Comments on: Challenge Question of the Day http://babalublog.com/2009/10/challenge-question-of-the-day/ ...an island on the net without a bearded dictator Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:38:39 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Challenge Question of the Day | Babalú Blog: an island on the net … | Cigar up date today http://babalublog.com/2009/10/challenge-question-of-the-day/#comment-103085 Challenge Question of the Day | Babalú Blog: an island on the net … | Cigar up date today Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:04:24 +0000 http://babalublog.com/?p=28293#comment-103085 [...] | Author: Asem Eltaher Cubabuzz, near but no cigar . Read more from the example source:  Challenge Question of the Day | Babalú Blog: an island on the gain … Posted in Health, Uncategorized | Tags: always-see, close-but, congress-may, Health, instance, [...] [...] | Author: Asem Eltaher Cubabuzz, near but no cigar . Read more from the example source:  Challenge Question of the Day | Babalú Blog: an island on the gain … Posted in Health, Uncategorized | Tags: always-see, close-but, congress-may, Health, instance, [...]

]]> By: Honey http://babalublog.com/2009/10/challenge-question-of-the-day/#comment-103063 Honey Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:50:27 +0000 http://babalublog.com/?p=28293#comment-103063 The long and short of it is that they represent us. They are not our bosses. We are theirs. But they are behaving like dictators and shoving down our throats what is obvious to most Americans, that most of us don't want this in any form, Period. What law gives them the right to do what very few Americans want? The long and short of it is that they represent us. They are not our bosses. We are theirs. But they are behaving like dictators and shoving down our throats what is obvious to most Americans, that most of us don't want this in any form, Period.
What law gives them the right to do what very few Americans want?

]]> By: Cigar Mike http://babalublog.com/2009/10/challenge-question-of-the-day/#comment-103062 Cigar Mike Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:20:44 +0000 http://babalublog.com/?p=28293#comment-103062 Actually, with respect to individuals, they are using the tax code -- the power to tax for the general welfare power to mandate coverage. Here's the problem: Congress can raise your taxes (which is what this purports to be), but they cannot use the tax code to mandate personal behavior which is where I see the problem. The law with respect to the individuals is not buttressed on the commerce clause (of course that may change, but since no one can see the actual text of the bill; I can only go by the chairman's report) Actually, with respect to individuals, they are using the tax code -- the power to tax for the general welfare power to mandate coverage.

Here's the problem: Congress can raise your taxes (which is what this purports to be), but they cannot use the tax code to mandate personal behavior which is where I see the problem.

The law with respect to the individuals is not buttressed on the commerce clause (of course that may change, but since no one can see the actual text of the bill; I can only go by the chairman's report)

]]> By: cubabuzz http://babalublog.com/2009/10/challenge-question-of-the-day/#comment-103061 cubabuzz Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:15:35 +0000 http://babalublog.com/?p=28293#comment-103061 Mike, then I'm not sure what you are thinking about. I trust you will let us know eventually. Note an article at Salon lists various arguments that liberals are using. (I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that either side has ammunition and eventually this will have to go to the Supreme Court.) http://www.slate.com/id/2224258/pagenum/all/ I'll cut and paste some select paragraphs, possibly related to what you are hinting at: --- The legal question isn't whether it would be unusual for the government to compel people to buy health insurance. It's whether it would square with the Constitution. Mark Hall, a professor of law at Wake Forest University, argues that it would, in part based on the commerce clause, which since the New Deal has permitted the federal government to expand its power in various ways by defining various activities as "interstate commerce." Although health delivery is often local, Hall writes, "most medical supplies, drugs and equipment are shipped in interstate commerce." More to the point, "most health insurance is sold through interstate companies." Yes, counter Urbanowicz and Smith, but "it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." Does the commerce clause cover your refusal to engage in interstate commerce? Well, yes, Hall in effect answers, because when a person declines to purchase health insurance, that affects interstate commerce, too, by driving up health insurance premiums for everyone else. --- Urbanowicz and Smith next reach for that perennial conservative favorite, the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which says the government may not take property from a citizen without just compensation. "Requiring a citizen to devote a percent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances," Urbanowicz and Smith write, "could be considered an arbitrary and capricious 'taking.' …" But according to Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches constitutional law at Yale, the case law does not support Urbanowicz and Smith. "A taking is paradigmatically singling out an individual," Amar explains. The individual mandate (despite its name) applies to everybody. Also, "takings are paradigmatically about real property. They're about things." The individual mandate requires citizens to fork over not their houses or their automobiles but their money. Finally, Amar points out, the individual mandate does not result in the state taking something without providing compensation. The health insurance that citizens must purchase is compensation. In exchange for paying a premium, the insurer pledges (at least in theory) to pay some or all doctor and hospital bills should the need arise for medical treatment. Mike, then I'm not sure what you are thinking about. I trust you will let us know eventually. Note an article at Salon lists various arguments that liberals are using. (I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that either side has ammunition and eventually this will have to go to the Supreme Court.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2224258/pagenum/all/

