The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I know this stuff gets some of you excited so thought I would post it.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional, setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."

"Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds," Hudson added. "Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."

A federal judge in Virginia ruled in favor of the administration earlier this month over the purchase requirement issue, mirroring conclusions reached by a judge in Michigan.

Virginia officials had argued that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product -- like health insurance -- that they may not want or need. They equated such a requirement to a burdensome regulation of "inactivity."

Virginia is one of the few states in the country with a specific law saying residents cannot be forced to buy insurance.

"I am gratified we prevailed," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican elected in 2009. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, urged Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to request an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court.

"Ultimately, we must ensure that no American will be forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance they may not need, want, or be able to afford," Cantor said. "In this challenging environment, we must not burden our states, employers, and families with the costs and uncertainty created by this unconstitutional law, and we must take all steps to resolve this issue immediately."

A Justice Department spokeswoman expressed confidence the administration will eventually prevail in the legal fight.

"We are disappointed in today's ruling but continue to believe -- as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found -- that (the law) is constitutional," Tracy Schmaler said. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail."

Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March, after promoting Democratic-led health reform efforts for months after taking office. The law is widely considered to be the signature legislative accomplishment of the president's first two years in office.

Among other things, the measure was designed to help millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans receive adequate and affordable health care through a series of government-imposed mandates and subsidies. The federal government stated in court briefs that last year, 45 million Americans were without health insurance, roughly 15 percent of the country's population.

Critics have equated the measure to socialized medicine, fearing that a bloated government bureaucracy will result in higher taxes and diminished health care services. About two dozen challenges have been filed in federal courts nationwide.

On November 8, the Supreme Court rejected the first constitutional challenge to the health care reform effort, resisting a California conservative group's appeal. The justices refused to get involved at a relatively early stage of the legal process.

The high court rarely accepts cases before they have been thoroughly reviewed by lower courts.

Legal experts say they expect several of the larger issues in the health care debate to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. A review from the high court may not happen, however, for at least a year or two.

The highest-profile lawsuit may come from Florida. State officials there have objected not only to the individual coverage mandate but also to a requirement forcing states to expand Medicaid. Florida's litigation is supported by 19 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Health care reform, a top Democratic priority since the Truman administration, passed the current Congress in a series of virtual party-line votes. Opponents derisively labeled the measure "Obamacare." Republican leaders, who captured the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, have vowed to overturn or severely trim the law.

The 63-year-old Hudson was named to the bench in 2002 by former President George W. Bush. He is a former state and federal prosecutor.

"While this court's decision may set the initial judicial course of this case, it will certainly not be the final word," Hudson wrote in October.

The case decided Monday is Virginia v. Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188).

While newsworthy that it happened.  Hardly unexpected.  I knew they would find a judge.  I don't even care how the circuit rules, either way the losing side will appeal.  The only outcome that matters is what the 9 vote. 

^^^^ Seems like there should be a way to get something to the SC if you know its going to end up there anyway. What a waste of resources and money.

^ Yeah, but without this system, a bunch of crap would get there that was undeserving and slow things down even more.

I concur with the judge !!!!!!

It isn't unconstitutional.  People don't have to like it, but there's nothing in the constitution that contradicts the bill.

Judge should have recused himslef for conflict of interest. Other than that the score is 16 to 1 in favor of health care.
Wish it would just go to SCOTUS.

So if Obama says that you have to buy shoes...... Is that OK with you? After all we all need shoes eventually!!!

^ It's not a question of whether or not I'm okay with it.  It's whether or not it is unconstitutional, which I don't think it is.

In order to enroll in school I was required to get a vaccine for Polio.  My parents were REQUIRED BY LAW to purchase the vaccine. 

Ijust hope that if we do get stuck with it, it's not a poorly written law.  The fact that this thing is so big and no one totally seems to know what's in it is what bothers me more than anything.

They could have gone to the Health Department for free. If not, I'd have to wonder if that too was unconstitutional.

Dad made too much money for us to go to the free health clinic. 

If I ran around nude...i would be arrested for public indecency.   The gov't can pass a law requiring I purchase clothing (and wear them). 

Gov't can require I pay taxes. 

There is a law requiring I save for retirement.  Or is social security unconstitutional too?   

Reread the Constitution and realize that it grants Congress the power to force people to do things they may not want to because of necessity.

+1

If a military draft during peace time doesn't violate the 13th amendment, it is hard to claim there is really a hard limit on what you can be compelled to do. 

