Federal judge says hc provision 'UNCONSITUTIONAL"

[calfoxwc]

Well, imho, it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

Heck says it is.

 

I say, the Supreme Court will knock it down. You can NOT FORCE Americans into buying into

 

a service, because they want the $$$$$$$.

 

It's time to stop the progressive nanny fascist state from becoming overwhelming,

 

and rendering our Constitution and GOD GIVEN FREEDOM AND RIGHTS... null and void.

 

It won't happen. This is our FREE AMERICA. And we WILL NOT GIVE IT UP.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u...t-by-judge.html

[Westside Steve]

Well, it may not stand with the SC.

 

It's ironically one of the few things I liked about Obamacare.

 

And there are plenty of freedoms crossed off the list due to "public safety" concerns.

Some just because somebody wants to be a pain in someone elses ass.

 

But thought this is often the example auto laws don't apply IMO. They're A state laws and B if you don't drive you don't need to worry.

 

I say the deadbeats are those who can easily afford a policy but blow it off and let the taxpayers pick up the tab when they get hurt.

WSS

[Mr. T]

I agree Steve, just today at the newstand some guy was griping because he thought they were going to take away his FREE HC. I had to explain that it was NOT FREE and that he would be Mandated to BUY it.

 

[Kosar_For_President]

I agree Steve, just today at the newstand some guy was griping because he thought they were going to take away his FREE HC. I had to explain that it was NOT FREE and that he would be Mandated to BUY it.

 

 

There are news stands in Wilmington?

[Mr. T]

There are news stands in Wilmington?

 

 

yes, nothing like what you would see in a big city but they have them at the coffee shop.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, the already government forces you to pay for your retirement savings. In fact, a popular Republican proposal, which you supported, would mandate that individuals buy retirement savings vehicles to fund their own private retirement fund.

 

Why weren't you attacking those proposals as fascist unconstitutional Republican infringements on your liberty? (You don't have to answer that.)

 

The theory is similar - if we don't mandate that people buy those investments, not everyone will buy them. And when it comes time to retire and they don't have money, they'll have to be supported by people who did save responsibly.

 

Why were you for a government mandate to buy a private good/service from investment companies, but you're wide-eyed and cleaning your gun because of a government mandate to buy a private good/service from health care companies?

[calfoxwc]

Cal, the already government forces you to pay for your retirement savings. In fact, a popular Republican proposal, which you supported, would mandate that individuals buy retirement savings vehicles to fund their own private retirement fund.

**************************************************

No, I supported the right of individuals to take their current ss earnings, and privatize them. Get it right.

I don't believe in mandates. I believe in freedom. We make our own choices, which is why I strongly oppose the draft,

unless it's a national emergency during all out war. Right now, the gov does not force you to pay ss. You can be a teacher,..

they have their own retirement.

Social Security, btw, was a program put in place, by New Deal giant gov FDR. He was a DEMOCRAT, Heck. So there ya go.

***************************************************

Why weren't you attacking those proposals as fascist unconstitutional Republican infringements on your liberty? (You don't have to answer that.)

***************************************************

Your allegation that I support mandates is bogus. There, I answered it.

***************************************************

The theory is similar - if we don't mandate that people buy those investments, not everyone will buy them. And when it comes time to retire and they don't have money, they'll have to be supported by people who did save responsibly.

***************************************************

I don't believe people objected to the ss program. At the time, it was a service to help provide an income for the retired folks.

It should never have been REQUIRED. People should not have been forced to participate.

Personally, I would LOVE to have NOT had to pay social security. Imagine the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I could have had, by

using that money for input into my various 401K's ! The one company contributed 50 cents on the dollar Do you get that

from ss?

****************************************************

Why were you for a government mandate to buy a private good/service from investment companies, but you're wide-eyed and cleaning your gun because of a government mandate to buy a private good/service from health care companies? ****************************************************

 

I am not for gov mandates, period. Free choice. ss should have been an optional program. We have always had other retirement funds going, and we have always had outstanding health insurance. Screw gov mandates. SIMPLY PROVIDE INDIVIDUALS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY SUBSIDIZED GOV HC INURANCE PROGRAMS.

