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!

ObamaCare Back & Forth, Part One

About a week ago, I noticed that my good friend, Josh Bails, had posted a facebook status supporting the Supreme Court's decision that largely upheld the controversial health care law known as ObamaCare. I indicated that I was not quite as thrilled about the Court's decision. He then asked me to explain why I opposed the bill. This was what sparked what has been an intense and thoroughly enjoyable thread of emails between the two of us. I recently asked him if he would mind me posting them here and he was kind enough to encourage it.

It's pretty long, so I think I'll post it in 2 installments. The second one will be up as quickly as I can get it ready.

Let me give you a little background. "Me:" means I am writing and "Josh:" means Josh is writing. The first email in this thread is me responding to Josh's request on facebook for a well thought-out argument against ObamaCare. The subject like of my email simply said "Freedom."


Me:

That's mainly why I oppose the individual mandate. I don't want the government making me do things, even if they're making me do things that are good for my health. If I own a company, I don't want the government telling me how to run it. If I don't want healthcare, I shouldn't have to buy it.

Simple as that. Let me get my own healthcare if I want it. Let me not get healthcare if I don't want it. Let me be free.

I understand that it helps alot of people get insurance and that it attempts to stop insurance companies from "bad" policies. Those are all good and nice things, but the price is too high. Freedom is more important.

Thoughts?


Josh:

I understand the argument, but I feel a lot of it is refuted in the Supreme Court's own explanation - the individual mandate is legal *as a tax*.

Which makes perfect sense to me - it might be something you disagree with, but if it's something we've decided to provide the country with then so it goes. We get taxed for all kinds of things not just what we agree with. If it worked that way, I'd happily ask to get the part of my paycheck back that went towards making our military larger than the next 14 largest militaries combined.

When it comes to things like the government telling people how to run companies and whatnot, the majority of that is things that protect the population like health and pollution regulations, which I'm very happy are in place. I don't think any of these things are compromising our freedoms. I just see this as society finally deciding to cover the ambulance along with the cop car and the fire truck (overly simplified, but you get what i mean).


Me:

Well first, it's not a tax. A tax applies to everyone who buys a certain good. I buy a fridge, I pay a tax. I buy a sandwich, I pay a tax. Say I don't want to pay the tax on the sandwich then I am free to not buy it and not pay the tax.

This is a fine. I commit an offense, I pay a fine. Too long at the parking meter, I pay a fine. Drunk and urinate in the street (which kinda does sound like me), I pay a fine. Now it is an offense for me to not buy health care and now I must pay a fine. This bill defines not having healthcare as an offense (or crime or misbehavior or whatever word sounds better there) which incurs a fine.

You could ask here, "Well, you agree that people who stay too long at the meter deserve a fine. You agree that if you get drunk and urinate in the street you deserve a fine. Don't you think that you should be fined for not having health care?"
No. With the parking meter, I made a type of 'agreement' with the meter to stay only as long as I paid for. If I go over that time, I should be fined. With the peeing in the street, I most likely disturbed some passerby and affected them negatively and I should be fined. In the health care case, I have done nothing wrong. I simply don't want health insurance for some irrelevant reason. Now the government can fine me for choosing to not have healthcare? This is why I oppose the individual mandate.

The way in which the government spends its money is the subject a different and much lengthier email. I generally endorse military spending; makes me feel safe.

There are certain regulations that I support the government in enforcing, specifically those regarding pollution. A company should not be allowed to pollute the air or the water because that adversely affects nearby citizens. I as well am happy that those regulations are in place. With regard to health regulations, I'm not sure I know specifically what you're talking about. I most likely would not endorse them. I like my government small, with as little interaction in the market as possible.

tl:dr With regard to the individual mandate: it's not a tax, it's a fine on an offense that they create in the bill. It infringes on the freedom of US citizens.
I endorse some government regulations (pollution) but like to keep it as small and uninvolved as possible.

Make sense?