You are required to get vaccinated in order to protect other people from catching a disease. Just like you are required to get liability insurance to protect the other drivers on the road. Liability doesn't cover you if you get in an accident.


 

Again, this protects other people from having to look at you, lol. You can go naked as much as you want in your home, you never have to wear clothes in your entire life !!!



Actually, I believe both to be unconstitutional. How constitutional is paying social security and not getting any by the time I am eligible to receive it ?


Forcing me to buy health care is not a necessity. Too bad everyone arguing for this crapola doesn't realize that your rights are being eroded on a daily basis by this bloated behemoth of a government that knows best. And people wonder why there is such a deficit.

No point in having a conversation with you.  Social Security is constitutional.  Fact. That is not an opinion that is a fact. 

If you can't distinguish the two and say why Social Security is constitutional while Universal Heath Care is not, you have absolutely no argument.     

Ha, ha, ha, you funny. No point having a conversation with me ?? Don't respond then. SS may be legal, that doesn't mean that it is constitutional however. The fact that the constitution doesn't grant the federal government those powers would probably be a sufficient reason. Tenth Amendment – "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". That seems to be simple enough to understand. Not to mention the fact that Roosevelt had to threaten to replace certain judges (ie- the ones the disagreed with him) of the supreme court in order to get SS passed could have had something to do with it.

It is about as constitutional as the federal reserve bank, eavesdropping on phone calls, intercepting emails, and water boarding. The government does what it wants when it wants to, that is the problem with this country. There seems to be a lot more to this stuff than you care to admit   

    *  Helvering vs. Davis.
    *  Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis,
    *  Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper,

Means it is not only legal but Constitutional.   


The first three are constitutional.  The last one I am not sure if has been ruled on yet.  If universal health care is as constitutional as the federal reserve bank...it is completely constitutional.  And this lower courts decision will be overruled 9-0. 

^^^ Picking and choosing which parts of my post that you want to respond to, ha ha.

I guess the tenth amendment means nothing, we should just burn it. I guess that every thing the government does is constitutional huh ? You look at the results of the above court cases but not the situations surrounding the cases. One day living in this country will be like living in Russia or China, then see how ya like it !!!

BTW, why do we pass laws that the majority of Americans don't want ? Could it be that they don't care what we want ?

Didn't see any point in responding to the rest of the BS.


I have never said that.  But I guess under your logic we should burn Article III and replace it with "constitutionality shall determined by badger6."


Not at all.  Whatever the Supreme Court says is constitutional is constitutional.  Government has done plenty which is unconstitutional.  In fact, plenty of S. Ct. case are ones in which the Court tells the gov't to stop doing something that is unconstitutional. 


Not responding to above blither.  Because its blither. 


CNN Poll:

"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" Americans favor government intervention in the health system by 69%-29%.

"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the health care you and your family receive in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" When it involves their own care and their families, approval is still high, but a bit lower: 63%-36%.

"Do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans, or don't you think so?" Americans favor guaranteed health care for all, by a margin of 62%-38%. 

So I am not sure what your strawman comment has to do with the Heath Care debate. 

"Constitutional" doesn't mean only what's specifically stated in the Constitution.  It is also determined by court cases, which become constitutional law.

The health care mandate is definitely constitutional.  Why wouldn't it be?

It is very similar to auto insurance.  Because we have laws that require aid to be given to the sick, we are stuck with the bill one way or the other.  So, mandating health insurance for others IS protecting you.  ....just like liability auto insurance for others is protecting you.

That's a little strong.  While I expect that the justices will affirm its constitutionality it doesn't qualify as a definitely constitutional.   Social Security is definitely constitutional; universal health care probably is constitutional. 

Auto insurance is not mandatory. The government doesn't force you to drive a car.

As for social security, think of it like this. The government says it will take money from you and invest it, and when you retire, you will have a nice fund built up.

Bernie Madoff said the same thing, and did the same thing the government is doing with social security. No one on this board will ever see a dime that they put into SS. So, it was stolen. The only difference is that Madoff is in jail.

Did you just compare a criminal with a program that has paid out trillions of dollars in benefits to millions of retires, disabled works, widows and children going back to the 1930s?

I am willing to bet everyone on this board has a family member who has or does receive benefits from the program.

Without some changes (either by increasing tax rates or decrease of benefits the program will run into problem in about 25 years and be forced to reduce benefits or increase taxes.)

I will start collecting from SS well before that so your statement that no one will see a dime is quite false. 

