The argument that an individual has the right to refuse treatment and therefore has the right to refuse to buy health insurance is flawed. I, for example, don’t have to call the fire department if my house catches fire. But whether I call or not, I need to pay for the fire department.
But assuming you buy into this argument, it actually makes a strong case for a public option. Instead of mandating somebody buy private insurance, you automatically put them on the public plan, tax them to pay for it, and they can opt out. Constitutional issue solved. 🙂
I need to pay for the fire department.
What is the “need”?
Instead of mandating somebody buy private insurance, you automatically put them on the public plan, tax them to pay for it, and they can opt out. Constitutional issue solved.
Right. How about this? No mandate, no public insurance, no taxing people for it. Constitutional issue solved.
I, for example, don’t have to call the fire department if my house catches fire. But whether I call or not, I need to pay for the fire department.
And yet an “individual mandate” to buy fire insurance would be rightly struck down by the courts.
But assuming you buy into this argument, it actually makes a strong case for a public option.
It’s no “case” at all, it’s just that the borrow-and-spend* method is the only lawful means of accomplishing their totalitarian dreams. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
(*Yes, I could have said tax-and-spend, but who are we kidding? It’s always easier to defer the costs for political reasons. Inter-generational theft go go go!)
Your fire department analogies are getting old. If you don’t call your neighbor probably would, because he/she would be rightly concerned that it could lead to damage to their property. A fire department provides a necessary community benefit.
“But assuming you buy into this argument, it actually makes a strong case for a public option. Instead of mandating somebody buy private insurance, you automatically put them on the public plan, tax them to pay for it, and they can opt out. Constitutional issue solved. ”
And then you mandate they stop eating fried food, engaging in dangerous sports, weigh more than the gov’t determined amount, use only gov’t approved pharmacies, doctors, hospitals and pay whatever the gov’t wants. But you’re not a socialist. Where does it stop? Health care is not a right. The government does many things poorly. Your comparison to fire depts is flawed. There is a public interest in not letting a house burn down, there is no public interest in reqiring health insurance. We have a whole legal system designed to deal with the cost and payment of a service.
Yes, taxation would be constitutional since the power to tax is one of the Federal Governments enumerated powers.
But the whole reason for the insurance mandate is so the Democrats can evade the accusation of tax increases, even though raising taxes is ultimately what the policy boils down to.
And then you mandate they stop eating fried food, engaging in dangerous sports, weigh more than the gov’t determined amount, use only gov’t approved pharmacies, doctors, hospitals and pay whatever the gov’t wants. But you’re not a socialist. Where does it stop?
It doesn’t.
I’m always amazed that the camp which screams about evil corporations wants to open the Pandora’s Box of allowing the government to arbitrarily dictate private spending. I mean, really? You think that corporatism is bad now?
The problem with the “slippery slope” argument (mandating people stop eating fried foods, etc.) is that we’ve had “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare since the 1960s. The same arguments were made then, and none of them came true.
Nor are any of these claims true in any other country with “socialized medicine.” Canadians eat a lot of french fries – hell, they put gravy on them!
Regarding the “no social benefit” argument – it’s exactly analogous to the fire department situation. Back in the days of private fire departments, society paid for people who didn’t have fire protection with disasters – fires that spread.
Now we pay for people with no health insurance by expensive emergency room visits and people who can’t work going on public aid or disability.
We’ve done this dance before, so I have no illusions that I will persuade anybody. That doesn’t mean health care reform isn’t the right thing to do.
“Now we pay for people with no health insurance by expensive emergency room visits and people who can’t work going on public aid or disability. ”
Mandated by the government. All of the major problems we’re facing today have a government gone bad component. To think more government will fix it is faith misplaced.
The problem with the “slippery slope” argument (mandating people stop eating fried foods, etc.) is that we’ve had “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare since the 1960s. The same arguments were made then, and none of them came true.
Which is why (as we always have to remind you every time you and Jim attempt to make this flawed argument, but you seem to be slow learners) Medicare is going broke.
The problem with the “slippery slope” argument (mandating people stop eating fried foods, etc.) is that we’ve had “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare since the 1960s.
The problem with the cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument is that it ignores concurent factors, such as the zeitgeist of the population and politicians. If we could always count on people to not abuse power, a dictatorship would be an ideal form of government because it could “fix problems” more quickly.
Back in the days of private fire departments, society paid for people who didn’t have fire protection with disasters – fires that spread.
The fire department analogy only applies to infectious diseases, and oddly enough, we already have a federal program for that. Perhaps you should instead bemoan the lack of “Termite Departments” if you wish to make a proper analogy.
