Current Events

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Autolykos — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:58:39 GMT

Ironically, the Soviet Union adopted this as one of its fundamental principles: "if a person does not work, then neither shall he eat".

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Aristophanes — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:47:27 GMT

I think we should just have movements that don't require us to work. Let's tax the people who want to work, so that we don't have to.

I am serious. They have their total State. So, let's use it. I want free health care, housing, food, education...shit I DON'T want a job. The government can give all of it to me. Why should anyone work if they can just tax everyone for not doing something? Tax people for not not working.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Autolykos — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:35:57 GMT

Given recent events, what does everyone think about this now?

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Autolykos — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:06:05 GMT

If the individual mandate is ruled constitutional, then this could be a portent of things to come:

Obesity screening urged for all U.S. men and women

All adults should have their height and weight measured during checkups and anyone who is obese should be referred for intensive diet and exercise programs if needed, according to new U.S. guidelines for physicians.

The government-backed U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said Tuesday that its latest recommendations on screening for obesity reflect evidence on how adults can successfully shed pounds and keep them off to gain health benefits.

[...]

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

John James — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:55:26 GMT

An interesting point from Institute for Justice:

The Supreme Court just held that workers can’t be forced to subsidize political speech by unions, but if Obamacare is upheld, all Americans may be forced to subsidize political speech by health insurers. Can this be constitutional?

Knox v. SEIU, Citizens United, and the Obamacare Individual Mandate

To me this offers a good glimpse into the ruling on Obamacare...It is doubtful the Court would contradict itself in the exact same session.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

John James — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:18:55 GMT

You're just illustrating my point. They try to argue it both ways. Can't have it both ways. But that's the only way their worldview would actually work...if the world were Oppositeland Simultaneousville.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

The Texas Trigger — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:03:15 GMT

John James:
So basically, people will get morbidly obese, and destroy their heart and lungs, to where they can't get around but in a scooter, and can't speak but for a mechanical larynx, because they know they won't have to pay for those devices...but people will go out and get a job and work to earn a wage to pay for their food and housing, even though they are guaranteed those things too.

I mostly agree with you guys but I think you have committed a bit of a slippery slope with regard to the actual results of such policies. I do think you are over stating these a bit. These "rights" will certainly decrease the incentive to live healthfully, and, should these things become "rights" then certainly those on the margin will become the kind of people you are talking about. However, I do not think that just because someone would be willing (or forced) to pay for my mechanical larynx, that I would then take that as a signal to go start huffing my exhaust pipe just because it gets me a little high. I have health insurance and it pays for literally everything besides a $20 co-pay on all prescription drugs. My deductible for major medical procedures is $1000, and that deductible is also used up if I need to buy equipment such as a wheel chair, oxygen, or mechanical larynx. This is a laughable expense for me. So, pretty much, I fall under the category of person you are talking about (in medicine at least).

Living with a real larynx is still preferable to living with a mechanical one, even if it is "free". Again, there will be those on the margin of bad health anyway who will go out and be that stupid, but if we are going to say that individuals are perfectly capable of raising their children without the aid of the government, then I think we should be consistent enough to, at least, give most people the credit of being smart enough not to go totally bonkers into abysmal health, despite what is "free".

But, in the area of food or living wages: totally correct. If food and wages are given to me for free, I will not go out and get a job. Of course, once I find that there is no food because no one is producing it, and the wage I am paid is laughable (if existent) then I will start to work. Perhaps such a crazy policy would be good for us in the long run, kind of like letting the currency and economy totally collapse. If NO ONE is producing, the government then has no money and therefore no power over us. They would become irrelevant and all markets would become, in essence, black markets with no way for the government to stomp them out.

Anyway, you all are right in that I think we will see a general degradation in over all wealth and health by comparison should policies like the second bill of rights come to pass. That is obvious.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

John James — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:28:50 GMT

Aristophanes:
You have no incentive to keep healthy (diet and/or exercise) if someone else is subsidizing your increased health care costs down the road. You are more likely to smoke et al as well. If the government tries at all to prevent this behavior it has to put limits on behavior. This is a necessary fact.

This is yet another area where the statist argument breaks down. In this instance, they probably will use that excuse...that people will be more reckless with their health because they don't shoulder the cost (financially anyway) for their unhealthy decisions.