Social Security has been determined to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.  You may be familiar with that entity; they are the group of judges who decide what is and is not constitutional.  It says so in the Constitution.

Sitting around and attempting to argue that Social Security is NOT constitutional is a complete waste of time.  YOU ARE WRONG.  This matter was put to rest decades ago.

If you are such a fervent state of denial that you STILL don't accept the constitutionality of Social Security, of course you aren't going to accept the constitutionality of a health care tax.  And the "mandate" is exactly that, a tax; if you don't have health care, you pay more at tax time, and that's it.  You are not required to purchase health care.  If you are uncertain as to the difference, try attempting to drive a car without liability insurance (or the necessary bond, depending on your jurisdiction) and see if a static fine is the only repercussion.

My question to the Social Security deniers is: why do you even care about what's happening with health care in the court system?  I mean, clearly you have chosen to ignore the verdict of the Supreme Court when it comes to Social Security, so why do you care what they end up saying about health care?  You've obviously already made up your mind, and you seem happy to simply ignore the actual process laid out in the Constitution for determining what laws are and are not constitutional.

In short, if your only response to "The health care 'mandate' is no more unconstitutional than Social Security's 'mandate'" is "Social Security is unconstitutional too!", you're already done.  There really isn't anything more to add when that is your position.

Come on guys, you can do better than that, ha ha. As you can see from the post above, I didn't bring up Social Security at all. I simply stated my opinion on the subject. I don't expect you to agree with it whatsoever. I have done some research on certain topics and I agree with you in principle. But things aren't as black and white as you make them out to be. Did you know that Roosevelt had to stack the deck and threaten to replace the sitting justices in order to get SS passed ? But like I said, I didn't bring up SS, only gave my opinion on the topic as it was presented to me.

I certainly hope no one is getting personal with this. We all have opinions. And maybe not here, but there are plenty of people that do agree with me, more than you think. I have these types of discussions all the time and people tend to take it personal for some reason. Got another one going on about why the civil war was fought. Its even better than this one, ha ha ha.

I didn't know you were that old. I'm 37, and I know I'll never see any of what I paid into SS. So, is it ok that people who are old now get what they paid but I don't? Yes I did compare a criminal to what the government has done with SS. I look at it as it being stolen from me. How would you describe it?

As for mandated health care, I think it is unconstitutional. But, we'll have to wait and see how the Supreme Court votes, and I'm not holding my breath on being happy with their ruling.

That is absolutely not true.  The worst case estimates is you will see benefits that is 25% less than the current level (adjusted for inflation).   

I'll believe it when I see it. But why should I be happy getting 25% less than you? Its still the same thing as stealing.

I would think that the worst case scenario would be that the government keeps on with their borrowing, spending, and printing as much fake money as they can. With current deficit and spending levels unsustainable, the dollar could crash and hyperinflation could set in causing a world wide depression. In that case Social Security is a moot point. We are well on our way at this point, 25-30 is a very long time to be forecasting these things !!!

So wait... it's "stealing" when you get 25% less in benefits (adjusted for inflation) than the current level?

What is it, then, when life expectancy rises and retirees are able to live longer (and collect more SS paychecks) than previous generations?  Is that also "theft"?
What is it called when you drive on a road that was paid for by taxpayers before you were born?  Are you "embezzling"?

Let's try to keep some semblance of rationality in the terms we are using, please.

I don't think social security is sustainable, and needs to be reformed or ended.  However, it's far from larceny.  It's a comparison that's so friggin' bonkers that it's not a common ground to start from.

Dan, I don't think that I'm going to see a penny of the money I paid in. That's my personal belief. If that turns out to be true, then yes its stealing.

There are lots of things that you pay taxes into and you, personally, never see money back.  Is the construction of F16 fighter jets "stealing"?  I know I've never seen a penny of the money I paid towards buying those.

You might be inclined to say that you, as a member of American society, benefit from the protection that our military provides; I would argue that you also benefit from a society in which the elderly are not destitute.  I'm virtually certain that, somewhere along the road, you have a family member that has benefited from Social Security.

Another big question to consider is: how could Social Security run out of money?  Notwithstanding the myth that Social Security is teetering on the brink of collapse (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_ss_myth/), the only reason why the U.S. Govenrment is not sitting on a multi-trillion dollar Social Security surplus is because politicians in the '80s spent away the SS surpluses; they decimated revenue with huge tax cuts but ramped up military spending, so the money had to come from somewhere.