 

WE ALREADY PROVIDE WELFARE FOLKS WITH FINE HC. I NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT. BUT THERE IS NO MANDATE

 

TO BE FORCED TO BE ON WELFARE.

 

* really, that was all you had ? bah.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, what?

 

You're just wrong. The government forces you to pay SS taxes. Trust me, all workers pay into Social Security. Where did you get the idea that teachers don't have to pay Social Security taxes because "they have their own retirement plan"? That's simply not true. Trust me. Everyone is mandated to pay Social Security.

 

Secondly, Social Security isn't a retirement program; it's a social insurance program. It's not designed to get you stock market returns. You're supposed to do that on your own to supplement SS, which is designed to create a minimum level of income for seniors. Because when you don't have that, many people don't save on their own, and then they have to be supported by welfare programs.

 

What you're saying is that you're for none of this. You want no government savings plan. You'd like all that money to yourself and decide what you'd like to do with it. Which is fine, I suppose. But we've tried that in our history and it didn't work very well. It made for a lot of poor people, particularly the elderly, who came to a point in their lives where they couldn't work and they had no money - or not nearly enough - saved to provide for themselves. It also made a lot of families poor.

 

You're also completely off on the history of Social Security. It was opposed by many. And then you say "At the time, it was a service to help provide an income for the retired folks." Well, what do you think it is now?

 

It also doesn't work as an optional program. Making it optional makes it useless.

 

Other than everything, your post was great.

 

How about a government mandate that says you have to let a black person sit at your lunch counter or face fine/criminal penalty?

 

How about the government mandate to stop at a stop sign?

 

Yes, we limit personal freedoms and liberties when it makes sense to do so. We live in a country, not a commune. This isn't Jeremiah Johnson anymore. There are 300 million of us. We're going to need some laws.

[Westside Steve]

Yes, we limit personal freedoms and liberties when it makes sense to do so.

 

 

Or whe it makes no sense at all.

But I doubt this ruling will stand.

 

But remember Heck, car ins isn't mandated really.

One can opt out by self insuring or a bond.

Msybe we should be allowed to self invest and opt out of SS.

 

I'd guess if you're as rich as Croesus you won't have to buy a policy.

We'll see.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Or whe it makes no sense at all.

But I doubt this ruling will stand.

 

But remember Heck, car ins isn't mandated really.

One can opt out by self insuring or a bond.

Msybe we should be allowed to self invest and opt out of SS.

 

I'd guess if you're as rich as Croesus you won't have to buy a policy.

We'll see.

WSS

 

If you make SS optional, or opt-out, then it doesn't work. To say "we should be able to opt-out of Social Security" is the same thing as saying "We shouldn't have Social Security."

 

Which is fine, if that's what you think. Just know that's what you're saying. There are things we can imagine in our heads, and then there's how they actually work in the real world.

 

And I don't get what your point is about car insurance. You have to have some form of car insurance or you face a penalty. It's just mandated by the state, so they vary by state. It's not the federal government.

 

Romney's health care plan has a mandate in it - you buy insurance or you face a penalty. He says his plan is fine because the state is mandating it. Whereas the Obama plan is "an unconstitutional power grab by Washington." So if Romney had his way, and every state in the nation had a plan like he brought to Massachusetts (where 98% of adults and 100% of children are now covered), which is essentially the same as Obamacare, it'd be a great thing. But if you get the same thing from the federal government, it's the worst thing ever invented and we're all on a slippery slope to tyranny.

 

If this makes sense to you, or you share these opinions, God bless ya.

[calfoxwc]

Heck,

 

You are wrong, wrong, really wrong. Since 1986, teachers started to pay into MEDICARE.

 

They do NOT PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. Find a teacher you know. Ask them.

 

We're in Ohio, ... I'm certain that makes no difference. In fact, Heck, I mentioned it to my wonderful cute Wife,

 

and she pulled up her paycheck deductions online. There are no deductions for social security.

 

It's nice and all that you are good at disagreeing with people to undercut their points.

