Skip to main content

View Diary: Doublespeak Translation: Guaranteed coverage=Forced to purchase insurance (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can't disagree (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    I cannot comprehend the cheers for this bill. Not only is there not a word in the US Constitution (yes, though ignored we still have one) that allows the federal politicians to do this, but for the working masses to be happy that we are being divvied up like serfs, parceled out to a newly energized govt backed cartel, strikes me as lunacy.

    The fact that you will be FORCED into this program - and 17,000 IRS agents are slated to be hired to keep you in line, should tell you everything you need to know.

    C.J. Maloney's first book (on Arthurdale, West Virginia during the New Deal) is to be released by John Wiley and Sons in February 2011.

    by CJ Maloney on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:29:08 AM PDT

    •  So that constitutionality issue (6+ / 0-)

      By your thinking Medicare should be unconstitutional.  And it always helps to provide links to claims like 17,000 agents are being hired to keep you line. Oh and please make something other than a Republican talking point from

      In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

      by jsfox on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:41:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know that there is a difference between (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        being required to contribute to a government-run public program and being required to purchase a product for-profit, private corporation.

        Mind you I'm not convinced of the unconstitutionality of the mandate.  But your argument for it isn't a good one.

        •  It does not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rweba, citicenx, sullivanst

          make a difference if is for profit private or not-for-profit public. Truth, even if there was a PO it was not going to be open to everyone and there was still going to be a mandate. Some would still be required to by for profit insurance.

          Finally a mandate is a mandate whether it is a government run program or not. It is splitting hairs to say forcing people to buy government insurance is not the same as forcing people to by for profit insurance. Especially when the end product  for the consumer is going to be basically the same.

          In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

          by jsfox on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:07:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Precisely! (0+ / 0-)

            Being "forced" to hand money to the government is not any different than being "forced" to hand money to a company if its the same thing and the same product.

            •  Except that it IS very different (0+ / 0-)

              "Being forced to hand money to the government" is what we call a tax.  The power to tax is explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

              This other thing is NOT a tax.  It is a private economic transaction between two non-governmental entities.

              What if the government, in order to save failing banks, required every individual to purchase a certain amount of, say, Goldman Sachs stock.  Constitutional?  Yet, nobody at all questions the ability of the federal government to tax individuals, and then hand that money over to Goldman Sachs in the form of TARP money, right?

              So yes, it is a huge difference.

        •  If anything, founding fathers would have been (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ManhattanMan, jsfox

          far more suspicious about forced enrollment into a government program.

          But of course, there's no forced enrollment into Medicare. You simply have to pay your taxes while working, and can choose whether to enroll in Medicare.

          Similarly, there's no forced sign-up for private insurance. You can choose to accept the penalty. It's not a criminal penalty, and you will not be subject to criminal proceedings for failure to pay, as per the explicit language of HR.3590.

          The constitutional question is not even close.

          In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

          by sullivanst on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:18:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe this will help... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...our Confused Constitutionalists.

            Consider the bill as a flat tax on everybody. This is, of course, Constitutional.

            In addition to this tax, there is a tax exemption if you have sensible health insurance. This is just like the exemptions you get if you have a child, if you pay mortgage interest, or if you buy a hybrid car.

            Constitutionally, there is nothing new about this bill.

            •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

              Except the flat tax is not quite like other taxes, because you can be thrown in jail for not paying your income tax, but you cannot be thrown in jail for not paying the penalty for no creditable coverage and no exemption. In other words, it's a softer tax. But no less constitutional for it.

              In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

              by sullivanst on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:04:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nobody goes to jail for not paying taxes (0+ / 0-)

                So you're wrong there.  People go to jail for cheating on their taxes, or not reporting income, or not filing returns, etc.  That's tax EVASION.  But simple inability to pay does not land one in jail.  Levy and lien on your property and future wages?  Yes.  Jail?  No.

                •  Levy and lien also prohibited (0+ / 0-)

                  in the case of non-payment of the penalty for not carrying creditable health insurance.

                  So it's still a tax-lite.