However...when you point out how this same logic destroys their argument for a "guaranteed safety net", they'll claim the opposite.

As in, here, you have a progressive claiming you need to force people to take care of their body because if they don't have to pay the cost when it breaks down, they won't bother taking care of themselves in the first place. But if you appy the same argument, and point out how, if everyone is guaranteed a minimum "living wage" (whether they do anything or not), and a house, and health care, and education, and all the crap included in Dumbassevelt's "2nd Bill of Rights" and everything else these people think they are entitled to...then no one will work for any of those things—meaning there will be no one to provide them, meaning everyone will have a "right" to them, but no one will have them—the same progressives will claim "That's not true! That wouldn't happen! No one wants to live at the bottom!" (Basically implying that there will always be people who actually produce that you can take from.)

So basically, people will get morbidly obese, and destroy their heart and lungs, to where they can't get around but in a scooter, and can't speak but for a mechanical larynx, because they know they won't have to pay for those devices...but people will go out and get a job and work to earn a wage to pay for their food and housing, even though they are guaranteed those things too.

Got it. Leftists make total consistent sense once again!

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Aristophanes — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:28:23 GMT

For the govt to start forcing people to take medicine in usual circumstances, it will have to take a much more complex argument about federal powers.

I disagree. Look at the way that the general welfare clause is interpreted...

Liberal: "Well, it says general and welfare. I take that to mean ... ya know, general, and uhhh, welfare."

Or the commerce clause...

Liberal: "By not engaging in commerce, you effect effect!"

I'm telling you the economists that helped form this bill think you should be forced to take seasonal flu vaccinations since if you do not get it you could potentially increase the cost of universal health care recipients by spreading contagion.

You have no incentive to keep healthy (diet and/or exercise) if someone else is subsidizing your increased health care costs down the road. You are more likely to smoke et al as well. If the government tries at all to prevent this behavior it has to put limits on behavior. This is a necessary fact.

The issue is a tax issue.

The issue is whether or not the government can compel private individuals to contract with other private individuals.

Of course you can argue is the forced purchase of medication issue, but in that vein we are already forced to purchase medicne and have been so ever since any tax money was ever used to buy medicine.

This made little sense to me.

Where am I compelled to purchase medicine by government decree? I volunteer for vaccines to get into University (those may be State/Federal rules)

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

jodiphour — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:15:14 GMT

People can already be forced to buy medication and/or take medication in certain circumstances... e.g. a schitzo having a public mental breakdown or someone rescued unconscious from an accident.

But translating the Obamacare ruling to general or arbitrary forcing of consumption of medication is a bit too much of a logical leap. The issue is a tax issue. Of course you can argue is the forced purchase of medication issue, but in that vein we are already forced to purchase medicne and have been so ever since any tax money was ever used to buy medicine. But that argument isn't very pragmatic.

For the govt to start forcing people to take medicine in usual circumstances, it will have to take a much more complex argument about federal powers. And this is why I'm glad people like those of you on this forum exist. Even though I disagree with most of you on the vast majority of your opinions probably, I'm glad you are free to think and speak. If everyone was a submissive socio-liberal, we might very well live in a world where forced medication is the norm. Thankfully there are still those out there who remind us of our natural independence.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Wheylous — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:04:40 GMT

Mmm - gotcha. Precedent. Yeah. I agree.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Autolykos — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:40:13 GMT

No, I wasn't implying that it would lead directly to that - only that, once the precedent has been established that the federal government has the legal authority to order US citizens to purchase one thing, it effectively has the legal authority to order them to purchase anything else it wants them to.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Wheylous — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:28:24 GMT

I'm not sure that this bill will lead directly to that, but the idea you present in the OP actually sounds like what progressives might try to pass.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Anenome — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:05:19 GMT

I don't think they will rule for it.

I listened to the oral arguments, etc., seems even Kennedy thinks the idea highly suspect. And I know Roberts won't vote for it, though the libs have been pinning their hopes on him in the face of Kennedy's skeptical questioning.

That said, it won't stop much. A society predicated on socialism can only tend towards socialism.

Re: On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare"...

Aristophanes — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:03:46 GMT

Why is everyone so pessimistic about the court now?

The last time this made news it was because there were so many criticisms levied at it by the Justices themselves.