We’ve done this dance before, so I have no illusions that I will persuade anybody.
So why did you bring it up? Just like to hear yourself type? It’s not our fault your arguments haven’t improved.
Canadians eat a lot of french fries – hell, they put gravy on them!
Another great bumper sticker. “Canadian-style health care, you’ll be able to put gravy on your french fries!”. I guess they’ve got the best situation possible; gravy on their french fries at home, great health care just across the border.
The problem with the “slippery slope” argument (mandating people stop eating fried foods, etc.) is that we’ve had “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare since the 1960s.
And ever since then your Democrats have been trying to push single-payer health care.
No slippery slope? Only because there are people willing to push back, despite being called “teabaggers” and worse.
The article linked says that the individual mandate “may violate their constitutional right to individual liberty.”
Show me in the Constitution the citation of the right to individual liberty.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“Show me in the Constitution the citation of the right to individual liberty.”
I’ve got ten of them for you. They’re called the Bill of Rights.
God forbid Chris Gerrib would ever defend the individual’s right not to be forced to do something.
Not much for that individual libery stuff are you, MfK?
Actually, when it comes to statism, and State-fellators like Chris and Jim, the “slippery slope” always seems to be a reality. Remember, when put to the question, neither Jim nor Chris would or could tell us when they would say, “Whoa, okay, stop! The State is powerful enough now! We can stop tightening the screws, fellas.” Which means that we are perfectly reasonable to assume that whatever increase in Satte power and corresponding decrease in individual liberty they and their hired guns in Washington DC can bring about, they will bring about.
I’m old enough to remember the debate about Medicare. I remember the statists back then saying, “Sure, we want Medicare–but that’s it! Once we get Medicare, we’ll be happy! It’s just right-wing paranoia to assume we’re one day going to ask for socialized medicine. We’re never going to get anywhere near that in America!” Then they put the Red Diaper Baby and his thugocracy in power to do just that.
Statists always start with power grab A, denying they want A plus B, but once they get A they then begin mobilizing to get A plus B, while looking forward to the day when they can get A plus B plus C. Coercion is like heroin to these people.
Bilwick,
You aren’t being fair to Jim. Just the other day on the (latest) healthcare thread, he freely admitted that any tactical concessions in the current legislation were really irrelevant because the internal logic of the thing would inevitably militate in favor of a single-payer plan over time. I cannot say the same about Chris, but in the case of Jim, he is usually quite honest and forthright about where he wants the process to take us all…
Not that this makes him right, or even particularly worth listening to, but it is grossly unfair to call him deceptive…
OK, I missed that, Scott. Actually, ‘m not sure I actually called Jim “deceptive.” I thought he was being pretty forthright (and think I wrote as much at the time), when I posed the question, “Is there any point that you can conceive of where you would draw the line at expanding State power? his answer essentially, “No.” Chris gave me some weasel response.
Chris is closer to the standard weasel model. I don’t much care for Jim’s rather empty-headed reasoning, but to be fair to him, he is fairly consistent and seems consistent and straightforward in his approach to these discussions.
“Canadians eat a lot of french fries – hell, they put gravy on them! ”
That’s because Canadians know they can get quality health care in a timely manner… across the border, in America.
I thought the responses to my constitutional question would be better.
Many conservatives rant about the Supreme Court having found a right to privacy in the Constitution, and how awful a thing that was. One of the biggest ranters also found himself on the wrong end of invasion of privacy a few years ago (medical records), and ranted about that as well.
Bill Maron’s citation of the Ninth Amendment was the best, as far as it went. And for the record, I am probably a bigger proponent of individual liberty than most people are comfortable with…
I responded with the ninth. Bill said all ten. We’re both right.
I thought the responses to my constitutional question would be better.
I don’t see why. The question has been asked before (often implicitly) and the responses were adequate. I suppose a more thorough answer would note the elaborate balance of powers and numerous other attempts to restrict the power of government at both the federal and state level. Why do that?
Or the extensive documentation of intent by a number of the people supporting or involved in the creation of the Constitution. The latter obviously isn’t a part of the Constitution, but it figures prominently in a number of decisions of Supreme Court rulings which do decide on whether law and government action comply with the Constitution.
@ Ken. Yep, sorry about that.
The problem with the “slippery slope” argument (mandating people stop eating fried foods, etc.) is that we’ve had “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare since the 1960s. The same arguments were made then, and none of them came true.
Nor are any of these claims true in any other country with “socialized medicine.”
