Saturday, June 30, 2012

Bend Over Americans....

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of forcing Americans to accept Obamacare, with the stipulation that the penalties for not doing so are minimal.  That's right.  It's now referred to as a "tax," this penalty.  This has all sorts of implications on freedom, your wallet, government interference in your life, and sets a historical precedent that allows the Fed to now tax indiscriminately, regulate, and to prescribe your life style.  For more on that merely google for it as it's all over the internet news.

Now for something completely different...

Something Different Yet Related


Endymion said...

I've been hearing a great deal about Obama Care but, living in a country that already has a socialized medical system, wasn't too worried about it.

I read this

and became more alarmed , however. There is a sense in which someone with a very low income could pay the $95 penalty, "game the system" and then wind up with essentially effective insurance coverage (because, in the Obama system, you can, in fact, buy fire insurance when your house is already on fire, in essence).

But what about someone who wants to follow the law honestly, and doesn't make much money? Are there subsidies or grants to enable coverage for those who can't afford the premiums? Is that Medicaid?

Even so, doesn't it feel like an invasion of privacy by the panoptic, monolithic state, to require you to profess poverty in order to get such subsidy? I suppose they always require an income tax return in any event.

In Canada, all health care professionals are essentially employees of the state, all hospitals are state run. They all get paid from our income and other taxes. The result is not a great system of medical care, but it at least SEEMS less invasive than the one being proposed.

I would like to hear, though, about why exactly Rob (and others, I assume) dislike this law. Scalia's "broccoli" argument seems silly. State governments already mandate car insurance, seat belt usage, inhibit alcohol and drug usage -- if broccoli were as dangerous as heroin, it would be regulated.

Maybe the analogy to drug regulation is pertinent -- on the face of it, drug usage (like the lack of health coverage) only hurts the one doing it. Does lack of health coverage have secondary effects harmful to society, family? Maybe, I suppose . . . .

Trey said...

What sort of taxes do you feel the Federal government was prohibited from levying before this ruling exactly? It's taxation powers have always been broad.

If the individual mandate is such a Constitution-busting attack on freedom, why has it historical been supported by so-called Conservatives?

Rob Kuntz said...

Why I don't like it:

Peter Schiff explains it best:

ERIC! said...

@ Endymion: Nothing requires one to own a car. And if I don't own a car I don't need to buy insurance. Also if I choose to drive without insurance on a vehicle, and get "pulled over" I am not "taxed" by the Federal Government as a penalty for not buying Insurance, I am ticketed by local law enforcement. Revenues drawn from tickets support local municipal needs.
Next, Seat belt laws IMHO are an infringement, but ignoring that, the same argument applies, I am not required to own a car. So not wearing a seat belt matter little to a Motorcycle operator, not a bicyclist nor many inhabitants of large metropolitan cities, with mass transit and such.
Last, Limits on Alcohol and drugs, which would be better addressed separably as I think the "War on Drugs" is a joke, happen to serve the general protection of individuals that may unknowingly come in contact with a inhabited individual, like a person driving "under the influence". I support individual freedom, but only as long as those freedoms do not inhibit another ones freedom. Some moron racing down the street after a all night drinking binge, threatens the lives of everyone he comes in contact with. Me not buying health insurance only threatens myself.

Now, I own, not only Car insurance, but Full coverage on my vehicles, My family and my self are insured with both life and health insurance, an I never thought I needed the government to tell me I needed to do this much less penalize me for not doing it, it was common sense, but as this Country left that years and years ago...well...

@ Trey: Why has been supported by "Conservatives"? Because they are as much "Statists" as "Liberals" are.

Growth of Government lines the pockets of those in power. Do you honestly think that Power does not corrupt and absolute power does not corrupt absolutely?

Lets look at the Patriot Act, is it gone as was promised? Formed by a "Conservative" abused, and then protected by a "Liberal". But we all smile, safe in our knowledge that the "patriot" Act is just there to protect the "Patriots" right?

