Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood

 
Register or log in to post

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

Mandates again

(78 posts)
  1. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    Since the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare is coming out soon, I thought I'd re-open the thread. One of the big arguments against the bill was that it requires people to buy health insurance meeting specified standards from a private company. I saw a couple of interesting analogues in the news. Take a guess and see if you can tell what they are.

    #1 All white males ages 18-45 (OK, it's old, later on it was amended to include black men, too) are required to buy an item. These items were only sold by private businesses. The items had to meet a set of standards and come with a specified list of accessories. People who did not comply were subject to criminal charges leading to fines and/or imprisonment. What's the item?

    #2 Property owners are in some cases required to provide a service. The service is sometimes quite expensive to the property owner, and owners often say that the requirements are excessive. Some community members say that the requirements aren't strong enough, and the community suffers as a result. Libertarian-leaners say that the property owners should be able to decide on their own how much of this service should be provided, based on market conditions. What's the service?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  2. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    Well the answer to one is a gun. I'm not sure what the answer to two is.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  3. User has not uploaded an avatar

    shelley

    offline
    Member

    2. ADA access.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  4. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    Edog is first out of the gate. Second Militia Act of 1792, required people to have a musket or rifle, bayonet, gunpowder, ammunition, etc. It was replaced in 1903 by the National Guard system. Insert commentary about a well-regulated militia here.

    ADA access is a good one, but I was thinking of something more local.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  5. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    As for SCOTUS, regardless of the majority's opinion, I can't wait to read Scalia's remarks. From his questions, clearly the other shoe has dropped with respect to his legacy. He could give a sh*t about "textualism".

    Posted 11 months ago #
  6. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    OP must be bored...

    Posted 11 months ago #
  7. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    online
    Member

    #2 is Honey Buckets :)

    Seriously, though, about the ruling, there's no constitutional issue with individual states having mandates for people to buy health insurance, so those states that want to move forward will do so MA-state-style. Then at least we'll have a chance to see what works and what doesn't rather than trying to impose a single nationwide monolithic system without any idea of whether or not it'll work. The traditional American state-by-state model also means that those who favor single-payer could probably get that implemented in at least a few states and see if it really does work well down here. I'm thinking Vermont to start.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  8. Walt

    Walt

    offline
    Member

    Second Militia Act of 1792 comes from a power specially granted to the Federal government under Clause 15 (To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions) and does not derive from the Commerce clause.

    I like Elizabeth Price Foley's comment: “Forcing Americans to buy something is a coerced contract. And a coerced contract is an oxymoron under the law.”

    Posted 11 months ago #
  9. iPlod

    iPlod

    offline
    Member

    "It was replaced in 1903 by the National Guard system. Insert commentary about a well-regulated militia here."

    Sorry boatgeek, the National Guard are your state governor's troops. They are not "we the people" militia.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  10. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    Walt, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If the federal government can force a person to buy a product under the militia clause, why can't it force somebody to buy something under the commerce clause? Why is buying a gun a less coerced contract than health insurance?

    IPlod, as of 1792 (I think pretty much the first Congress, with many if not most of the Framers in attendance), the concept of militia was that it was an organized force under the states used for national defense. Why does that have to morph into a completely unorganized militia with no state control later on?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  11. iPlod

    iPlod

    offline
    Member

    boatgeek, well that's 1792's definition of militia (which wasn't the "first Congress") but before that, that is exactly what the militia was. Completely unorganized with no state control. No state control being the governmental definition of "completely unorganized".

    Posted 11 months ago #
  12. Walt

    Walt

    offline
    Member

    Let's add Clause 16:
    "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..." This clearly gives Congress the authority used in the Militia Act.

    The insurance mandate rests on the Commerce Clause for authority. However, it's text "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..." grants no such power.

    Our federal government is designed to be limited to certain enumerated powers. The 10th amendment makes this clear: "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."

    Posted 11 months ago #
  13. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    #2 was intended to be parking at condo developments. Another intrusion into the free market by government, although one that a lot of people seem to support.

    Walt, I read the Commerce Clause as giving much broader power to Congress than the militia clause you cite. The militia clause gives certain powers to Congress (organization, arming, etc.), while reserving appointment of officers and training to the states. The Commerce clause says Congress can regulate interstate commerce, period. There are no powers of regulating interstate commerce to any entity but Congress. I don't think you can use the 10th Amendment on this one, since Congress was given very broad powers to regulate interstate commerce. You could argue that health care isn't interstate commerce, but I think that's a pretty tough argument to make given the level of interstate and international commerce in the prescription drug trade alone, let alone remote reading of X-rays, among many other examples. But I'm not a lawyer, I just sometimes play one at the office.