So if you really want to talk about who "stole" your money...

edit: To be clear, you originally said that only getting 75% of what you paid in is "stealing" from you.  That's simply absurd in the context of any tax that you pay.

No, I originally said I wouldn't be getting anything back. Hoodie then mentioned the 25% less and I responded to that. Still, SS was supposed to be set aside for retirement. Not for other programs such as military funding as you mentioned. If I (or you or anyone else) don't get it back, its no different than stealing.

If I do get it back, then I'm a goof conspiracy nut. But, I don't think that's the case.

You right.  You didn't bring it up.  I brought it up as an example of a similar program THAT is constitutional.  Responding by debating SS is moronic.

If you want to contradict my point on health care explain what is different between Universal Heath Care and SS that makes SS constitutional but Heath Care unconstitutional.   Stating that you believe that both is unconstitutional is just factually incorrect and the equivalent of arguing that Heath Care is unconstitutional because the moon is made of cheese. 

Incorrect.  SS revenue is supposed to go towards paying current benefits for other people.  Your benefits are supposed to come from the contibutors of that time, with the surplus (from many generations of contributors, not just your generation) serving to offset any deficit between revenue and payout.

I'm 47, what do the estimates show for me?  Just curious.

You proved my point. If it goes bankrupt, I will get nothing.

There is no logical reason to believe that Social Security will be paying out zero benefits at any point in your lifetime, unless the federal government as a whole has collapsed upon itself and the United States as a political entity has ceased to exist.*

*the demise of the United States of America is not a logical reason

If SS taxes are not raised, then benefits will have to be cut by about 25% sometime around 2040. 

I anticipate that something in between will happen.  An increase in the SS tax rate of 10-15% and a cut in benefits of about 10-15% will occur with in the next few years closing the gap between projected income and outgo. 

You asked me a question !!!



I answered your question and gave you my opinion. If you have to say that I am "moronic' because I answered your question and told you what I thought, so be it. That reflects on you, not me. But if you want to start insulting each other, we can do that also.


Do you dispute the fact that Roosevelt had to threaten to replace the sitting supreme court Justices in order to get SS passed ? Why would he have to do that ? Is the supreme court perfect and always "gets it right" ? I don't think that they are infallible in the face of political pressure. And given the fact that they were threatened or coerced before they ruled. The courts finding has to be questioned and therefore constitutionality has to questioned.

Not to mention that social security is a tax, not an entitlement. Therefore Congress could pass a law stopping all Social Security and Medicare payments tomorrow, and no citizen could do anything about it even though they paid into the system.


Now as far as healthcare goes. Why do I think that it is unconstitutional ? For a totally different reason....................

The Bill of Rights - Sets limitations on the power of the United States Federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property  including freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms.

Correct ?

9th Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Correct ?

10th Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Correct ?

Under article I section 8, nothing close to health care is an enumerated power of congress. Any powers that are not enumerated to congress under article 1 section 8 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give congress the power to levy a tax on people just for inactivity. Or in other words, a tax on just being alive.

Your response was moronic given that SS is constitutional that is a FACT and not up for debate.


I am aware of the history of the passing and while you paint the history in broad extremes I am not going to debated them as discussing the constitutionality of SS is nothing more than the Chewbacca defense. 


This is true.  But anyone who voted like that would be out of a job at the next election.


Finally. 


You hit the highlights of the first two.  But skipping over 3 to 8 we get to your favorite 2. Nine and Ten. 


Correct that is the text.

Very rarely had the court found that amendment to mean much.

10th Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Correct ?

[/quote]

Once again you got the text right.  That amendment has largely been overtaken by the 14th.  One amendement can amend another and the 14th pretty much took the teeth out of that one.


Congress has the power to tax and spend.  First part that section as amended by #16.  Actually you don't need the 16th.  As if each person in each state is being taxed equally it would be allowed even without the 16th. 

So where in the Constitution does it specifically enumerate the power to enact Social Security?

badger6, you've run into a brick wall.  Unless you can explain why Social Security is constitutional but the PPACA isn't, you're dead in the water.  It is an ESTABLISHED FACT that Social Security is constitutional, in EXACTLY the same sense that the right to have an abortion is constitutional, or eminent domain is constitutional, or burning a flag is constitutional, or limitless political donations are (now) constitutional.  If the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, the Constitution says that they are right.  If you disagree, you are wrong.  That's literally the way it works.

