0
kelpdiver

The latest buyoff in the health care deal

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You talk the talk; walk the walk.



You first - I'm still waiting for the reply on how Fed.gov can dictate that I buy anything.



Explained time and again already. Do a search.



So, when some future congress states that it's "for the general welfare" that everyone send their kids to religious schools, you'll have no complaint - good to know.



You might want to check out a document called the United States Constitution, particularly Amendment 1. It appears you're unfamiliar with the document. After you finish reading that, you might try reading the related SCOTUS case law, establishing a wall between church and state.



Hey, it's for the general welfare - nothing else is needed according to you, you've posted that enough to make it perfectly clear.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hey, it's for the general welfare - nothing else is needed according to you, you've posted that enough to make it perfectly clear.



Right. <rolls eyes> It's unfortunate you can't seem to look at the Constitution objectively.

Your reading comprehension w/r/t my posts seems to be more than a little lacking, as well.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Hey, it's for the general welfare - nothing else is needed according to you, you've posted that enough to make it perfectly clear.



Right. <rolls eyes> It's unfortunate you can't seem to look at the Constitution objectively.

Your reading comprehension w/r/t my posts seems to be more than a little lacking, as well.



What, you don't like your own tactics being used against you? Damn, that must suck for you.

Feel free to revisit your bogus "general welfare" statement anytime.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Article 1, Section 8 was meant to be all-inclusive, allowing the government to do anything it wants for the "general welfare", why would they have gone to the trouble of explicitly listing the enumerated powers?

If you can't see the logic in that, perhaps the opinion of Thomas Jefferson might provide some insight:

Quote

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.

To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.” But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase. It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are “necessary,” not those which are merely “convenient” for effecting the enumerated powers.



Note that this was his opinion on the Constitutionality of a central bank, but it's an accurate description of how he viewed the concept of "implied" powers in the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Hey, it's for the general welfare - nothing else is needed according to you, you've posted that enough to make it perfectly clear.



Right. <rolls eyes> It's unfortunate you can't seem to look at the Constitution objectively.

Your reading comprehension w/r/t my posts seems to be more than a little lacking, as well.



What, you don't like your own tactics being used against you



If you think those are my tactics, then it would seem that you've not read any of my posts. SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution such that the general welfare clause gives Congress authorities additional to those given by subsequent clauses of the section. SCOTUS has also interpreted Amendment 1 as requiring a separation of church and state. If you disagree with those assertions, please share with us which case law you are relying on to support your conclusion.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If Article 1, Section 8 was meant to be all-inclusive, allowing the government to do anything it wants for the "general welfare", why would they have gone to the trouble of explicitly listing the enumerated powers?

If you can't see the logic in that, perhaps the opinion of Thomas Jefferson might provide some insight:

Quote

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.

To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.” But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase. It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are “necessary,” not those which are merely “convenient” for effecting the enumerated powers.



Note that this was his opinion on the Constitutionality of a central bank, but it's an accurate description of how he viewed the concept of "implied" powers in the constitution.



You would be better served studying how the SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution than how Jefferson interpreted the document. You are aware that Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention, right?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm well aware how the SCOTUS has interpreted misinterpreted the Constitution.

What can we expect when the government is given control to interpret the document limiting it's own power? :S

Perhaps you would be better served by looking over the Federalist Papers



You realize that the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution is the only definitive one, right? It is literally impossible for them to misinterpret the document because of that fact.

Not that the Federalist Papers have any legal weight, but the most prolific writer of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, "maintained the [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." Source
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Explained time and again already. Do a search.



Social Security is one of such examples. Most people have to pay it even if following circumstances:

- They're so "filthy" rich that they will never even cash this government check. Nope - they have to pay Social Security tax as well.

- They're smart, responsible, money-savvy and can build much larger retirement portofolio if they invest those money themselves instead of giving them to government. Nope - they still have to pay Social Security tax.

- They worked hard, saved a lot and already have built a nice retirement package, so they wouldn't need Social Security. But hey - they still have to pay Social Security tax!

So this is a service the government forces us to "buy". The next one is unemployment insurance, which is mandatory for wage earners in CA and maybe in other states too. Again, do Larry Ellison or Steve Jobs need unemployment insurance? Unlikely. But nobody cares - they have to pay it too.