 

But, you are wrong. I never said that gov has no role at all. But yes, regular jobs have a required fed program,

 

and I never complained about it. Quibble all you want about what the definition of "is" is, but it is a retirement progrsm.

 

I never said it was an investment program, where you get returns. I simply say, that ss is in trouble bigtime, and if I

 

had put that money into a 401K instead of ss, it would have been HUGE.

 

If it doesn't work as a an optional program, then close ss. Apparently, it doesn't WORK as a REQUIREMENT, either.

 

It's going broke, Heck. for all sorts of reasons. I will get it - I officially retire in 5 years.

 

I am very, very against the boondoggle gov hc plan. It doesn't work, and it is only a bill that was passed.

 

But prominent Dems admit, that millions of Americans will LOSE THEIR HC INSURANCE. This work for you?

 

Not me. You can choose not to drive if you don't want to get driver insurance. But it protects society - from

 

being victimized by another driver without insurance.

 

But there is no "protecting" society with this gov hc takeover. It's simply SUPPOSED to be a low cost gov option

 

to enable some, who can't afford regular med insurance, etc, to have it. That's all. It wasn't supposed to take over

 

every single American eventually.

 

If a program won't work without violating our Constitutional rights, the program cannot be allowed.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Social Security works just fine. It simply has a funding issue because of a demographic problem. There's nothing difficult about running the Social Security program and it's problems are not difficult to fix. It only needs to be tweaked. Instead of doing that, you'd like to scrap the entire program and go back to the days when nobody required employees to contribute a certain amount of money to support themselves during the years they're not working and it's everyone for themselves. Well, how did that work?

 

And after you institute your system, and people see how bad the results are, how long do you think it would before we'd be back to working on a system of mandatory retirement savings? And once again, you'd have two options - mandating that people pay into a system of government insurance, or mandating that people pay into a system of private retirement.

 

As for finding a teacher, my wife is also a teacher, so I don't have to look very far. And she has paid into Social Security. But you seem to be right on this one. Some states mandate that teachers contribute to a separate system. I was unaware of this. It's only 14, one being Ohio, but I stand corrected.

 

It still doesn't make your point, though. It's not an opt-out option if the only way you can opt-out is by moving to a state like Ohio and becoming a teacher. And even if I take your point on Social Security, then just use Medicare. That's a government mandate. So is Medicaid.

 

In those cases, the government is making you purchase a government medical program that many people may not ever even use.

 

In the case of Social Security, the government is making you purchase a government retirement insurance plan that you may not even live to take advantage of. You just said that you'll start collecting it in five years.

 

In the case of heath care, the government is making you purchase private medical insurance coverage that you certainly will use, and often.

 

Why is the last one the difference between liberty and tyranny, but the other three are okay with you, and we've lived with them all for years and yet somehow this country hasn't turned into Cuba?

 

Isn't that just a slippery slope argument that really holds no water?

[calfoxwc]

Thank you on the point of ss...

 

I never minded in the past that I paid into ss. A federal program to prevent rampant poverty of the elderly doesn't seem

 

so all-fired imposing. Trouble is, it's a federally run program, and they ran it into the dirt, the skids are to

 

be seen going into a brick wall in about 30 years or so, I think it was.

 

But, mandated or not, it never violated my life, nor my rights, in terms of my freedom to live my life and make my

 

own choices. Your hc mandate is not a service, it's a purchase of a gov hc program that most people will not buy,

 

until they have their own hc insurance lost BECAUSE OF THIS PROGRAM. It has been admitted that millions will

 

LOSE THEIR FREAKIN MED HC INSURANCE. This upsets the lives of many millions of Americans. But we do NOT WANT

 

a gov run hc program. A fed program that supplies an income to the retired folks? No problem.

 

A gov program that tells you whether or not you can have the medical procedure you want, and how you want it?

 

Where you have to go to get that assistance? What dr you can go to? Whether or not it's "cost-effective" to

 

have a knee replacement when you are over 70 ? Social security never changed the lives of folks, outside of a

 

relatively small? deduction. A federally mandated and run hc system is a violation of the freedom of choice of

 

peoples' health care. Do you not see the difference, Heck? Seriously - nobody lost their retirement funds because

 

the gov insisted they had to "buy" GOV RETIREMENT, so companies quit offering their own retirement programs. Never happened.

