ObamaCare Back & Forth, Part Two

The second installment of my conversation with Josh. Enjoy!

Me:

So if the mandate penalty is a tax, it's constitutional. Obama, who made the bill, says it's not a tax. The Supreme Court said it could be "construed" as a tax. If we believe Obama, then it's unconstitutional. If we believe the Court, it's constitutional.

I don't even know what I think it is anymore. On one hand, I think it's a tax. It's a tax imposed on people who choose to not buy health insurance. People are free to either buy health insurance and avoid the tax or not buy the health insurance and pay the tax. This is similar to the way a person chooses to buy a loaf of bread and pay the tax, or not buy the loaf of bread and not pay the tax.

On the other hand, I think it's a penalty. The government wants everyone to do something, in this case buy health insurance, and is convincing everyone to do so by imposing a penalty on those who don't. This oversteps the governments constitutional rights. The constitution lists a bunch of powers that our government can do, including things like levy taxes, create a military, stuff like that. At the very end of the constitution they put the 10th Ammendment, which makes this law unconstitutional. This is what it says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

No where in the constitution does it give the government the power to fine people for not buying health insurance. Thus, unconstitutional.

You misunderstood my example of the "Inactive Man" as I'll call him. I'm not gonna dig that one up again though, as I feel it will only confuse things more. I guess I did not explain the example very well, although it remains at the heart of my disagreement with this law.

Now I believe we are getting down to the fundamental difference between our two positions on this law. In your message you say,

"My personal opinion is that this is a very small price to pay for a very small amount of the population (that is kind of doing them a favor anyways) to expand health care coverage to millions who couldn't afford or didn't qualify for it before."

If we're on the same page, the price we're paying is the infringement on freedom (now being penalized, or taxed, for not having health insurance). I disagree. I think this price is huge because I value my freedom highly. Any solution to the health care problem in the US that substantially infringes upon an individual's freedom I will not support.

This substantially infringes on my freedom. And for what? So other people can have health care? How about everyone go and live their own life and I'll live mine. You get health insurance if you want, and I'll get it if I want. Quit making rules that take away my freedom. Anything that threatens my freedom is the biggest threat out there. Give the government more power to tell us what to do, and we're a few steps from a socialist state. It scares me. A more powerful government is the most threatening thing to my freedom. I don't want to let them dictate if I get health insurance or not, even if it helps a lot of people get health care. Not worth it. The price is too high. My freedom is supreme.


Josh:

So the article Emilio put on facebook does a pretty good job of explaining this, definitely be sure to read that. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78027.html One of the most potent points is that regardless of whether it is a penalty or a tax, what Romney set up here in MA is exactly the same, so in no way is Obama your problem here. The mandate was originally recognized as a Republican idea that became the great compromise to pay for health care reform, but as soon as Obama agreed to it they all reframed it as the "great evil" behind Obamacare. When it is being described as a penalty(which was much harsher in Romneycare), it is in the form of a "free rider penalty" that Romney touted as encouraging free riders to take responsibility for their health care. 

"Any solution to the health care problem in the US that substantially infringes upon an individual's freedom I will not support." Infringing on one's freedom to be a free rider on the health care system of this country they have agreed to live in and abide by the rules of is very hard for me to realistically consider as a substantial infringement. In our society as it stands, freedom more closely means having the ability to set foot on an a level playing field as everyone else.

Also, with this individual mandate, if you are in a position in which you have to pay the tax or penalty or whatever you want to call it, you paying that gives you the base health coverage. So if this is a penalty it is not a penalty like a parking ticket where all you get for paying it is that you're no longer in trouble, you actually get a service for paying it. I don't find this radically different from the school voucher program the christian community wanted a while back, where they wanted to take the money they pay in taxes that go towards public schools and have it as a voucher they can put towards paying for their kids' private schools. In this analogy, the public schools would be the base service required by the government, and the private schools would be the private health care plans. That plan of theirs in particular wasn't very well thought out, as the base service had rather inadequate funding even before they wanted to take funds out of it, but you get the idea. On that note, where in the Constitution does it say kids have to go to school until a certain age? (even with home school kids if they aren't actually being home schooled then child services gets called, so let's just nevermind that exception) Health care is just another thing that society has decided should be available to all, and so all should pay for it - if anything you should be more mad about the infringed freedom of those that have to pay towards public schools that have no kids.

"And for what? So other people can have health care? How about everyone go and live their own life and I'll live mine. You get health insurance if you want, and I'll get it if I want."