I'll cut and paste some select paragraphs, possibly related to what you are hinting at:

---

The legal question isn't whether it would be unusual for the government to compel people to buy health insurance. It's whether it would square with the Constitution. Mark Hall, a professor of law at Wake Forest University, argues that it would, in part based on the commerce clause, which since the New Deal has permitted the federal government to expand its power in various ways by defining various activities as "interstate commerce." Although health delivery is often local, Hall writes, "most medical supplies, drugs and equipment are shipped in interstate commerce." More to the point, "most health insurance is sold through interstate companies."

Yes, counter Urbanowicz and Smith, but "it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." Does the commerce clause cover your refusal to engage in interstate commerce?

Well, yes, Hall in effect answers, because when a person declines to purchase health insurance, that affects interstate commerce, too, by driving up health insurance premiums for everyone else.

---

Urbanowicz and Smith next reach for that perennial conservative favorite, the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which says the government may not take property from a citizen without just compensation. "Requiring a citizen to devote a percent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances," Urbanowicz and Smith write, "could be considered an arbitrary and capricious 'taking.' …"

But according to Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches constitutional law at Yale, the case law does not support Urbanowicz and Smith. "A taking is paradigmatically singling out an individual," Amar explains. The individual mandate (despite its name) applies to everybody. Also, "takings are paradigmatically about real property. They're about things." The individual mandate requires citizens to fork over not their houses or their automobiles but their money. Finally, Amar points out, the individual mandate does not result in the state taking something without providing compensation. The health insurance that citizens must purchase is compensation. In exchange for paying a premium, the insurer pledges (at least in theory) to pay some or all doctor and hospital bills should the need arise for medical treatment.

]]> By: Cigar Mike http://babalublog.com/2009/10/challenge-question-of-the-day/#comment-103057 Cigar Mike Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:49:50 +0000 http://babalublog.com/?p=28293#comment-103057 Cubabuzz, close but no cigar. The congress may use in part interstate commerce to impose regulations etc. on the majority of employers; but it will not apply in this instance. Remember, the law would be: All individuals must own health insurance. If not, then you pay a tax. Hence the hint as to how the Dems in Congress are trying to get the law to pass muster. Eddy, most folks don't necessarily get tax refunds especially if they have a lot of exemptions and have the minimum amount withheld. Cubabuzz, close but no cigar. The congress may use in part interstate commerce to impose regulations etc. on the majority of employers; but it will not apply in this instance. Remember, the law would be: All individuals must own health insurance. If not, then you pay a tax. Hence the hint as to how the Dems in Congress are trying to get the law to pass muster.

Eddy, most folks don't necessarily get tax refunds especially if they have a lot of exemptions and have the minimum amount withheld.

]]> By: Eddy Gonzalez http://babalublog.com/2009/10/challenge-question-of-the-day/#comment-103056 Eddy Gonzalez Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:38:38 +0000 http://babalublog.com/?p=28293#comment-103056 I don't know about you, but warning letters from the IRS, having to check "yes" whenever there's a form asking "do you owe any back taxes," and being denied my federal refund every year would be more than enough to make me either pay the excise tax or get the needed coverage, even if they're not going to come banging on my door. I don't know about you, but warning letters from the IRS, having to check "yes" whenever there's a form asking "do you owe any back taxes," and being denied my federal refund every year would be more than enough to make me either pay the excise tax or get the needed coverage, even if they're not going to come banging on my door.

]]> By: cubabuzz http://babalublog.com/2009/10/challenge-question-of-the-day/#comment-103055 cubabuzz Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:16:29 +0000 http://babalublog.com/?p=28293#comment-103055 "Notwithstanding the fact that I challenge anyone who knows the law to tell me what enumerated power applies here." The ability to regulate interstate commerce is what some people are claiming. At least, that seems to be the most frequently cited 'justification' I've come across. Do I win a Kewpie doll? "Notwithstanding the fact that I challenge anyone who knows the law to tell me what enumerated power applies here."

The ability to regulate interstate commerce is what some people are claiming. At least, that seems to be the most frequently cited 'justification' I've come across.

Do I win a Kewpie doll?

]]>