 

With with the Fed demand that you buy med insurance, is against the Constitution. I should have a choice where

 

to buy med insurance. In the future, this gigantic boondoggle of a monopoly on hc is completely off-base.

 

IOW's, a simple retirement income is not personally threatening to peoples' lives.

 

Giving up your entire life, and your children's lives to health care to be run by the fed is not just personally threatening, but a violation of the gov's power in terms of the commerce clause, and our guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

The difference is overwhelming. A simple retirement income vs an extremely complicated government intrusion into

every bit of your personal health/life/medical decisions?

 

Hell, no. See?

[Westside Steve]

If you make SS optional, or opt-out, then it doesn't work. To say "we should be able to opt-out of Social Security" is the same thing as saying "We shouldn't have Social Security."

 

Kinda but we're already considering "opting" some of the higher earners out anyway.

And since it's mporphed beyond wat it was intended for maybe it's time for an r and r.

 

Which is fine, if that's what you think. Just know that's what you're saying. There are things we can imagine in our heads, and then there's how they actually work in the real world.

 

Yeah? Seems like you get pissed off if I hint that your average Joe might not be all that responsible and will take the path of least resistance whenever it's possible.

Now hard working honest Americans are too stupid and lazy to handle their dough?

 

But seriously I'm not a monetary anarchist, but I'd rather all my SS money was in some other regulated kind of account.

You wouldn't?

 

And I don't get what your point is about car insurance. You have to have some form of car insurance or you face a penalty.

 

Unless you don't drive.

Which makes it a nbad comparison.

 

It's just mandated by the state, so they vary by state. It's not the federal government.

 

Yes dear we know.

You can opt out with a financial bond.

At least in some if not all states.

It's a rare person that has the dough but you aren't forced to buy a policy.

Maybe that's splitting hairs but...

 

Romney's health care plan has a mandate in it - you buy insurance or you face a penalty. He says his plan is fine because the state is mandating it. Whereas the Obama plan is "an unconstitutional power grab by Washington." So if Romney had his way, and every state in the nation had a plan like he brought to Massachusetts (where 98% of adults and 100% of children are now covered), which is essentially the same as Obamacare, it'd be a great thing. But if you get the same thing from the federal government, it's the worst thing ever invented and we're all on a slippery slope to tyranny.

 

If this makes sense to you, or you share these opinions, God bless ya.

 

Yeah politicians will twist shit huh?

But I still like the mandate though we must remember, Mass has one of the highest costs of any state.

 

BTW Obama campaigned against that mandate so while we're getting the pitchforks and torches for Mitt.....

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Means testing isn't the same as opting out. Perhaps that's why you put it in quotes, but it's not. It's more like forcing out. You'd only be opting out if you didn't have to pay in. The rich will still have to pay in. They just won't get anything, or will get a reduced amount.

 

I'm a bit uncomfortable with means testing, but it's probably of the least bad options for straightening out Social Security's finances. Got to start somewhere. Raising the retirement age would be another least bad option. Tweaking the way benefits are calculated is another. But you do a few of those things together and Social Security's finances are fine.

 

As for the bit about irresponsibility, I don't think it's always about that, or even usually. Middle class people are really strained. They're pressed to keep up. If they had more money available in their paychecks for things like medical bills and college tuition and housing payments they'd probably use it rather than save it. I'm not sure that makes them irresponsible. Lots of people simply don't have the type of money they need to live the life they want, or used to have. It's probably the most pressing domestic economic problem we have - the 30 years of stagnant wages for a large swath of America, while the cost of living goes up and up. And the growing disparity between those people - who used to be able to achieve the basics of education and health care on a middle class salary - and the top 3%-5% of Americans for whom incomes have skyrocketed over this same period, who feel none or very little of these stresses.