No I don't think some "evil" power or society or group or WHATEVER is manipulating our nation, I just think that we are losing what it means to live in a "Free" nation every election period. As folks continue to "Vote" for their "Winning" team, we as a "free" nation lose. Instead of Voting for the less of two evils, why vote for evil at all?

Conservatives, Liberals....all the same in my book.

But what do I know I'm a wack job Libertarian, pfft Liberty...

BTW Trey love your blog!


Aaron E. Steele said...

Move to Canada, no individual mandates here.

Just universal health care.

Rob Kuntz said...

No mandates, Aaron, yes. Only rioting students getting the shaft. Face it. Socialism and the governments nosing into and controlling free markets is a failure. The student debt here in America is 1 Trillion and most of it heading towards non-payment as they cannot be closed (no bankruptcy applies to these, thus graduates are now permanent life-time debt slaves). Likewise, there are no jobs worth their salt that would help debt-burdened graduates repay those loans, which on an average is 38,000 usd per head, I could list concurrent failures all based upon the inane concept of debt generation which is now all over the world coming home to roost in spades (Greece, Spain, France, Portugal, Ireland, etc), but I don't have enough caffeine in me at this late hour to do so. Cheers!

Dennis Laffey said...

I don't know, Rob. Canada's system is not the only system. The universal, government sponsored insurance I've had for the past 15 years in both Japan and Korea work.

Here in Korea, I go to see a doctor and it usually costs me $5-7 USD for the doctor's visit and medicine. And the first time I went before I was covered, it was only about $25 for the doctor's visit. Yet doctors still make plenty of money.

Universal health care can work. I agree that Obamacare isn't that great. But hopefully it's a first step towards something better and less invasive of people's privacy, and helps make healthcare something affordable to the American people.

Aaron E. Steele said...

Germany also has a universal health care system.

They seem to be doing okay.

I don't really think access to basic health care is a consumer good.

Its more of a public good, like roads, electricity, clean water, education, clean air. I'm not sure I understand the objection to reasonably-distributed public goods.

Healthy people are happy people, which contributes to a more productive and successful society.

Will Mistretta said...

Damn right, Aaron. This new ruling is a failure only because it neglected to eviscerate the current morally-indefensible for-profit health insurance industry as all civilized nations have already done. When financial success is tied directly to how many claims can be denied, that's a recipe for dystopia.

Ironic what great progessive strides the U.S. made in the 17th century, only to get bogged down later. We were slow on emancipation, slow on women's sufferage, slow on LGBT rights, slow on sane health care, the list goes on. Sad.

Sir S said...

You should learn some history, Lord of the Green Dragons. The Supreme Court supported broader rules than this many years ago, and the original framers were all for insurance mandates:

in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or other products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.

You're lucky this Supreme Court bypassed the commerce clause, because if they had pursued that angle the implications would have been far worse for you and your weird knee-biting right-wing kind.

Rob Kuntz said...

I am lucky that they did the correct thing in not recognizing the Admins interpretation of the CC? It was their duty; just as it was their duty to STRIKE DOWN this Unconstitutional monstrosity foisted upon the American people. Already several states are opting out of this debt and tax generating scheme; and more will follow.

Jason said...

I'm not a fan of the health care law because it isn't universal health care. It's worth noting, by the way, that the original version of the law had a public option, aka UHC, but the GOP raised a stink and the Democrats caved (like they always do) and removed it...and replaced it with the individual mandate. I think that's one of the real reasons the GOP is so against the law, because they're responsible for that part of it.

It's pretty amusing, however, to see the GOP and right-wingers gaggle on and on about how "Obamacare" (I hate that name and I'm not even a fan of President Obama) is a tax. It isn't. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn't enforce the individual mandate via the Commerce Clause, but could via their taxing powers. The Supreme Court simply ruled on its constitutionality - which for some reason, people are still calling unconstitutional - and nothing more.

I think GOP and people on the right are just cheesed that a conservative justice didn't vote their way.