Josh:

While you can debate the semantics of it, the Supreme Court ruling is that it is a tax. That is therefore the new definition, so it is a tax. The reason it is there in the first place is so that no one can decide to just not have health insurance until right when they get sick, since the health care law doesn't let health insurance companies deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions. There are very few people that would seriously want to intentionally not have health insurance in the first place, and I doubt you are one of them.

By health regulations I meant things like what the FDA is there for, I doubt you want things to return to how they're described in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.


Me:

What?! That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has no legislative power. It cannot say that something is a tax or is not a tax. Its only power lies in determining if laws are constitutional or not. In this case, they ruled the individual mandate constitutional because they think that the fines imposed on individuals without health insurance can be "construed" as taxes. But it does not make these fines taxes because the Supreme Court said so. Not at all. Here is Roberts' statement:

"It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without insurance.  Such legislation is within Congress’ power to tax."

So the Supreme Court says it's a tax thus making it constitutional, but not making it a tax by simply calling it one. They cannot define it to be a tax.

You bring up the example of a person not having insurance and then purchasing health insurance right when they get sick. If this were a free country, health insurers could refuse coverage to whoever they wanted, preexisting conditions or not. People would also be free to buy health insurance or not. If I choose to buy health insurance and then subsequently get sick, I'm covered. If I don't choose to buy health insurance and subsequently get sick, I'm fucked, but it was my choice to not buy health care and I'm a grown up and must deal with the consequences of my decisions. There's no need for government here. This way, if someone gets sick and then immediately tries to get health care, no care provider will take them. In regard to people with preexisting conditions, what happened to their previous health care provider? Or are they just an example of people who didn't get health insurance, got sick, and subsequently want it?

I want and have health insurance because I like having that security. If I get sick, my provider will be paying my medical bills. But who am I to mandate that everyone gets it?

I've never read The Jungle but I imagine I'm behind most of what the FDA does (I'd have to do a little research to make a definitive statement).


Josh:

So I was perhaps a bit hasty in my explanation of how it is a tax, but as you said it falls under congressional taxing power in their decision which is what I was getting at. I don't see letting someone not have health insurance and then getting fucked when they get sick as a very good example of freedom, if we've decided that everyone should be provided with basic care I really don't see how that constitutes a major infringement of freedom. That's like debating whether or not someone should be forced to pay for the fire department, and if they decide not to and get fucked when their house burns down then that's them exercising their freedom.

I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of the principle behind the individual mandate, but i see its necessity in provided much needed care and services to the rest of the population. I'm sorry, but I really think calling that a threat to any freedom as pretty blatant hyperbole.


Me:

From your last email:

"I don't see letting someone not have health insurance and then getting fucked when they get sick as a very good example of freedom..."

It might not be a pretty example of freedom because one person gets sick and then gets fucked, but it is nonetheless an example of freedom. It is an example of a freedom that this law would take away. Later in your last message, you say

"...I really think calling that a threat to any freedom as pretty blatant hyperbole."

when you are referring to the individual mandate. But by making it a crime to be uninsured, the government has not just threatened the individual's freedom, it has taken it away. I don't think calling a law out on what it does (takes away my right to be uninsured under penalty of a fine) is hyperbole at all.

You make a good point in the analogy with the fire department. However, there is a key difference between the two cases. It comes down to one being a federal law and one being a local law. I should be able to choose whether or not to pay for the fire department and, like you said, reap the consequences of my decision if my house burns down. But I am forced by my city (or state) to pay taxes to fund the fire department, potentially against my will. By my logic this is an infringement of freedom. But nothing is stopping me from moving to another state if I find this infringement unbearable. This is the beauty of the US. Our system of federalism allows for different state governments with different rules, laws, and taxes. If I find one not to my liking, I can move to another that I like more. The problem with imposing laws that infringe on citizens rights at the federal level is that I can no longer move to a different state. My ability to find a free state is gone.

See the difference? Understand the logic? Still reading? Wanna punch the obnoxious, capitalist, insensitive, uncaring ginger in the nose yet? Haha. I appreciate the conversation man.