So in order for you to make a reasonably rational argument against Obamacare, you need to do two things:

1) acknowledge that Social Security is, in fact, constitutionally valid (i.e. illustrate that you understand the definition of what is and is not constitutional)
2) show how Obamacare is different from Social Security in a way that makes Obamacare unconstitutional

Otherwise, you're wasting time.

Your response is just as moronic, because you brought it up in the first place. If you don't like my answers, don't ask me the questions !!!



Chewbacca defense ? WTF are you talking about, put the bong down ? I asked you a few simple questions. You won't address them because you don't like the answers. 



So it is not entirely impossible that Frimp may not get any social security payments when he is eligible ?





3 thru 8 have nothing to do with what we are talking about so they don't apply. Why do you think that 9 & 10 are my favorite ? I don't have any favorites, I think that they all are equally important as one document. Those are the 2 that apply to this situation.

 

So now the the bill of rights doesn't mean much ? It means a lot to a lot of people in this country because it is what this country is founded upon. The amendments of the bill of rights should be treated equally.



I will assume that the it's section 1 of the 14th amendment that you are referring.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I guess the argument here is that every citizen has to be treated equally, and the health care system is an example of inequality that runs contrary to the 14th amendment. So does that mean that everyone should have the same health care ? What about everyone gets to have the same house and car too ? This is a flawed application of the 14th amendment.

As for the 16th amendment, you 100% are correct. It does give the government ability to levy taxes. But the point that you are missing is that we are not talking about a tax. The obamacare bill is very specific, consumers who fail to comply pay a penalty, not a tax.  In fact, the bill even says the penalty is not to be defined as a tax, rather only as a penalty.

It is extremely unlikely (impossible, under normal circumstances) that Frimp will get nothing when he's eligible.  He may get a reduced amount than he would if he were eligible now, but it won't drop to zero, unless our country fails or something.

I agree that social security it unsustainable in its current form, but it will be a slow decrease...not something that will just end, unless people stop paying into it.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1


There again, what you're saying is that the supreme court is infallible. That they never get it wrong. So when they reverse their decisions, was the 1st decision wrong or the reversal ? Has to be one or the other. Courts and judges make mistakes and wrong decisions on a daily basis. But then again I guess that OJ was really innocent, ha ha. I gave my opinion on Social Security and I don't expect you to agree with it. Although there are millions that do ! I didn't bring social security up in the first place. It has nothing to do with obamacare..........


Obamacare is different from Social Security, in the fact that social security is set up as a tax under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, otherwise is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. As stated in the previous post. The individual mandate is not defined as a tax in the health care reform bill, it is defined as a penalty, which is a very important distinction. Therefore the Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, cannot apply. Under the 16th amendment the government only has the power to tax, it has no power to asses a penalty for anything.

Yes, it is extremely unlikely that social security will just end next month or next year, but far from impossible. Actually, it is more possible than impossible since impossible is an infinite term. Like I said the government could just stop paying SS payments and no one who paid in would have a legal claim.

If I remember correctly Frimp was about 30 years out. I have seen reports anywhere from 17-30 years before it runs out, but it's all speculation at this point. But like you said social security is unsustainable. That's really all that matters. Maybe not Frimp, you, or me but someone is gonna get screwed over.

OK, Badger, you seem serious about discussing that, so let's give it a go.  I'll do my best to explain my position of how I understand SS.  No spin.  No bullshit.

----

Basically, it cannot "run out of money".  Ever.

SS works like this: young people pay and the money is distributed for social services (mostly old people)

So, if we continued to pay our current rates indefinitely, then yes, it would run out of money.  But that's silly to talk about because it's not on the table.  We will have to reduce the amount paid out.  So long as there are new people being born, more money will be going into the SS coffers.

SS worked really well as population boomed throughout the last several generations.  There were more young people than old people.  But now, people are living longer and population isn't expanding at the same rates, so some changes will have to be made in order to keep SS an effective program.  It will not, however, go bankrupt.

Everyone seems grumpy and agitated in this thread. I sure hope that no one takes these discussions personal. It's not personal for me in case anyone got that notion. We all have opinions, and even though I may not agree with everyone's opinion, I do however try my best to understand other opinions and respect them the best I can. Actually, I wish more of the members would participate in this thread instead of 4 or 5. Wait til I start the religion or civil war thread, that ought to be fun, ha ha ha.

