Federal judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

[badger6]

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

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 !!!

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. 

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. 

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

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

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.

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.

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

 

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.

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. 

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.

[Dave Gray]

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

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.

[badger6]

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

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

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.

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..........

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.

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.

[badger6]

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.

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[badger6]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

[re: where in the Constitution is SS specifically permitted]
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

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

There again, what you're saying is that the supreme court is infallible.

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.

I gave my opinion on Social Security and I don't expect you to agree with it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Dave Gray]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

You can also see this link:

21.21 Does the U.S. Government use the Social Security Trust Funds surpluses for purposes other than Social Security?

The Social Security Trust Funds surpluses are invested in government securities and counted as general revenue. The Federal Government, in turn, can use the revenue for any legally authorized purposes it chooses. For example, the invested surplus could be used to finance highway construction, fund the operations of The Yellowstone National Park, or pay the salaries of FBI agents. Like the Federal Government, private corporations sell corporate bonds, and use the proceeds to fund their operations.

[Dave Gray]

^ I see.

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

[Landshark]

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.

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

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.

[Landshark]

^^^^^^^^

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.