    Iplod, my apologies, 1792 was the second Congress. It's not far off of "pretty much the first" like I said, but I will endeavor to be better next time. I also don't think that you're correct on the interpretation of the militias prior to the Constitution. According to the folks at the Jamestown and Yorktown history centers (http://www.historyisfun.org/militia-in-the-Revolutionary-war.htm), militias were raised by the colonies and revolutionary governments. As early as the late 1670's nearly all men were in the militia, which was centrally organized by the colony/state. It sure looks like the Framers would have considered a militia to be an organized force under government authority.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  14. Ernie

    Ernie

    online
    Member

    Boatgeek, the ADA is actually a better answer to #2 because it is a federal law, and more analogous to the healthcare law. I don't think that there is any debate surrounding a municipality's right to enact zoning laws and building codes.

    The irony of the healthcare law is that the mandate was a compromise, resulting from the lack of political will to do the right thing and enact a single payer system. No one disputes the fed's right to tax people and provide services.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  15. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    The right thing would be to control costs.

    "Affordable Care Act" my ass.

    Single payer would be exactly like public schools in a monopoly.

    Brilliant. /sarcasm

    Posted 11 months ago #
  16. Ernie

    Ernie

    online
    Member

    Actually it would probably be more like Medicare.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  17. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    Full of waste and abuse, monitored by folks who want to see costs increase, actual benefits decline, correct.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  18. ballardmike

    ballardmike

    offline
    Member

    I believe there are studies that show costs have increased dramatically over the years because of For-Profit Insurance companies....

    Regulations are needed - people are opportunists when it comes to money.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  19. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    Mandated exclusion zones for all fifty states, no caps on litigation.

    "affordable care act" my ass.

    I guess we need a genius to chime in at some point?

    If you think the proper answer is mandating all to participate in a private monopoly, you are not a genius. If you think the answer is letting a public monopoly replace it, you are not a genius either.

    Cross state competition, torte reform, no cherry picking our health care dollar, and no requirement for employers to provide what is your personal responsibilty is the only out here. Period.

    btw, we need to mandate 4-6 weeks of paid vacation too.

    Europe is genius. /sarcasm.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  20. Cougar Bob

    Cougar Bob

    offline
    Member

    In regards to Medicare being "full of waste and abuse" they are more efficient than private insurers.

    "We’re convinced that Boxer’s underlying point -- that private plans have higher overhead than government plans -- is correct, if for no other reason than that profits matter only for private insurers."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/

    Posted 11 months ago #
  21. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    Cougar Bob +1

    Ernie, I chose the parking issue because of the regular complaints on the forum about how the city doesn't require enough parking in condo buildings, causing problems for everyone else who wants to park in the neighborhood. Whether that's true or not isn't all that important, it's just an interesting example of just about the same arguments being made about a local issue.

    It would be a good thing if we were more like Europe in terms of health care. They have better health outcomes at vastly lower costs than we do. We'd also have more competitive industrial businesses, since they wouldn't have to cover medical and retirement costs like ours do.

    Does torte reform require raspberries?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  22. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    Again, same tired response from Cougar Bob, not true, not even close.

    Tort spell checks as well as torte, sorry. Enjoy a chuckle.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  23. Cougar Bob

    Cougar Bob

    offline
    Member

    Golly oneder all I did was post a link that provided facts and supported a position. Facts are so tiring.
    Whats the matter? Is your litter box dirty again? Kind of grumpy today? What you need is some tequila!

    Posted 11 months ago #
  24. pennygirl

    pennygirl

    online
    Member

    1der...

    If you ever happen to be the UK and you fall ill or are in a serious accident, you'll probably be quite grateful for the National Health Service. Europe is genius. /No Sarcasm.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  25. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    online
    Member

    Both Medicare/caid and private insurers are bloated and inefficient. On the Medicare side, if it weren't, there would be no way companies could make a living advertising on TV offering free medical devices (e.g. scooters).

    On the private side, it's just silly that my insurance will pay for a doctor's office visit to administer a vaccine, but will not pay the much cheaper price for a pharmacy visit to administer that same vaccine!

    Liability and lawsuits are a big problem, too. We don't want to eliminate consequences for bad designs or dangerous drugs, but some of the late-night TV ad slots have now become filled with patient-chasing class-action lawsuit mills.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  26. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    Pennygirl, if I fall ill here, without insurance, I'd get better care. The problem is what it costs.

    Barbara Boxer's opinion is pointless, Bob, irregardless of who thinks it's worthy of print or even linking to it.

    Fact is, growing a fraud doesn't make it more successful, except, it's a bigger fraud, and therefore a more successful fraud.