 

But this is the whole point about SS that gets lost - we don't have economically distressed elderly people in this country because of it. We used to have lots of them, but now we don't. Additionally, it creates a base level of income for all of those families that end up taking care of their elderly parents and grandparents. It defrays those costs, which are huge.

 

So let's not lose sight of why the program exists, and what it was like without it.

 

And again, if you're arguing for a system of mandatory private savings - your regulated account example - you're arguing for a mandate.

 

But to answer your question, if I were designing a system from scratch I would probably come up with something different that would look more like a 529 college saving plan, but with mandatory withholdings, that would be coupled with a minimum government guarantee of income once you'd worked a certain amount of time or made a certain amount of income. But that's just fantasy. It's never going to happen because the costs of transferring to a program like that would be enormous. Which is why I'm saying you've got to live in the world we inhabit. If you want to transfer to a system of private accounts, you've got to come up with billions and billions of dollars to plug the whole you'll create when shifting to that type of system. So if you're worried about SS' finances now, doing that makes them exponentially worse.

 

It's a common problem for the right these days - they live in dreamland. They screech about the deficit, and support policies that make the deficit much, much worse. They scream about SS going bankrupt, and support policies to make it even less solvent. Global warming isn't happening. We have the best health care in the world. We won in Iraq because of the surge. And those are the mainstream Republican. We haven't even gotten to what the cranks believe.

 

 

 

And as a side note, when we were running a surplus and the government had some cash, Bush's first Treasury Secretary wanted to use that money to do exactly that - cover the transition costs to switch us over to a partially privatized system. And what did Bush do with the money?

 

He cut taxes, with most of the money going to the already wealthy.

 

At some point you guys are going to realize that the Republican Party, as it exists now, exists to cut taxes for wealthy people. That's their primary goal.

 

It's not the deficit. It's not the debt. It's not cutting spending. It's not gay marriage or abortion. It's primary goal is to cut taxes for wealthy people - high end tax cuts, estate tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts, etc.

[calfoxwc]

Oh, bs. Just because wealthy people save more on the SAME tax cut, why is that wrong?

 

That is really just a marxist class warfare item, Heck. You shouldn't go there. 5 percent of 200,000

 

is a lot more than 5 percent of 50,000. Big deal. It's fair. The wealthy are AMERICAN CITIZENS, too.

 

And as such, they are entitled to fair treatment like any other citizen who isn't wealthy.

 

The hatred of the wealthy is simply greed and corrupt thinking. I'm fine that they pay a little more, but I'd

 

rather have a flat tax. Everybody pays the same rate. That is what we call fair.

 

You are right, Heck, about the middle class. Why then, do you think it's a good thing, that millions of those

 

middle class workers will see their company do away with those workers' med insurance programs... so that the

 

middle class workers will be FORCED to BUY their OWN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE ?

 

Any program that demands that everybody take part to make it work, is not a good program in the long run.

 

We are all different. We all have different ideas and needs for medical insurance. Why the hell make millions of middle class

 

workers LOSE their current terrific med ins, so that a gov hc system can inevitably take it's place?

 

Where is the freakin beef? Where is the benefit to the middle class, that loses their outstanding hc, only to have to

 

BUY the Gov hc, only to find out the gov hc is rife with tons gov red tape and shortages of funds?

 

Dems don't think anything through. It's just an immediate pat themselves on the back, and glean more VOTES,

 

in an emotional reaction to any problem. But what happens, is that the "solution" CAUSES PROBLEMS.

 

It's a never ending cycle. It's time to stop it now.

 

So, Heck, what do you think of my explanation? The simple gov social security program, non threatening, for all seniors,

 

and the overwhelmingly invasive disruption of what works GREAT for a lot of folks, for a gov program that tells entire families

 

who their doctor will be, what procedures they are ALLOWED to have, what prescriptions they are allowed to have,

 

and when they can have them, in an anti-Constitution burst of destroying American citizens' privacy.

 

SS was just a program. The hc bill was a gigantic disruption of what works great for millions of Americans, in the

 

alleged mindset, to help those who don't have hc insurance.

 

That makes NO FREAKING SENSE to most Americans.

 

Therefore, the Reps won handily, though not only per this one issue.