I didn't come up with the idea that SS will go belly up. People much smarter than me have crunched those numbers. Will it happen, maybe or maybe not. It seems very possible to me though. Basic numbers dictate that you can't spend more than you make. If we ran our household budget like the government budget is run, we would be bankrupt or even worse. This country spends more than it takes in consistently. And even worse than that, we owe more money than we can realistically pay back. The whole thing is unsustainable and major changes need to be made pretty soon or we will have a severe problem. I am not convinced that the economy has recovered, actually far from it in my opinion. Say the economy crashes again and we are involved in a major war. Would the government raid the SS coffers to provide for defense ? Impossible ? No. One of the millions of scenarios that could play out.

I can't find the words "Social Security" anywhere in there.  Please cite the relevant passage.

Keep in mind that I am asking you which section of the Constitution specifically allows Social Security, in keeping with the Supreme Court's ruling.  Since you claim that if it's not specifically in the Constitution, it's forbidden, that means that either:

a) SS is specifically in the Constitution
or
b) your claim is false and the Constitution grants Congress a broader scope of powers than you believe

Wrong.  I'm saying that they are right until they reverse themselves, which they have not.

Your argument that the Supreme Court might change their mind (and therefore, SS is unconstitutional) is no different than saying that Congress might pass an amendment banning guns, therefore guns are unconstitutional now.

If your opinion is that SS is unconstitutional, your opinion is wrong.

I can have the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese.  That doesn't make it any less invalid.

Using this logic, any tax is a penalty.

Social Security (payroll) tax is a penalty for working.
Capital gains tax is a penalty for investment.
Estate tax is a penalty for inheritance.
etc.

Your position is as flimsy as rice paper.  There is no distinction between an extra tax and an extra tax.  The health care mandate is literally a tax that you pay if you did not have health care in the specified fiscal year.  You can get an exemption from this tax by purchasing health care.  It is cut-and-dried.

The federal government no longer has the power to fine anyone?  What an interesting world you live in.

Nothing is personal.  I think we all know that.  It's just sometimes hard to have real discussions when it all seems to be spin and hyperbole and bad analogies.


No, it can't happen, as I've outlined above.  Short of the government taking that money and spending it somewhere else, there will always be SOME money.  But if that happened, it wouldn't be a failure of SS.  That would be a completely different issue.


I completely agree.  I believe, however, that a health care mandate saves us money, not costs us.  I think that our previous health care system was costing taxpayers too much (not in taxes, but in bloated insurance and health costs.)  <--  This is the point that anti-HC people should be debating.  I believe that SS needs major reform, as well.


It's hard to say that anything is impossible, but that is pretty much impossible.  Funding for war wouldn't come from SS coffers.  There is nothing to suggest that that's even a remote possibility.

My understanding is that that is exactly what happened during the '80s (http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/abuse-of-the-social-security-trust-fund-began-in-the-1980s/).

You can also see this link (http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/ff/faq/budget.html):

^ I see.

Is that all of that "lockbox" talk that Al Gore talked about when he ran for President?

And just like you're required to get liability insurance to protect other drivers on the road, you should be required to carry health insurance in order to protect the doctors and hospitals that treat you. 

In my opinion, the whole issue of Obama's Health Care Reform stems from the fact that there are a lot of people without health insurance at this time (a lot of my students don't have health insurance even though GCCC offers it very cheaply).  If one of these people sustains an illness or injury, by law, the hospital or doctor is required to treat them whether or not they can actually pay.  If they can't, the medical facility writes off the bill and that expense is passed onto everyone else.  By forcing people to carry health insurance, it will ensure that medical facilities are paid for treatment.  This will keep medical costs and medical insurance premiums down.

I think it's to help protect other citizens, not doctors.  Let's say that if you are hurt, you pay 100 bucks.  If someone else is hurt and can't pay, the cost is spread to you anyway, so your bill is raised.  Therefore, if you are hurt, you pay 120 bucks.

An insurance mandate requires that everyone gets a basic level of coverage, so that we can keep the payment at 100 bucks.

Also, insurance prices are based on the pool.  Currently, young people don't have a lot of incentive to get insurance.  They are healthy and it is expensive.  Old people, on the other hand, will use it a lot, so they have to have it.  Therefore, the cost per person is higher.  With a mandate that requires everyone to have it, the cost per user goes down, because the young and healthy are introduced into that pool.

^^^^^^^^

You're right.  It protects citizens, doctors, and insurance companies with the way you described.  Now, everyone will get paid.  The insurance companies will make more money with all the healthy youngsters now buying policies.  The doctors will get paid every time they treat someone because everyone will have health insurance.  The people will be protected against rising healthcare costs because insurance premiums/copays won't go up and neither will the cost of medical care.