These claims are true in at least one country with socialized medicine. Exhibit A:
Note that line about costs to the taxpayer. If Obamacare passes here in the US, you can expect to see many, many, many clever schemes for “saving tax dollars” emanate from Washington. (Of course, the deficit will still go up, and so will taxes…)
Trust me, federal bodies are eminently well practiced in legislating or ruling individual mandates that pass administrative, statutory and constitutional muster, principally through their constitutionally delineated power “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excise,” provided that such levies are “uniform through the United States.”
I guess we’ll have to trust you, Presley, since you neither offered an argument nor provided examples. A more reasonable course of action, though, would be to dismiss you.
The argument that an individual has the right to refuse treatment and therefore has the right to refuse to buy health insurance is flawed. I, for example, don’t have to call the fire department if my house catches fire. But whether I call or not, I need to pay for the fire department.
But assuming you buy into this argument, it actually makes a strong case for a public option. Instead of mandating somebody buy private insurance, you automatically put them on the public plan, tax them to pay for it, and they can opt out. Constitutional issue solved. 🙂
I need to pay for the fire department.
What is the “need”?
Instead of mandating somebody buy private insurance, you automatically put them on the public plan, tax them to pay for it, and they can opt out. Constitutional issue solved.
Right. How about this? No mandate, no public insurance, no taxing people for it. Constitutional issue solved.
And yet an “individual mandate” to buy fire insurance would be rightly struck down by the courts.
It’s no “case” at all, it’s just that the borrow-and-spend* method is the only lawful means of accomplishing their totalitarian dreams. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
(*Yes, I could have said tax-and-spend, but who are we kidding? It’s always easier to defer the costs for political reasons. Inter-generational theft go go go!)
Your fire department analogies are getting old. If you don’t call your neighbor probably would, because he/she would be rightly concerned that it could lead to damage to their property. A fire department provides a necessary community benefit.
“But assuming you buy into this argument, it actually makes a strong case for a public option. Instead of mandating somebody buy private insurance, you automatically put them on the public plan, tax them to pay for it, and they can opt out. Constitutional issue solved. ”
And then you mandate they stop eating fried food, engaging in dangerous sports, weigh more than the gov’t determined amount, use only gov’t approved pharmacies, doctors, hospitals and pay whatever the gov’t wants. But you’re not a socialist. Where does it stop? Health care is not a right. The government does many things poorly. Your comparison to fire depts is flawed. There is a public interest in not letting a house burn down, there is no public interest in reqiring health insurance. We have a whole legal system designed to deal with the cost and payment of a service.
Yes, taxation would be constitutional since the power to tax is one of the Federal Governments enumerated powers.
But the whole reason for the insurance mandate is so the Democrats can evade the accusation of tax increases, even though raising taxes is ultimately what the policy boils down to.
It doesn’t.
I’m always amazed that the camp which screams about evil corporations wants to open the Pandora’s Box of allowing the government to arbitrarily dictate private spending. I mean, really? You think that corporatism is bad now?
The problem with the “slippery slope” argument (mandating people stop eating fried foods, etc.) is that we’ve had “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare since the 1960s. The same arguments were made then, and none of them came true.
Nor are any of these claims true in any other country with “socialized medicine.” Canadians eat a lot of french fries – hell, they put gravy on them!
Regarding the “no social benefit” argument – it’s exactly analogous to the fire department situation. Back in the days of private fire departments, society paid for people who didn’t have fire protection with disasters – fires that spread.
Now we pay for people with no health insurance by expensive emergency room visits and people who can’t work going on public aid or disability.
We’ve done this dance before, so I have no illusions that I will persuade anybody. That doesn’t mean health care reform isn’t the right thing to do.
“Now we pay for people with no health insurance by expensive emergency room visits and people who can’t work going on public aid or disability. ”
Mandated by the government. All of the major problems we’re facing today have a government gone bad component. To think more government will fix it is faith misplaced.
The problem with the “slippery slope” argument (mandating people stop eating fried foods, etc.) is that we’ve had “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare since the 1960s. The same arguments were made then, and none of them came true.
Which is why (as we always have to remind you every time you and Jim attempt to make this flawed argument, but you seem to be slow learners) Medicare is going broke.
The problem with the cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument is that it ignores concurent factors, such as the zeitgeist of the population and politicians. If we could always count on people to not abuse power, a dictatorship would be an ideal form of government because it could “fix problems” more quickly.
The fire department analogy only applies to infectious diseases, and oddly enough, we already have a federal program for that. Perhaps you should instead bemoan the lack of “Termite Departments” if you wish to make a proper analogy.
So why did you bring it up? Just like to hear yourself type? It’s not our fault your arguments haven’t improved.