Josh:

Well the first thing I see is no matter what state you move to you're still paying for a fire department, I didn't exactly get the reasoning there. And if you consider that an infringement of freedom and the individual mandate an infringement on a similar level then that's kind of unrealistic given how this country has been set up for quite some time.

And it's not a crime to not have health care, just if you don't you'll get taxed one percent and receive the most base care possible. Just as the police station paid for in your taxes is the base level of that service the country allows while you can choose to pay for a private security company as well.

Haha I get the logic, I'm just not sure how well informed it is :P


Me:

Ok, so if all the states make me pay for a fire department and it's that big of a deal to me, I call my state legislature and voice my opinions or I run for office myself on the platform of "No Public Fire Departments." Another beauty of our system is allowing anyone to run for office to change the issues that are important to them. I feel like the fire department tax is a significant infringement on my freedom (I don't in actuality, but for the sake of the argument) then I can run for office, convince people that I am right, and eventually change it. The only difference between the individual mandate and the fire department tax is that there are already prominent politicians in Washington declaring it's infringement of freedom, so I just support them. See the reasoning now?

Do I consider infringement of freedom in the form of a fire department tax to be on a similar level as infringement of freedom in the form of the individual mandate? Of course not. I support the fire department tax. Maybe I wouldn't have if it were just beginning right now, but its been long established and is relatively inexpensive. But you know how I feel about the individual mandate. So no, I don't think these two examples of freedom infringement are on the same analytical level.

The federal government is mandating that I get health care. If I don't, I have to give them money. It is NOT similar to a situation in which I'm funding a local police station and also paying for private security.

I think that should clear up some of the logic. I tried to keep it simple, well-informed.


Josh:

It isn't mandating any more than it is mandated that you get fire department service and police service. The money you have to give them if you don't is just a tax for which you will receive the base level of care. In any case yeah you can support people who think something is an infringement of a freedom, and where does that argument ultimately end up? In the Supreme Court. Who just made the ruling, and set the precedent, despite being empirically very conservative in most of its decisions in the past few years so the argument of rigged court doesn't hold much water either. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/


Me:

You keep calling it a tax. Did you understand my paragraph explaining how it's not a tax? It's a penalty, a fine, a punishment. I'm not doing what the government says, and I'm being punished.

They are mandating that I have insurance. This is an infringement of freedom similar to being forced to pay for a fire department. In my opinion, a fire department tax is necessary and does not substantially infringe on my freedom (see also the paragraph describing the difference between local law and federal law). Again, in my opinion, a mandate to buy health care does substantially infringe on my freedom. This is why I believe it to be unconstitutional and should be struck down. Now do you see the difference between funding the fire department and being forced to buy insurance? I've beat it to death at this point.

Considering our tax/fine discussion, maybe this argument will be more comprehensible for you. A tax stems from some sort of action. I actively buy a loaf of bread, I pay the tax. I own a property, I pay a tax. But what you refer to as the individual mandate "tax" stems from inaction (not having actively bought health insurance). This is an extreme example, but say I do nothing with my life. I've somehow managed to never buy things, not need food, not need property, clothes, etc. In all senses of the word, I am inactive. Thus I pay no tax, right? Not anymore. Obama wants to make me pay a fine for being inactive, not having health insurance. I would have lived happily ever after in my make believe world being inactive all the time, but now I'm being punished. This is unconstitutional.

Basically, a tax is a portion of my income or a portion of the price of a good/service that I pay for. I'm active in both endeavors. But now I'm being "taxed" for being passive, not buying a certain service. I consider this not a tax at all but a penalty, a fine. If I had decided to buy the health insurance and was forced to pay extra money to the government when I bought it, then you could call that a tax. But this is a penalty for being passive, not a tax at all.

I can see how you think of it as a tax. Can you see how I think of it as a fine?