                  In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

                  by sullivanst on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:59:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Except that it isn't a flat tax (0+ / 0-)

              That you can think of a hypothetical analogy to the situation does not make it so.

              The federal government has the explicit power, granted to it by the Constitution, to tax.  That is all.  It does not have the explicit power to do "stuff that we think are kinda, sorta LIKE taxes."  

              Never before has the federal government ever mandated that individuals be required to engage in an economic transaction with another private entity.  It simply has no analogy.  To proclaim its obvious constitutionality or unconstitutionality is brash and uninformed.  It's not clear cut in either direction.

              Even the car insurance analogy fails because driving has always been recognized as a privilege, not a right.  The state can refuse to give you a driver's license if you fail to meet a whole host of criteria: poor driving record, failure to pass a test, failure to pay child support, etc.  Car insurance is simply one of those requirements.  This is a different animal, however.  This requirement goes into effect upon one's mere existence.

              •  It's NOT an analogy. (0+ / 0-)

                It is a description of the bill.

                (When I said flat tax I should have said "capitation", which is the word the Founders used.)

                Imagine if the bill were reworded:

                1. A $350 capitation is hereby levied on all Americans.
                1. All Americans who purchase Health Insurance get a $350 Tax Rebate.

                This is the exact same effect as the bill, but reworded in a way so that you can see that it is Constitutional.

    •  More right wing talking points. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ganymeade, greycat, DreamyAJ, Apost8

      "Yes we cannibis!"

      by marigold on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:41:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lets All Sing Hosanna's For A BAD BILL (0+ / 0-)

      This was just so damned predictable....

      And we wonder WHY the Democratic Party is it's own worst enemy???

      Wont Matter Whats In It-It Will be Called VICTORY (8+ / 0-)

      I've seen this so many times in the last 30+ years, that it writes it's own script.

      We'll have crowds of folks on KOS telling us how it was 'REALLY" what they wanted, and expected to get, all along!!! And if you dare to remind the folks singing Praises and Hosanna's of it, you'll get buried in a blizzard of HR's, and called a "TROLL!!!!"

      by IndianaDemocrat on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 11:13:50 AM EDT

    •  Look at some civilised countries (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ManhattanMan, sullivanst

      that have universal single payer systems - like most European countries - and you will find that health care is financed either from taxes or social security payments. Neither of these is optional.

      If you insist on maintaining your fucked up private free enterprise capitalist bull shit private insurance industry, then the only way to go is a mandate.

      Get real - everybody uses about 50% of their lifetime health expenditure in the last 12 months of their life (whenever that happens), and you need to pay for it when you don't need it so that it is there when you do.

      My bags are packed, I'm ready to go. I'm standing here outside the door.

      by senilebiker on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:46:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Say what? (0+ / 0-)

        Older people will be covered by Medicare.  

        But here is the real bullshit about Obama's manadates.

        People in the middle income levels will pay around $5K a year for a policy with a high deductible. They get sick and then before their lousy policies kick up have to pony up proably over $10K to get coverage.  You think a couple with no insurance at work can cover that type of money, without eventually using credit cards, etc. to pay for the medicial costs.  Guess what bankrupcy.

        And then thank you VP Biden who was driving force in the horrible bankrupcy bill (you do know that the VP while a Senator voted against home protection for elderly people in bankrupcy??  That is Biden voted to allow bankrupcy to make elderly people homeless.

        •  Read my post. (0+ / 0-)

          Move into the 20th century -  get single payer, paid through a payroll tax or social security deductions, and then nobody has to worry. Second step 21 st century.

          You want a private insurance system, fine - eat the consequences.

          By the way, have you read the bill? From what I am picking up, deductibles are limited, and you don't buy insurance after the event - that is not what insurance is about.

          My bags are packed, I'm ready to go. I'm standing here outside the door.

          by senilebiker on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:57:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  HR'd for the 17000 IRS agents line... (0+ / 0-)

      Now if you'd said 16000, which is the number I heard another right wing tool spout this morning, I might have let you slide.

      It's bad luck to be superstitious.

      by DreamyAJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:42:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This comment is not HRable. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:41:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site