would a public health care tax have been constitutional?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by emilynghiem, Oct 25, 2012.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,596
    Thanks Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,285
    If the Affordable Health Care Bill
    had been set up this way, would it have been constitutional:

    (1) Directly stating it is requiring a flat or proportional tax on
    all income-earning citizens who want access to the system, where the money goes to pay for govt/public health services (or as the Greens wanted it,
    a Single-Payer system where the govt pays the bills or invoices from the institution
    providing the services instead of private insurance paying this bill or invoice)

    (2) People can still be exempted if they don’t earn enough, or have a lower amount/% to pay. But if people who CAN afford and are required to pay the tax, but want to “OPT OUT”, anyone can do so by CHOOSING to buy private insurance or choosing OTHER WAYS to cover health services (such as the charity hospitals or Christian coops etc.)
    That way it is NOT directly mandating or regulating how this option is met.

    Would that have been constitutional to propose it as a tax, and then people can "opt out" by choosing other methods or programs by funding privately (and also agree not to use the govt system but rely only on their private programs if they choose to opt out).

    It may not have passed this way, but would it have been constitutional?

    Would it have allowed for both public and private programs to co-exist and share the market, without causing "govt subsidies" to manipulate the pricing? Would it allow fair competition so the govt would have to be efficient in order to compete with other programs?
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,596
    Thanks Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,285
    (3) Note:
    Financially and logistically, I believe this should still be managed per State instead of federally. Especially since I believe the funding for housing/health care/education can and should come from reforming the criminal justice system, by requiring financial restitutihe on from wrongdoers to pay back costs to victims, society and taxpayers.

    I honestly don't see how to address either the health care or housing/school funding issues without fixing the pressing problems (both financially and for sake of public security/safety) with the failed prison systems that are otherwise costing everyone in unsustainable ways.

    But if you can please help me address just the specific issue over whether
    the bill could have been a tax that goes into a govt system, I would like to understand the constitutional grounds.

    If you can only answer in full context, considering state management and private services, that is a separate issue under (3). I am interested in that, too, in addition to the constitutional issues about how a tax is normally used to pay for govt services.
     
  3. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Criminals are already required to pay restitution to victims and are fined with the proceeds going to victim assistance organizations.
     
  4. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,596
    Thanks Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,285
    But it still doesn't cover the costs.
    And just helping the victims AFTER a crime occurs is not enough
    to address how to PREVENT the causes of crime in the first place.

    If each person committing crime (as an individual) or corruption (as a govt or corporate agent) had to pay ALL the costs associated with the damages,
    wouldn't that free up resources that could cover social programs to prevent abuses?

    If there are debts or damages beyond the ability to pay,
    why not set up a system similar to the Federal Reserve of
    issuing notes against these debts. Then use the notes to
    fund the restoration procedures needed for justice and restitution, and charge the
    bill to the wrongdoers responsible, not to the lawabiding taxpayers.

    They can either pay these bills back over time,
    or just like selling govt bonds, private citizens can buy
    out shares in the debts and earn interest (or claim
    ownership in whatever correctional/school programs
    are used as collateral on the debts, such as building
    work-study programs for convicts to pay back debts
    and letting investors own shares in the schools or
    prisons/hospital systems etc. until and unless those bonds
    or debts are paid back to them.)

    Currently private contractors make a lot of money off prison contracts and crime.
    Who knows where all the assets go that police and feds seize in trafficking busts.
    So why not enforce RICO laws where those assets can be reclaimed for
    the victims and communities affected by trafficking? And use those resources
    to rebuild schools, jobs and community services (to prevent crime) instead of relying on govt
    to step in and police after the fact, which costs more and doesn't address the causes, only the effects.
     

Share This Page