[heckofajobbrownie]

This would be further evidence of this week's U-Maryland study, the latest to come to the same conclusion - people who get their news from Fox are the most misinformed people in the land.

 

You just described a health care plan that has nothing to do with the one that was actually passed. You just made up what you think it is. You even seem to think there's a government insurance option available for purchase, even though that proposal lost out over a year ago. You're even more lost than Sarah Palin. Much more. Quite a feat.

 

It's a mandate to go out and buy private insurance, man. With subsidies for lower income Americans. That's basically the plan. It's bears zero resemblance to what you just described.

 

As for taxes, this idea that when you cut taxes everyone has to get the same percentage cut (or did) and skewing the tax cuts to the wealthy is just a matter of simple math - rich people make more so the same percentage means more money - is so bizarre and misinformed that only you could come up with such an explanation. I've never heard anyone even try such an explanation.

 

Why not give the middle class 5% and the upper tier 1%? Why not give the middle class 3% and the upper tier nothing? You can do whatever you want. Clearly.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Inevitably, it is a gov program that elimanates private insurance. That is what Obamao intends to do.

 

You should know that, Heck. It isn't just "helping". It's completely changing to eventual gov control,

 

regardless of the several years it might take...

 

This hc bill is simply the gov intrusion, and complete control, to overwhelm private insurance carriers,

 

and eventually put them out of business. Which means, being eventually forced to buy gov hc.

 

It's what Obamao SAID.

 

BTW, why did Obamao give out way over a hundred waivers to companies who don't have to

 

deal with the hc plan, if it's so "wonderful" ???

[Westside Steve]

Why not give the middle class 5% and the upper tier 1%? Why not give the middle class 3% and the upper tier nothing? You can do whatever you want. Clearly.

 

OTOH (though we know thqt statement was just snark) why not raise it to 45% for "the rich"?

Or 50 or 60?

We'll all be happy and secure!!

WSS

[We need Tom Tupa]

OOlala, where to start?

What you're saying is that you're for none of this. You want no government savings plan. You'd like all that money to yourself and decide what you'd like to do with it. Which is fine, I suppose. But we've tried that in our history and it didn't work very well. It made for a lot of poor people, particularly the elderly, who came to a point in their lives where they couldn't work and they had no money - or not nearly enough - saved to provide for themselves. It also made a lot of families poor.

But this is the whole point about SS that gets lost - we don't have economically distressed elderly people in this country because of it. We used to have lots of them, but now we don't.

 

Are you really trying to argue that the difference between retiring now and retiring before SS is that you receive a check from the government each month? Hmm... I'm going to say that falls WAY down the list. Right at the top? The years leading up to the creation of SS were the GREAT DEPRESSION. People were dirt poor - could barely afford to survive, let alone save for retirement. For reasons having nothing to do with SS (and contrary to what some may have heard during the 08 election), we havent seen anything even mildly resembling the Great Depression since it ended 70 years ago. Second? The decades leading up to the creation of SS witnessed a recession every few years. They were an almost constant threat. Trying to save through a serious recession is very difficult, with near-constant recessions making retirement saving impossible for many people. The frequency and magnitude of recessions has plummeted post-WWII, again for reasons having nothing to do with SS. In fact, when Bush was trying to change SS we had just finished only the 2nd recession in 20 years, and one of those was purposefully caused by the Fed. Third (probably first), US GDP has increased by over 19,000% since SS was created. If you're looking for a reason that we have fewer poor people, you should probably look first at how much wealth we have rather than at what government programs that wealth has bought us.

 

t's probably the most pressing domestic economic problem we have - the 30 years of stagnant wages for a large swath of America, while the cost of living goes up and up.

 

This is inaccurate. The only way to describe wages as stagnant is to correct them for a selected cost of living adjustment. Cost of living hasnt outpaced wages, it has, by the numbers most favorable to your point of view, kept up with them.

 

[calfoxwc]

Thank you for the post, Tupa, even though I rarely read your stuff.

 

In fact, I didn't read this last one either...

 

But it was a good post, I guess. I may read it next week when I can't find

 

anything better to do.