Should Gov't have Limits?

[Sallow]

Except ... not.

If you don't have medical insurance and you get critically sick and go in for care, MY premiums go up. I end up paying for YOUR care.

That's not cool.

Second reply to your point.

You are approaching this from the standpoint that the government should somehow be involved in making sure everybody's health care needs are taken care of.
Either by forcing doctors to treat people or forcing people to have medical insurance.

I approach it from the standpoint that people are individually responsible. If they can't afford catastrophic medical care and choose to not purchase insurance, that's their problem if they get sick, not mine. And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Government to demand the citizens buy into anything...other than what i laid out earlier regarding Article 1, Section 8 where government is responsible for roads and may demand people be licensed and insured as to ensure citizens use the roads safely as the government is responsible for those roads.

Healthcare demands by the Government are way out of line.

Sure there is.

Falls under the commerce clause.

Try driving without insurance.

Or flying a plane without a license.

 

[DontBeStupid]

And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

Then we simply have varying degrees of what our country should be. But, that doesn't change the facts of what our Government can and cannot do. You might not want everyone to have coverage, but the Government is within its power to assure that.

And there we have the essence of the thread. According to you, the gov't has no limit at all; it can force you to buy something whether you want it or not, and if you don't they can penalize you. Today's it's an extra tax on your return, tomorrow maybe you go to jail.

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it. That's not how it works. No where in the Constitution is it written that the Government can't create an interstate highway system. Therefore, I think they are within their Power to do so. Make sense?

 

[The T]

Second reply to your point.

You are approaching this from the standpoint that the government should somehow be involved in making sure everybody's health care needs are taken care of.
Either by forcing doctors to treat people or forcing people to have medical insurance.

I approach it from the standpoint that people are individually responsible. If they can't afford catastrophic medical care and choose to not purchase insurance, that's their problem if they get sick, not mine. And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Government to demand the citizens buy into anything...other than what i laid out earlier regarding Article 1, Section 8 where government is responsible for roads and may demand people be licensed and insured as to ensure citizens use the roads safely as the government is responsible for those roads.

Healthcare demands by the Government are way out of line.

Sure there is.

Falls under the commerce clause.

Try driving without insurance.

Or flying a plane without a license.

You didn't read what I wrote. Typical.

Commerce Clause is NOT a defrense to demand a citizen BUY health Insurance. And that's the argument that Obama's team is stating in front of the SCOTUS.

In the next week or so the arguments will be formally heard, and in June the SCOTUS will render thier decision.

ObamaCare will go down in flames.

 

[Wiseacre]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it? Do they have the power to decide for you what's good for you and what isn't, a decision you have no say in? For example, should they be able to determine the conditions for who gets what medical treatment, based on cost analysis by a bunch of bureaucrats?

And let's not change the subject by bitching about the private insurance system. Separate issue, please stick to the basic question. Should the gov't have any limits at all?


My take: the gov't has no business making personal decisions for it's citizens. Nor does it have a responsibility to assist those who make the wrong choices. Gov't should be restricted to ONLY those functions that individual cannot do by themselves, such as national defense.

Below is a link to the ACA.

Please cite what the criminal penalty (time in prison) or civil penalty (amount in USD) one might sustain for refusing to purchase health insurance, thus ‘forcing’ him to do so.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

That's 'cutting to the chase.'

I'm not going through that 1000 page pile of shit. Surely you are aware that if you are above a certain income level you are required to have health insurance or you will have to pay a penalty on your tax return. That's why they call it a "mandate".

 

[The T]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it? Do they have the power to decide for you what's good for you and what isn't, a decision you have no say in? For example, should they be able to determine the conditions for who gets what medical treatment, based on cost analysis by a bunch of bureaucrats?

And let's not change the subject by bitching about the private insurance system. Separate issue, please stick to the basic question. Should the gov't have any limits at all?


My take: the gov't has no business making personal decisions for it's citizens. Nor does it have a responsibility to assist those who make the wrong choices. Gov't should be restricted to ONLY those functions that individual cannot do by themselves, such as national defense.

Below is a link to the ACA.