So this is why ObamaCare ended up in the Supreme Court; some people thought it was an infringement of freedom that was unconstitutional and made an appeal. The Supreme Court, despite being quite conservative, ruled that the law was constitutional. Fair enough. This is the way in which our government works; I might not have agreed with the decision but I'm mature enough to realize the legitimacy of the process by which it was created, passed, and recently analyzed. However, just because the Supreme Court ruled the law as constitutional does not mean that I immediately take them at their word and implicitly believe them. Yes, they get to make the decision, but I am not obligated to adopt the same one. I don't really understand why you bring up the political leaning of the court. It's informative, but is not relevant if we're discussing the legitimacy of the individual mandate.

I think this is a pretty strong and well-explained argument. You understand my thinking now? Agree that it is a fine? Unconstitutional? Put all the benefits of the law aside for a moment and ask yourself if you think it's constitutional. You will find that it is not.

Please be open-minded, for the sake of a naive, aspiring, sincere youngster.


Me again:

Relevant:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/#.T-xn4HB_L9U.twitter


Josh:

So I get your and Obama's points of it not being a tax in the traditional sense, but you also have to realize the last thing a politician wants to admit to is levying a new tax so of course he's going to do everything he can to talk it out of that definition. But honestly, Obama presents a much better argument than I do. If you have a car you're already required to get car insurance, and of course you have a body so now you're required to have health insurance too.

As to your hypothetical situation where you don't do anything to require any taxes whatsoever, then it that case you would most likely be broke, putting you under 133% of the poverty line, which waives the mandate for you, and most likely qualifies you for some sort of free health care through your state's Human and Health Services Department. And for anyone between 133% and 400% of the poverty line, they qualify for government subsidies be it on the mandated base care or a plan they choose. The only people being "forced" into anything are those that can afford health care but don't want to buy it until they need it. 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. This was no one's first choice as to how to make health care reform work, but it's a compromise that is worth it for what society gains in return. Also, if you have a certain part of the Constitution this violates when you call it unconstitutional I'd be interested to hear it.

Now please don't take this as me being someone who doesn't worry about the government overreaching their bounds and infringing on freedoms, I just think there are much more significant battles to be fought that present much worse threats than "forcing" everyone to have health care. For instance, bills like SOPA that want to put significant controls, restrictions, and possible censorship on the open web continue to show up in Congress and would cause much more troubling infringements on our freedoms. Things like this scare me much more than the individual mandate, and personally I find the mandate a lot lighter compromise for security over freedom than, say, what the TSA puts you through to get on an airplane when that system hasn't been very effective at achieving its goal.

There will always be an argument that this or any other law is in someway an infringement on your freedoms and involves putting one value over another to some degree (such as security/health over freedom/autonomy or vice versa when it comes to laws allowing certain levels or unrestricted levels of industrial pollution), and the individual mandate seems to be a rather insignificant one that provides a great service to be provided to even more of our population and I would find kind of a stretch to consider it a slippery slope towards more "fines" or even more socialistic policies, as this is still far from universal health care.


End of this installment.

So I'm not sure how links work in blogger. Maybe they still work? Comment below if you have problems. Installment 2 is coming soon so stay tuned!

Thoughts on Health Care

As a person who has never bought health insurance, I am really not qualified to talk about it. I don't know the details, such as the price and the type of coverage, that are agreed to when a person buys health insurance. I don't know how insurance companies operate in industry or about their relationship with hospitals. I've also never been seriously sick or injured (thank God) so I have only a vague idea of how hospitals work. I don't know about how they hire doctors and nurses or how they go about charging their patients.

So now that I've convinced you to immediately discount everything I say, let me begin. As far as I see it, I should be allowed to buy health insurance from a company if I want to. I should also be allowed to not buy health insurance if I don't want to. Free country, right? I make a choice and must live with the consequences. I should be free to choose to give a company money periodically with the reservation that if I fall ill or become injured, that company must now pay my medical bills. I like to think that I would do this if I could afford it. I like to feel secure and I imagine that this would give me peace of mind.