Another great bumper sticker. “Canadian-style health care, you’ll be able to put gravy on your french fries!”. I guess they’ve got the best situation possible; gravy on their french fries at home, great health care just across the border.
And ever since then your Democrats have been trying to push single-payer health care.
No slippery slope? Only because there are people willing to push back, despite being called “teabaggers” and worse.
The article linked says that the individual mandate “may violate their constitutional right to individual liberty.”
Show me in the Constitution the citation of the right to individual liberty.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“Show me in the Constitution the citation of the right to individual liberty.”
I’ve got ten of them for you. They’re called the Bill of Rights.
God forbid Chris Gerrib would ever defend the individual’s right not to be forced to do something.
Not much for that individual libery stuff are you, MfK?
Actually, when it comes to statism, and State-fellators like Chris and Jim, the “slippery slope” always seems to be a reality. Remember, when put to the question, neither Jim nor Chris would or could tell us when they would say, “Whoa, okay, stop! The State is powerful enough now! We can stop tightening the screws, fellas.” Which means that we are perfectly reasonable to assume that whatever increase in Satte power and corresponding decrease in individual liberty they and their hired guns in Washington DC can bring about, they will bring about.
I’m old enough to remember the debate about Medicare. I remember the statists back then saying, “Sure, we want Medicare–but that’s it! Once we get Medicare, we’ll be happy! It’s just right-wing paranoia to assume we’re one day going to ask for socialized medicine. We’re never going to get anywhere near that in America!” Then they put the Red Diaper Baby and his thugocracy in power to do just that.
Statists always start with power grab A, denying they want A plus B, but once they get A they then begin mobilizing to get A plus B, while looking forward to the day when they can get A plus B plus C. Coercion is like heroin to these people.
Bilwick,
You aren’t being fair to Jim. Just the other day on the (latest) healthcare thread, he freely admitted that any tactical concessions in the current legislation were really irrelevant because the internal logic of the thing would inevitably militate in favor of a single-payer plan over time. I cannot say the same about Chris, but in the case of Jim, he is usually quite honest and forthright about where he wants the process to take us all…
Not that this makes him right, or even particularly worth listening to, but it is grossly unfair to call him deceptive…
OK, I missed that, Scott. Actually, ‘m not sure I actually called Jim “deceptive.” I thought he was being pretty forthright (and think I wrote as much at the time), when I posed the question, “Is there any point that you can conceive of where you would draw the line at expanding State power? his answer essentially, “No.” Chris gave me some weasel response.
Chris is closer to the standard weasel model. I don’t much care for Jim’s rather empty-headed reasoning, but to be fair to him, he is fairly consistent and seems consistent and straightforward in his approach to these discussions.
“Canadians eat a lot of french fries – hell, they put gravy on them! ”
That’s because Canadians know they can get quality health care in a timely manner… across the border, in America.
I thought the responses to my constitutional question would be better.
Many conservatives rant about the Supreme Court having found a right to privacy in the Constitution, and how awful a thing that was. One of the biggest ranters also found himself on the wrong end of invasion of privacy a few years ago (medical records), and ranted about that as well.
Bill Maron’s citation of the Ninth Amendment was the best, as far as it went. And for the record, I am probably a bigger proponent of individual liberty than most people are comfortable with…
I responded with the ninth. Bill said all ten. We’re both right.
I thought the responses to my constitutional question would be better.
I don’t see why. The question has been asked before (often implicitly) and the responses were adequate. I suppose a more thorough answer would note the elaborate balance of powers and numerous other attempts to restrict the power of government at both the federal and state level. Why do that?
Or the extensive documentation of intent by a number of the people supporting or involved in the creation of the Constitution. The latter obviously isn’t a part of the Constitution, but it figures prominently in a number of decisions of Supreme Court rulings which do decide on whether law and government action comply with the Constitution.
@ Ken. Yep, sorry about that.
These claims are true in at least one country with socialized medicine. Exhibit A:
http://www.salt.gov.uk/campaign_support.html
Exhibit B:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7791820.stm
Note that line about costs to the taxpayer. If Obamacare passes here in the US, you can expect to see many, many, many clever schemes for “saving tax dollars” emanate from Washington. (Of course, the deficit will still go up, and so will taxes…)
Trust me, federal bodies are eminently well practiced in legislating or ruling individual mandates that pass administrative, statutory and constitutional muster, principally through their constitutionally delineated power “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excise,” provided that such levies are “uniform through the United States.”
I guess we’ll have to trust you, Presley, since you neither offered an argument nor provided examples. A more reasonable course of action, though, would be to dismiss you.