Please cite what the criminal penalty (time in prison) or civil penalty (amount in USD) one might sustain for refusing to purchase health insurance, thus ‘forcing’ him to do so.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

That's 'cutting to the chase.'

I'm not going through that 1000 page pile of shit. Surely you are aware that if you are above a certain income level you are required to have health insurance or you will have to pay a penalty on your tax return. That's why they call it a "mandate".

And aside from thier argument using the Commerce Clause? They have stated that they can use the mandate as Congress has the power to levy taxes...

Sio I have to ask? Which is it?

 

[DontBeStupid]

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Government to demand the citizens buy into anything...other than what i laid out earlier regarding Article 1, Section 8 where government is responsible for roads and may demand people be licensed and insured as to ensure citizens use the roads safely as the government is responsible for those roads.

Healthcare demands by the Government are way out of line.

You keep crying about this. Are you referring to Obamacare? Because it does not require anyone to buy anything.

Do you not understand what the individual mandate is? Above a certain income level, you have to have coverage or the gov't will penalize you. They are requirin you to buy a product whether you want it or not, and charging you so much extra on your tax return if you do not comply.

You're wrong.

You should read the law.

 

[DontBeStupid]

And aside from thier argument using the Commerce Clause? They have stated that they can use the mandate as Congress has the power to levy taxes...

Sio I have to ask? Which is it?

What's wrong with that? I've seen "conservatives" use the 2nd Amendment as justification for owning assault rifles and grenades.

 

[Wiseacre]

Then we simply have varying degrees of what our country should be. But, that doesn't change the facts of what our Government can and cannot do. You might not want everyone to have coverage, but the Government is within its power to assure that.

And there we have the essence of the thread. According to you, the gov't has no limit at all; it can force you to buy something whether you want it or not, and if you don't they can penalize you. Today's it's an extra tax on your return, tomorrow maybe you go to jail.

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it. That's not how it works. No where in the Constitution is it written that the Government can't create an interstate highway system. Therefore, I think they are within their Power to do so. Make sense?

I think you are mistaken, the Constitution was designed to specify what the gov't CAN do; if it ain't in there, they're not authorized to do it. For issues like the interstate system, the Constitution was interpreted as allowed under the Commerce Clause, or perhaps somewhere else.

The Founders, indeed almost everybody in those days, was very afraid of a gov't that had too much control and authority over their lives. So they wrote it so it would delineate what the gov't could do, and if it ain't in there then they're not supposed to be able to do it.

I'm curious as to your definition of limits or any of the other lib/dems in here. You appear to be saying the gov't can mandate the purchase of health insurance; that's what the "mandate" is all about. Which essentially means then that is true then the gov't could under the Commerce clause require you to buy anything really. Where's your limit?

 

[alan1]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it? Do they have the power to decide for you what's good for you and what isn't, a decision you have no say in? For example, should they be able to determine the conditions for who gets what medical treatment, based on cost analysis by a bunch of bureaucrats?

And let's not change the subject by bitching about the private insurance system. Separate issue, please stick to the basic question. Should the gov't have any limits at all?


My take: the gov't has no business making personal decisions for it's citizens. Nor does it have a responsibility to assist those who make the wrong choices. Gov't should be restricted to ONLY those functions that individual cannot do by themselves, such as national defense.

Below is a link to the ACA.

Please cite what the criminal penalty (time in prison) or civil penalty (amount in USD) one might sustain for refusing to purchase health insurance, thus ‘forcing’ him to do so.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

That's 'cutting to the chase.'

Just one piece.

‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual
who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—øReplaced by section 10106(b)¿ If a taxpayer
who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual
for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3),
fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more
months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is
hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such
failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).

i suggest you open your link and search on the word "penalty" to discover much more.

 

[Wiseacre]

You keep crying about this. Are you referring to Obamacare? Because it does not require anyone to buy anything.

Do you not understand what the individual mandate is? Above a certain income level, you have to have coverage or the gov't will penalize you. They are requirin you to buy a product whether you want it or not, and charging you so much extra on your tax return if you do not comply.

You're wrong.