And of course there is health insurance we all already paying for. It is called "medicare", and last year we paid several thousands just for it. Again, would Bill Gates or Warren Buffet need Medicare? Very unlikely. But still they have to pay for the "service" they may never receive.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the key element you're missing here is that everyone, as you say, pays the tax.

I started this thread because several classes of people will not pay the tax.

(BTW, many government employees do not pay SS, but pay into a different system instead. I was one when i worked for the University of California)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


the key element you're missing here is that everyone, as you say, pays the tax.



I heard that union members do not pay Social Security as they use their own retirement system which the employer pays into, not the worker. Do you know if this is the case?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


the key element you're missing here is that everyone, as you say, pays the tax.



I heard that union members do not pay Social Security as they use their own retirement system which the employer pays into, not the worker. Do you know if this is the case?



I could see it being true, like the Calpers plan for Cal state employees. However if one participates in that, they are not contributing to SS, and their benefits will be scaled down as a result. I believe your top 40 earning years (with contributions) determine your benefits.

With the HC tax or lack of tax, everyone is getting the same benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe federal employees now pay into Social Security. Anyway, my father is a recently retired fed and he had the choice to convert or not a few years before he retried (chose not to) but my understanding from him was that all future employees had to.

Also, minister's can exempt themselves from Social Security contributions.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I could see it being true, like the Calpers plan for Cal state employees. However if one participates in that, they are not contributing to SS, and their benefits will be scaled down as a result.



That's exactly what I'm talking about - union members have an option not to contribute to Social Security (and not to benefit from it), but those I mentioned in the post above (like very rich people) do not have such option, even though they're not going to benefit from Social Security as well. So it is already the case.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


I could see it being true, like the Calpers plan for Cal state employees. However if one participates in that, they are not contributing to SS, and their benefits will be scaled down as a result.



That's exactly what I'm talking about - union members have an option not to contribute to Social Security (and not to benefit from it), but those I mentioned in the post above (like very rich people) do not have such option, even though they're not going to benefit from Social Security as well. So it is already the case.



I think the only unions exempt are state and fed employees union memebers
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I think the only unions exempt are state and fed employees union memebers



This was to prove my points that:
- The government has been already charging people for some services, even those people who would not need the service or prefer not to use it;
- Some unions are already exempt from those requirements.

So this is not something non-Constitutional introduced by healthcare bill as Social Security system has been there for a while.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


I think the only unions exempt are state and fed employees union memebers



This was to prove my points that:
- The government has been already charging people for some services, even those people who would not need the service or prefer not to use it;
- Some unions are already exempt from those requirements.

So this is not something non-Constitutional introduced by healthcare bill as Social Security system has been there for a while.



No, you're misconstruing this. If you pay into SS, you get benefits. If you don't, you don't. There's no inequality here. Contributions define benefits.

As it stands, union workers will not pay taxes on their high cost medical plans. Non union workers will. This is a clear imbalance in the burden of cost, as union status is irrelevant to the benefits. In short, I'm paying for them, even if they make the same dollar I do.

----
On a tangent, the Chronicle wrote over the weekend how Kaiser and Blue Shield members will end up paying more taxes as well over participants in a plan administered internally by companies. The plan isn't even running yet and it already looks like the IRS tax code, with winners and losers all over the place.

and once again, blue states take it in the shorts, as the income and plan costs limits are the same in CA as they are in TN, where the cost of living is half as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


No, you're misconstruing this. If you pay into SS, you get benefits. If you don't, you don't. There's no inequality here. Contributions define benefits.



But I do not have an option of NOT to pay SS and not to get benefits. Even if I don't need them, I still must pay this "tax". This is the same as with healthcare bill - you still pay for it even if you might not need it.

I agree with you that the latest pork for unions sucks, and should not be part of this legislation, but this is a different issue. My reply was mostly related to claims like that, to point out that this situation existed quite a while.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


I think the only unions exempt are state and fed employees union memebers



This was to prove my points that:
- The government has been already charging people for some services, even those people who would not need the service or prefer not to use it;
- Some unions are already exempt from those requirements.

So this is not something non-Constitutional introduced by healthcare bill as Social Security system has been there for a while.



This is equal state to state


Big difference
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0