    Tell me about the public school monopoly, and how much better it is. Make it another Barbara Boxer quote, please.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  27. Ernie

    Ernie

    online
    Member

    I've always wondered why the business lobby doesn't support the single payer idea in order to get the insurance costs and overhead off their books. It would certianly make US businesses more competitive internationally.

    Hey genius, you know that the only way an insurance market works is if it is made up of lots of people who are low risk (safe drivers, young people, homeowners who don't live in a flood plain, etc). Without a mandate people who don't think they need insurance won't pay into the system, the rates for everyone else will be astronomical, and uninsured people will still get sick, passing the cost on to everyone else.

    Why do you think that most states require drivers to carry auto insurance?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  28. BuffaloHawk

    BuffaloHawk

    offline
    Member

    Don't get taken care of by a private facility and choose a public facility. Then swallow your pride and fill out a charity appliacation and dot your I's cross you T's and stay on it. I have seen self employed people with million dollar homes and a Lexus loan get 100% write off.

    just an FYI during tough times

    Posted 11 months ago #
  29. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    Irregardless is not a word and is not worthy of print.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  30. Ernie

    Ernie

    online
    Member

    Pennygirl, if I fall ill here, without insurance, I'd get better care. The problem is what it costs.

    The problem is what it would cost everyone else who pays for insurance, you freeloader.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  31. pennygirl

    pennygirl

    online
    Member

    1der...unless you've experienced the NHS firsthand I don't think you can judge the level of care that you would receive.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  32. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    My father in law would have died in 93 had he not gone back to Europe and got care he never could have afforded here. He lived until about 2007.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  33. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    online
    Member

    Ahhh, the famed yoodletherapy! :) jk

    Glad he was able to get an effective treatment.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  34. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    Interesting item on cross-state competition this morning. Apparently Georgia opened the doors to cross-state competition, allowing any insurance company licensed in Georgia (which includes all of the big names) to sell any product that they sell anywhere else in the country, regardless of whether or not it meets Georgia rules. They had a little bit of a problem, though. None of the insurance companies signed up, and they wouldn't comment as to why.

    Oops. I guess cross-state competition won't save us after all.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  35. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

  36. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    I guess we'll know on Thursday.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  37. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    RichY, Thanks for the article. It makes the excellent point that it's not cheaper to provide health care in Georgia just because you're paying from a plan in Alabama. Also, if it was a legal or regulatory issue that was keeping the insurance companies out of the business that they really wanted to be in, one would think that they would have had some comment about it so that it could be changed.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  38. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    online
    Member

    Or not, so they wouldn't annoy their regulator. :)

    One situation where I think such a law could help is in states that mandate that all policies *must* cover certain types of therapy, even ones not shown scientifically to be effective. Apparently, in the past WA mandated that all policies include coverage for naturopathic treatments and massage therapy. I certainly don't have any problem with individuals paying extra to get coverage for such treatments, but it doesn't seem right to force the whole population to pay for treatments that haven't been shown to work. If another state had more science-based minimum coverages, I'd be up for considering insurance from there, and would hope that it would be cheaper, as well.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  39. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    Mondoman

    but it doesn't seem right to force the whole population to pay for treatments that haven't been shown to work

    The Middle East, Africa and the Far East were using "Variolization" (using dried and pulverized Small pox scabs and injecting them into healthy folks) around 1300 as a preventative to small pox, the west did not think (they knew, because there was no science to show that it worked) that it was ineffective. In 1718 Lady Montague had her son "inoculated" in turkey as well as her daughter in 1721, when they returned to Europe and were shown to be immune - doctors thought it a fluke - 1796 cow pox was tested and then shown to work then 2 hundred years later it was finally eradicated (most feel it was about 500 years late).

    So not all treatments have scientific proof, but should not be discounted.

    Maybe a massage will treat Hepatitis (don't really think so but who has tested it?)

    Posted 11 months ago #
  40. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    I don't think the idea is to use massage or acupuncture to treat hepatitis as to use them to treat back pain. Since (IIRC) they're about as effective as any traditional medicine or medical pot, it makes sense to treat at a lower cost even if nobody knows how it works.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  41. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    online
    Member

    Of course treatments that haven't been tested should be discounted if you're asking other people to pay for them. I appreciate that the scientific method wasn't as well known 200 or 700 years ago, but that's no excuse for us to willfully keep our eyes shut. :)

    bg, I agree that there are many treatments that are plausible and may actually work; no problem, just test them, show they do work, and you can get put on the "generally reimbursable" list. If, like so much, they feel nice but don't actually help the issue, I'm not happy paying for it -- dollars wasted are dollars wasted, even if the amounts are lower than others.