You should read the law.

So how am I wrong? C'mon dude, we got a good debate going here, how can you possibly say that the ACA does not require the purchase of HC?

 

[The T]

And aside from thier argument using the Commerce Clause? They have stated that they can use the mandate as Congress has the power to levy taxes...

Sio I have to ask? Which is it?

What's wrong with that? I've seen "conservatives" use the 2nd Amendment as justification for owning assault rifles and grenades.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Government tells you what you can and can't do all the time. There are no smoking laws. Laws tell people to put on their seat belt. They tell you to drive 35 MPH. Government decided to install handicapped ramps on every corner in most places. When doesn't government direct your life.
They tell you in some states that you must have auto insurance. They legislate the age to drink, marry, and when to send your children to school. They also force parents to buy car seats for their children. These are all positions the government takes where they are involved in a person's private life.
You are taxed to pay for things and services you do not use or in some cases do not support. Government controls many of life's actions. Where do you suggest one would draw the line.

Once upon a time America was peopled with folks that Edmund Burke referred to as follows:
'They were Protestants “of that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,” and their dissent from the Anglican Church not only favored liberty, it was “built upon it.” '

Now, there are far too many who march in lock step, as you seem to.


In November you'll see folks who bridle at being told what to do, march to the voting booths...

You are sadly mistaken and have not understood a word in any of the posts I wrote. I do not walk in lockstep with anyone. I have sent protest letters against each of these acts where government has over stepped the bounds.
If anyone walks in lockstep it is the religious mind that has an entire rule book to lead them by the nose.

In that case, please accept my apology for misreading post #25, which I read as agreeing with government overreach.
Rep on the way.

 

[DontBeStupid]

And there we have the essence of the thread. According to you, the gov't has no limit at all; it can force you to buy something whether you want it or not, and if you don't they can penalize you. Today's it's an extra tax on your return, tomorrow maybe you go to jail.

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it. That's not how it works. No where in the Constitution is it written that the Government can't create an interstate highway system. Therefore, I think they are within their Power to do so. Make sense?

I think you are mistaken, the Constitution was designed to specify what the gov't CAN do; if it ain't in there, they're not authorized to do it. For issues like the interstate system, the Constitution was interpreted as allowed under the Commerce Clause, or perhaps somewhere else.

The Founders, indeed almost everybody in those days, was very afraid of a gov't that had too much control and authority over their lives. So they wrote it so it would delineate what the gov't could do, and if it ain't in there then they're not supposed to be able to do it.

I'm curious as to your definition of limits or any of the other lib/dems in here. You appear to be saying the gov't can mandate the purchase of health insurance; that's what the "mandate" is all about. Which essentially means then that is true then the gov't could under the Commerce clause require you to buy anything really. Where's your limit?

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

See what I mean?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Then we simply have varying degrees of what our country should be. But, that doesn't change the facts of what our Government can and cannot do. You might not want everyone to have coverage, but the Government is within its power to assure that.

And there we have the essence of the thread. According to you, the gov't has no limit at all; it can force you to buy something whether you want it or not, and if you don't they can penalize you. Today's it's an extra tax on your return, tomorrow maybe you go to jail.

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it. That's not how it works. No where in the Constitution is it written that the Government can't create an interstate highway system. Therefore, I think they are within their Power to do so. Make sense?

You're wrong. The government IS limited by the COTUS. If they want to do something they have to have at least a plausible constitutional authority to do so. For example, the interstate highway system. The reason given for that was national defense, which IS a power granted them by the COTUS.

 

[The T]

And there we have the essence of the thread. According to you, the gov't has no limit at all; it can force you to buy something whether you want it or not, and if you don't they can penalize you. Today's it's an extra tax on your return, tomorrow maybe you go to jail.

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it. That's not how it works. No where in the Constitution is it written that the Government can't create an interstate highway system. Therefore, I think they are within their Power to do so. Make sense?

You're wrong. The government IS limited by the COTUS. If they want to do something they have to have at least a plausible constitutional authority to do so. For example, the interstate highway system. The reason given for that was national defense, which IS a power granted them by the COTUS.

