup, companies compete to offer affordable
plans. The individual has the option to choose among the
various offerings to select the plan/cost that best fits
their needs.
What congress passed is a long way from the kind of plan
they personally enjoy, but it is a good start. The
insurance industry is afraid of Obamacare because it works.
Obamacare was patterned after Romeycare, which works (62% of
those entolled like it).
Remeber also that it was the insurance industry that
insisted that mandatory participation be a part of Obamacare
(it's in Romeycare, too).
You do not have to buy health insurance. If you choose not
to do so, you are puttimg the cost of ER visits on the
American taxpayer and Congress has the power to correct that
by specific language in the constitution.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 04:01 AM EDT |
I'm not aware of any circumstance where it's been seriously argued that
compulsory licensing schemes like those used in Canada would fail to meet
constitutional muster (yes, I realize the difference, but I don't think it's
really significant to the type of argument being made).
Subsidizing the entertainment industry at taxpayer expense does not have to be
unconstitutional to be a bad idea. Nor is it subject to the same defenses of
deemed necessity (Not everyone needs to consume music or movies at some point in
their lives). Most certainly, there is no constitutional prohibition against
passing laws that are 'bad', 'stupid' or that 'I' (for any given applicable
value of 'I') as a rare possessor of common sense disagree with.
If this law chooses a strange path to get at its goals, consider that taking a
matter of public interest, turning it into a profit center, and then trying to
push it back toward serving the public good without overly disturbing said
profit center, involves balancing some significantly conflicting interests.
There's plenty of details about the process to feel disgusted over. But Congress
has the authority to tax you just because you exist and earn money within its
territory. That you are personally offended that it would do so in a way
designed to incentivise behavior you'd rather not engage in has no bearing on
constitutionality, and is most certainly not remotely novel, as anyone who has
filed their own taxes should be well aware...
My apologies for drifting a bit into heated language here, but I really did want
to emphasize that there is a big difference between political ideals and what
the law allows.
(Incidentally, some taxpayer revenue is in fact used to subsidize the arts,
albeit perhaps not in the areas bearing significant commercial interest.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
The crucial thing here, is that the tax is there to force you to pay for a
product you are likely to consume anyway - healthcare.
And as for crossing a line, I don't know if it's been crossed in the US - it's
certainly been crossed in Canada and plenty of places in Europe (not here in the
UK), but what exactly is this levy on blank CDs if not crossing that exact line
you postulate?
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|