That's not how society works, that's why there are so many other taxes you pay that you won't always see a direct benefit from. If you're going to live here then no man is an island definitely applies and having this to provide a level playing field to a larger portion of the population, which as I said is a better functional definition of freedom in our society (think civil rights and all that), then this is something we should have done a long time ago and will end up being a net positive for the country and the economy, as hard as that is for some to believe. Saying everyone should have health care is a faaaarr cry from a socialist state.


Me:

"One of the most potent points is that regardless of whether it is a penalty or a tax, what Romney set up here in MA is exactly the same, so in no way is Obama your problem here."

-You

Do you understand the idea of federalism? It is the idea upon which our nation was founded. It is the idea that states have the ability to either adhere to the constitution and then adopt its conditions or to reject the constitution and be considered something separate from the US. As a well informed and intelligent American (I try not to boast, though I will not slight myself), please understand that I (and our Founding Fathers) adhere to this notion.

Ultimately, people are sovereign over government. In practice, States are sovereign over the federal government. Do you believe this? Do you believe that States have the right to remain in the United States or to be remove themselves from the United States if they want to? Do you want a strong federal government or a weak one? These questions, though seemingly unrelated, are in fact very relevant to (and indeed at the heart of) our current subject of conversation.

So you and Emilio bring up the fact that Romney imposed something similar to ObamaCare in Massachusetts. Did it work? I don't know because I've neglected to do the research myself and don't want to go fact digging right now. But I have heard that it worked in MA. So good for Romney! The people in his state voted for him and he went about installing a health insurance program similar to ObamaCare. If citizens in MA thought it too much of a infringement of freedom, they could move to another state. Romney can endorse ObamaCare in his own State and citizens in his state can vote to support or oppose it. In this case, they supported it. Good for States' rights.

You say in your statement that in no way is Obama my problem. Obama is exactly my problem, endorsing a policy that mandates nation-wide health insurance. If you believe in federalism and States' rights you understand the difference between Romney's Statewide health care statutes and Obama's nationwide statutes.

See what I'm getting at? I have a view of how our country should function that is based on individual freedom, federalism, and the constitution. If you have a different one, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to even try to give it some merit. But it seems that with the logic you've presented up to this point, you're in favor of a more government-controlled, socialized country. I could never encourage the slightest movement to what you tout would be a more "caring" society. Again, the cost is too high.

It's the idea of being told what to do. I hate it. I personally probably would not be substantially effected by the implement of ObamaCare, but I oppose it in principle. The idea of a government infringing on my freedom, no matter how trivial, makes my stomach turn. The federal government does not get to tell me how my healthcare works.

So now everyone must have health insurance. If you don't, you get fined and the most basic coverage. Who gave the government the right to make everyone get health care? Unconstitutional. That even sounds a bit like socialism, doesn't it? A government mandating something to its citizens and controlling part of the market. We're obviously a long way from socialism, but this is definitely a step towards it. A step I wish we wouldn't take.

You bring up the people who have no kids but still pay taxes that end up funding public schools. Yeah, that's not fair. Maybe I should run for office to get them to change the policy. I totally would, but I don't care about it that much. Evidently these people don't either, or someone would be talking about it. It seems the system we have currently is working without substantial detriment to those with no kids in public schools. Also, congress has the power to tax, so it's constitutional.

I believe everyone should be able to have health care. I don't believe that everyone should be forced to have it.

Sorry for the response delay. It's been a busy weekend over here.


Josh:

First, if you think states actually have a choice when it comes to adhering to the Constitution, I would like to refer you to the Civil War as to the country's actual stance on states trying to leave. There are certain states I'd be more than happy to see go, but in practice that's not how it really works.

As to the strong or weak federal government, I feel that attending to the well-being of the country's citizens, especially the least fortunate, is a noble and desirable goal for the federal government to pursue, and I'm more than happy to let it do so. We are among the last industrialized countries to address health care on a national level like this. This is not an odd thing to do, and it is by no means the socialistic mark of death that signals the end of our economy or the free market or whatever it is the talking heads can't stop barking about.

If you want to discuss the strength of the federal government, I'd like to once again point out that we could cut our military spending in half and still have by far the largest military force in the world, and the societal problems we could address with that amount of funding aren't even worth attempting to count. Needing a military that vastly overpowers any competition to feel secure is an issue I'd rather not address, I would feel fine with a fraction of what we have.

Let me frame it this way: poverty and illness are evils that claim the lives of far more American citizens than terrorism ever has or will, and the federal government spending tax dollars to combat those make all the sense in the world to me. Just because these are issues that we are well off enough that we have no reason to fear them, does not mean they are very real threats to large portions of the country's population, much more so than anything our military is there to protect us from.