    A good example of why this is important is the stents (essentially, tubular scaffolds) implanted in blood vessels to hold them open and improve blood flow. Initial designs could often have scar tissue grow over them and quickly get blocked or increase blood-clot based heart attacks, in some cases leading to more heart attacks than if the procedure had never been done. However, patients felt better immediately after the procedure. It was only proper testing that revealed the costs and benefits, and led to the development of improved stents coated with drugs that try to encourage a more natural blood-vessel-like tissue coating instead of scar tissue.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  42. iPlod

    iPlod

    offline
    Member

    "It sure looks like the Framers would have considered a militia to be an organized force under government authority.

    If the government was satisfied with the militia as an organized force under their authority why would they need a regular army?

    Whatever plans the framers had for militia back then didn't work out. The militia are the people and they are not controlled by governmental authority.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  43. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    Not only do I want to form my own militia, I want a voucher since I have to pay for my own national defense.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  44. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    They wanted a militia because they didn't want to pay for a standing army. The nice thing about a militia is that you only have to pay them two weeks out of the year, if at all. Heck, the militias even had to provide their own guns and ammo. That's sure a lot cheaper than supplying it centrally. A standing army costs a lot of money, and money was in very short supply in the early days. Until after WWI, there was a minimal standing army. Armies were raised for wars and then discharged again into the population.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  45. Walt

    Walt

    offline
    Member

    The founders considered standing armies dangerous rather than expensive. Here's James Madison:
    "In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty."

    Posted 11 months ago #
  46. cd6

    cd6

    offline
    Member

    Maybe we shouldn't get so wound up about what could have been the opinions of dudes who have been dead for 200 years, and instead make a logical decision based on current facts.

    Its 2012. We are not going to have a militia and never will again.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  47. Walt

    Walt

    offline
    Member

    cd6, you suggest that the natural alternative to a constitutional republic is logical decisions based on current facts, instead of the more likely mob rule leading to some oligarchy.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  48. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    I don't get that an alternative to a constitutional republic has been offered from CDs remarks. Thats a bit a off leap and an assumption, which happens in a honest and friendly sort of discussion. However, it could simply be leading too, but I don't know what your intentions were?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  49. Walt

    Walt

    offline
    Member

    It may have been an unwarranted leap on my part, Edog. It seemed to me that cd6 was advocating ignoring the constitution and the meaning of it's text.
    My apologies, c6, for putting words in your mouth.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  50. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    Actually, CD's is a pretty general statement, so I think people will read a lot of different things into it. I for one instantly turn to Scalia's "textualism" which he applies in completely arbitrary manner. Of course, win, lose, or draw, I am dying to see what his remarks are in tomorrow's health care ruling so thats where my mind is, and goes.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  51. Cate

    Cate

    offline
    Member

    Walt - My thought is that the constitution has to be interpreted as it applies to the time we are living in. The writers were not prescient and did not anticipate the societal and cultural changes of the last 200+ years. It is left to the Supreme Court to interpret and the legislative branch to modify the Constitution. Jefferson was ultimately a pragmatist and I imagine he would have been among the first to interpret the Constitution in the light of the times we are living in.
    So I am thinking Noon Eastern time, nine Seattle time, for the announcement. 5-4 decision but I'm not commenting on 5-4 which direction.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  52. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    I have no idea what the decision will be, but based on Scalia's and Alito's public tantrums, I suspect it will be a split decision and a mixed bag for all much like the Arizona case.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  53. Cate

    Cate

    offline
    Member

    I'm with you on that Edog - I think tomorrow is gong to end with the Health Insurance Public Policy issue more clouded than it is today.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  54. Walt

    Walt

    offline
    Member

    My WAG is 6-3 against.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  55. Cate

    Cate

    offline
    Member

    Okay, I will put my money on the box (it pains me to type this) 5-4 against.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  56. great idea

    great idea

    offline
    Member

    5-4 FOR.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  57. Cate

    Cate

    offline
    Member

    I hope your right GI.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  58. great idea

    great idea

    offline
    Member

    me, too.

    if for no other reason than for someone to catch Biden whispering into Obama's ear, "this is even a BIGGER f*cking deal."

    Posted 11 months ago #
  59. Ernie

    Ernie

    online
    Member

    WHOOT!

    Posted 10 months ago #
  60. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    Whoot X2!
    5-4 for!

    Posted 10 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

OUR SPONSORS










Advertise here
There are 146 users online. 5 of them are members.
213618 posts in 14751 topics over 61 months by 3928 of 87214 members. Latest: Adymtvvbb, denylhucf, 7selena55mg