If it were to happen that I could not afford the health insurance, that's tough. Maybe I should work very hard at my job so I can eventually afford it. But does our free market economy work in this particular market? I see no reason as to why it shouldn't. The health insurance companies want to insure as many people as possible; more customers means more profit. This means that they will seek to offer the lowest prices they can (while still making a profit) in order to become more appealing to the consumer than the other health insurance companies. This mentality drives prices down to something that most people can afford. Also, if health insurance becomes too expensive, fewer people buy it which compels the company to reduce the price.

Now I know all the liberals will be up in arms at this point saying things like "But the poor deserve health insurance too!" and "The health care industry is horrible, denying coverage to the sick," and things like that. I agree that it is sad when a sick, poor person cannot get the health care they need. There should be certain cases in which the government steps in and pays for the health care of the sick, poor individual. But there are also cases when the government should not step in to foot the medical bill.

Let's imagine a man who had the means to buy health insurance, but enjoyed and exercised his freedom to not buy it. Then he got sick and had to pay for all of his medical bills on his own. Now he has no money but still needs more medical treatment. Should the government pay for his treatment? Ehhh, I don't think so. He made a choice to not have health insurance and now he's reaping the (incredibly dire) consequences. It's sad, but comes with no cost to the taxpayer.

Now let's imagine a man who does not have the ability to buy health insurance. What happens when he gets sick? Well, if he didn't have the means to buy health insurance because he was lazy and didn't work, then he's outta luck and the government should not pay for his treatment. But say he's poor because he honestly couldn't find a job. He'd been out of work for several years after losing his job. He tried applying everywhere: all the companies in his particular industry, in related industries, local restaurants, even McDonalds. Then he got sick and couldn't pay for his treatment.

Here I'm torn. Part of me says that life is tough and the average Joe American should not be forced to pay for the health care of this guy who can't pay for it himself. It sounds mean, but in a truly free country, I should not be mandated to help him out. Now if he came to me personally and asked for help, maybe I would. Maybe I wouldn't. But either way I should not be forced to pay for his treatment.

But then another part of me says that we, as a moral and civilized society, should be mandated to pay for his health care. This part of me says that I should not oppose a tax that goes to help this man pay his medical bills. If this man would die without the care, we are obligated to pay for it. In this scenario, I'm being forced to pay for his treatment (a negative, losing a small bit of freedom) but I've allowed him to be healthy and continue his life (a positive, hooray for humanity).

So where does the role of the government lie? Could the sick, poor people make appeals to their community instead, sincerely asking for help with their medical bills? Would the community help? Or do we need a federal mandate that makes us all be "good" citizens and help the sick and the poor? What if I'm an asshole and don't want to help? Does the government have the right to tell me that I have to? I am unsure of where I stand in the case of the poor person who never could afford health insurance and eventually got sick. Leave a comment and try to convince me either way.

In the end, I'm always wary of government intervention in the economy; I'm afraid of an overly powerful government.

Maybe instead of imposing a tax to care of sick, poor people we could do something that would lower the price of medical treatment. Is that possible? Someone with more expertise in the medical industry could chime in here. Is there any way, even through government intervention, to lower the number on the average patient's hospital bill? Maybe this way more people would be able to afford their own care. I don't know; I'm just thinking out loud.

So this post addresses a more theoretical topic in regards to a government's right to tax and to provide health care to its citizens. I imagine my next post talking about the real-life example of Obamacare, its constitutionality, states' rights, etc. I have had an ongoing conversation with a friend of mine in which we argue about these topics. I have asked him if he wouldn't mind me posting some of our emails to eachother that I think would enlighten the discussion. Hopefully he gets back to me soon. I'm also thinking of writing a post about this same topic but from a very different perspective; I have a close friend who takes a vastly difference stance on this topic than I do and I want to try her argument on for size. No matter what's next, I'm sure there will end up being many posts about health care, so get ready.

Please comment below with thoughts or questions. I wanna know if you think I'm crazy, rational, ignorant, informed, uncaring, right-on, or a mixture of several.