As for state rights, an excerpt from that reddit piece I directed you towards:
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA(Obamacare), they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

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

That is the actual bill, and sec.1332 on numbered page 98 (actually the 117th page of the document) this is explained in detail. So this completely adheres to state rights, as any state can come up with their own system to replace this, as long as it achieves the same coverage. If any state can figure out how to do this without the mandate and provide an alternative that people can move to the state to find, more power to them.

As to how you don't care about the people with no kids paying for schools, chances are that once this has been in place for a while and everyone having health insurance becomes the accepted status quo here as it is in almost every other industrialized country, nobody will really care about this either. This whole thing has mostly just been political posturing in an election year, so much so that now pretty much every Republican is also calling this a tax and saying that what Obama has really done has levied a tax increase against the middle class (even though it doesn't really do much if anything to their taxes). See? Whatever message can be used as an attack will be adopted, the rest is moot in time.

Being "told" to get health insurance is something most places find as common sense, and the same will be true here in time. When it comes to things the government is doing that threatens my freedom, I'd much rather spend my time worrying about things like the Patriot Act. Invading my privacy without (or with a very questionable) warrant is an actual infringement on my freedom that I believe needs to be fixed.


Me:

I think states have a choice when it comes to adhering to the Constitution. They can adhere to it and be a state in the Union or they cannot adhere and not be in the Union. Now and practically, States should be able to choose whether or not they want to be in the US. But if they want to be in the US, they must abide by the Constitution. In the War Between the States, the South simply wanted to leave the Union, not to overthrow it (which is why I do not call it a civil war). But Lincoln said no, the South must remain in the Union. And then a horrible, nasty war which could have been avoided if Lincoln had just let the South be their own country. But he didn't believe in a state's right to secede from the US. I do.

Would you agree that this is a step towards a more socialist system? I personally think we're the best country in the world (I'm biased, of course) and I believe that it stems from the fact that while other industrialized countries like those in Europe have become more socialistic in nature, America's Founding Fathers created a style of government that could not become powerful enough to impose detrimental, government-empowering policies in order to inhibit this socialistic drift. Whew, that was a mouthfull. Europe holds the majority of the other industrialized nations and they're not having a hell of a time over there right now, what with that crisis and all.

Ok ok, we could spend less on the military and more on social programs within the US. I'm with you there, but I'm still failing to understand your position on how much strength the federal government should have.

So because no state has come up with a better solution to the health care problem, we should all just accept that this is the best one out there and accept the impingement of freedom? I disagree, my friend. Because Obama and the democrats passed this law in a perfectly legal manner, all law-abiding citizens in the US will be either buying health insurance or paying extra "taxes," myself included. But just because I will comply with the law does not mean I support the law. I only brought up the issues of States' Rights vs Federal Rights to see where you stood on those more general topics. Could you maybe speak a little more on those, how you believe our government should function in relation to both?

I refuse to support this law simply because over time it will become the status quo. That doesn't make it more appealing or more constitutional. I realize that at some point in our nation's history there was probably a similar debate about funding schools. I'm not sure where I would have stood on that debate at the time, but I know where I stand on this one that's happening right now. Maybe when I get an extra few minutes I'll propose a massively different education system (but probably not).

"...it doesn't really do much if anything to their taxes.."

I'd love to hear how that works. Take a look at page 146 in that PPACA document you sent me (it's page 165 according the pdf reader). Also, this leads me to believe that we are straying slightly from the main topic of our argument. I oppose this law because it restricts my freedom to buy or not buy a certain service. The government should not be able to do that. Do you agree? Just in general, do you agree? Say the government told you that you had to get your car washed every week. Their justification is that it helps a significant part of the population. Would you support that law?

It doesn't matter how much the penalty (or tax; I can't even make up my mind at this point) costs the American who doesn't want health insurance. It's the fact that the government is telling the American what to do.

"Being "told" to get health insurance is something most places find as common sense..."

I don't want to be like most places. America is the freest country on Earth. I don't want to adopt policies that give our government more control, restrict our freedom, and make us more like "most places." I don't like being told by my government to do anything. If you love freedom like I do, then this is as abhorrent to you as it is to me.


End of emails.

And with that, we wished eachother a happy 4th of July and reveled in the fact that we still live in the greatest country on Earth. It's hard sometimes, when we argue so passionately about the future of our nation, to remember that we're all on the same team. I enjoy exercising my freedom of speech in conversation with Josh. Quick shout to him if he's reading. Thanks for keeping it interesting and allowing me to share this, man. It's real nice of you.

Please keep in mind that the writing in my emails might be less informed or less clear. I thought they would only be viewed by Josh and not put on a public website. Hopefully I didn't make any incredulous or ridiculous statements. Please let me know if I did. I hope you enjoyed reading. Comment below with thoughts and questions. Happy 4th everybody!