Usa Thread

[Old Hippie]

So the burning question is: how do you reconcile that forcing people to buy retirement annuities is OK but forcing them to buy healthcare insurance isn't?

 

 

Hmmm...ok, I'll take a shot here...one difference is, people can choose not to drive, but they CANNOT choose whether to get sick/injured or not.

 

As for SSI...it has been argued that forcing us to participate lessons the chances of a person becoming a total burden on society in their old age...not really sure which is more cost effective however...

[LizardKing]

No mention was made of forcing anybody to invest in an annuity.

 

Interesting exchange between DOJ attorney's and Judge Vinson today as alluded to in news report.

Vinson noted that the mandate provided by Obamacare is an "over-reach" of the Commerce clause and asked the attorney's if the federal government could force people to buy broccoli because it is good for them and everybody else. Vinson also asked for the Gov. position on the severability of the various provisions of the legislative mandates. Judge apparently noted the reliance upon many of the provisions dependent upon other provisions, much like a watch; that is, if you take out one part (the mandate)which is critical, does it make sense that the watch will not function.

 

Judge seems to be leaning toward the opinion rendered earlier this week in VA...that Congress has overstepped it's Constitutional authority.

 

HH

LOL! Forced participation was a part of the Bush proposal. Thus it makes these two things identical. You cannot support one without supporting the other.

 

Also LOL, speaking of eating produce, maybe Judge Vinson should look up Wickard v. Filburn.

 

And Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States while he's at it.

 

Both seal this case for the ACA. It's not that the mandate goes further than Wickard, it's just that the mandate is slightly different from Wickard. There's no slippery slope, and the government doesn't really have any powers that it didn't have all along. If the Commerce Clause can forbid you from growing wheat because that will cause you not to buy wheat for other purposes, or if the Commerce Clause can force you to offer a room at your motel to "people of color" even though you don't want to, then it can already force you to do things you might otherwise not want to do. I imagine you're right that the government's lawyers will need to think up some plausible limiting principle, but it seems to me that the actual principle is already in place: does your activity or inactivity have a substantial effect on interstate commerce? In Wickard, in Heart of Atlanta, and now with the individual mandate, the answer is yes.

 

You can invent a slippery slope if you want, but I don't think it really exists anywhere except in your imagination.

[cavanami]

Me thinks that every US citizen should have the same or better insurance and retirement plans that the US politicians enjoy.

 

Simple.

 

Instead, the politicians force a crappy SSI and Medicare and now some healthcare plan on to the serfs!

This is what I object to!!!

[LizardKing]

I've no issue with that. If all is good, then all will enjoy what the rest of the civilized word does...

[Hugh_Hoy]

You can invent a slippery slope if you want, but I don't think it really exists anywhere except in your imagination.

 

20 states filing suits on this issue is NOT my "imagination". :content:

 

And, if you never plan to return to the U.S., shouldn't you be more concerned with what's going on in some other part of the world. (Maybe start a thread on Tajikistan?)

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

During GWB's administration, he lowered taxes for the rich but also made an important speech. In the speech he claimed the USA has no intentions of ever paying back the money they took from Social Security and Medicare. In effect he was saying he approved stealing the money from the old. Sick.

[Bangkoktraveler]

There 'is' so much money in Social Security that people on Social Security should be getting at least 50% more in payments. The age for Social Security can be lowered to 50 or 55.

 

More people can be covered on Medicare and Medicare can cover more items.

 

So what is the problem? The one that has taken the surpluses of Social Security - the USA government - refuses to pay any of it back!

 

Not one damn politician will discuss this problem. I wonder why?

[unit731]

I have read that if one were to contribute the same amount to a private fund(s), you would receive significant multiples of what you get from SS.

 

There may be equally arguable opinions both pro and con.

 

HH

 

 

I don't think the average Joe and Jane are smart enough.

 

And then who is responsible for the disabled? The baby born with spina bifida etc?

[Hugh_Hoy]

You're probably right about the average Joe/Jane.

 

As for extraordinary/catastrophic situations, those things can be addressed without breaking the bank.

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

You're probably right about the average Joe/Jane.

 

As for extraordinary/catastrophic situations, those things can be addressed [color:red]without breaking the bank.[/color]HH

 

 

The bank (Social Security and Medicare) is far from being broke.

 

The bank unfortunately got cleaned out by our own government who refuse to replace what they have stolen.

 

But then.... if the government hadn't stolen the funds, the government would not have been in so many wars.