Right on. And covered in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[The T]

Tell us Swallow?

Only one W.

It's spelled S-A-L-L-O-W.

Don't worry. The "T" is a raging homosexual wanting to service me.

Unfortunately..I am a straight dude.

So..I decline the offer.

Which is why he is drunk so often.

Blame, Minimize, Obfuscate, Deny...

Guess which heading in the Statist playbook YOU are exercising?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Government tells you what you can and can't do all the time. There are no smoking laws. Laws tell people to put on their seat belt. They tell you to drive 35 MPH. Government decided to install handicapped ramps on every corner in most places. When doesn't government direct your life.
They tell you in some states that you must have auto insurance. They legislate the age to drink, marry, and when to send your children to school. They also force parents to buy car seats for their children. These are all positions the government takes where they are involved in a person's private life.
You are taxed to pay for things and services you do not use or in some cases do not support. Government controls many of life's actions. Where do you suggest one would draw the line.

Once upon a time America was peopled with folks that Edmund Burke referred to as follows:
'They were Protestants “of that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,” and their dissent from the Anglican Church not only favored liberty, it was “built upon it.” '

Now, there are far too many who march in lock step, as you seem to.


In November you'll see folks who bridle at being told what to do, march to the voting booths...

You are sadly mistaken and have not understood a word in any of the posts I wrote. I do not walk in lockstep with anyone. I have sent protest letters against each of these acts where government has over stepped the bounds.
If anyone walks in lockstep it is the religious mind that has an entire rule book to lead them by the nose.

Let's see if I can educate you as to the 'religious mind.'

Religion and morality are not accepted as regulating society because it is written in a book.
No, it is millennia of human experience that is codified, and been proven successful.

There is an illusion that is the basis of progressive philosophy, that with the right government, men will be persuaded to behave as angels. For conservatives, though, men will always behave as they do, with envy, greed and covetousness. The best we can do is create government with requisite checks and balances that assumes the imperfect nature of man, a human nature that is not perfectible.

The purpose of religion and morality is to limit the corrosive influences of human nature. The purpose of law is to control the destructive actions which spring from said nature.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Do you not understand what the individual mandate is? Above a certain income level, you have to have coverage or the gov't will penalize you. They are requirin you to buy a product whether you want it or not, and charging you so much extra on your tax return if you do not comply.

You're wrong.

You should read the law.

So how am I wrong? C'mon dude, we got a good debate going here, how can you possibly say that the ACA does not require the purchase of HC?

They're playing word games. Since Obama called it a "tax" and not a "fine", he's able to get away with it.

Unfortunately, that doesn't pass my bullshit test. Just like calling it "lobbying" doesn't make it any less of a "bribe".

 

[DontBeStupid]

And aside from thier argument using the Commerce Clause? They have stated that they can use the mandate as Congress has the power to levy taxes...

Sio I have to ask? Which is it?

What's wrong with that? I've seen "conservatives" use the 2nd Amendment as justification for owning assault rifles and grenades.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And?

And ... you are cherry picking what people can interpret from and what they can't. That's not how life works. Either we can interpret the whole of the Constitution or we can't.

Which is it?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it. That's not how it works. No where in the Constitution is it written that the Government can't create an interstate highway system. Therefore, I think they are within their Power to do so. Make sense?

I think you are mistaken, the Constitution was designed to specify what the gov't CAN do; if it ain't in there, they're not authorized to do it. For issues like the interstate system, the Constitution was interpreted as allowed under the Commerce Clause, or perhaps somewhere else.

The Founders, indeed almost everybody in those days, was very afraid of a gov't that had too much control and authority over their lives. So they wrote it so it would delineate what the gov't could do, and if it ain't in there then they're not supposed to be able to do it.

I'm curious as to your definition of limits or any of the other lib/dems in here. You appear to be saying the gov't can mandate the purchase of health insurance; that's what the "mandate" is all about. Which essentially means then that is true then the gov't could under the Commerce clause require you to buy anything really. Where's your limit?

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

See what I mean?

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.

If it don't say it, it goes to the states, not to the feds.