FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Congress passes socialized medicine and mandates health insurance

   
Author Topic: Congress passes socialized medicine and mandates health insurance
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
In 1798
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
[Cool] [Hat]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
A couple nits to pick:

If you read it carefully (the bill, not the article), it constitutes an employer mandate, not an individual mandate (ship owners were required to pay a tax per sailor, but individual sailors were not required to do so). IANAL, but perhaps that's the constitutional difference between PPACA and this bill.

Furthermore, I thought the requirement that no national maritime hospitals would be built until the necessary funds had been collected (PAYGO!) was interesting in contrast to the front-loading of benefits and back-loading of expenses under PPACA.

I think the article writer oversells this as a "gotcha." But it is a fun headline.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
IANAL, but perhaps that's the constitutional difference between PPACA and this bill.
You ANAL? [Laugh]
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
lol
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Are you?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Are you?
I was thinking of it as a verb. So "Do you?" would be more grammatical.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
IANAL, but perhaps that's the constitutional difference between PPACA and this bill.
You ANAL? [Laugh]
Don't we all?

IANAL, UANAL, WheeAllANAL.

Venal.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
it constitutes an employer mandate, not an individual mandate (ship owners were required to pay a tax per sailor, but individual sailors were not required to do so).
Except that this is worded that "which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen."

That is to say the payment is made by reducing the wages of the seaman, so yes, the onus was on the employer to see to it that the tax was paid, but the employee is officially the one providing the funds.

And IANAL either, but I see no such constitutional difference.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
There isn't necessarily a constitutional difference. Of course, that means they could both be unconstitutional. And that founding fathers were involved in the bill is the flimsiest of defenses, for several reasons.

1) Constitutionality is not immutable.

2) The Constitution was a compromise document between vastly differing camps; that some subset of people involved think something is Constitutionally justified doesn't even come close to meaning the majority would.

3) The reason we have judicial review in the first place is because founding fathers were perfectly capable of acting unconstitutionally.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:
it constitutes an employer mandate, not an individual mandate (ship owners were required to pay a tax per sailor, but individual sailors were not required to do so).
Except that this is worded that "which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen."

That is to say the payment is made by reducing the wages of the seaman, so yes, the onus was on the employer to see to it that the tax was paid, but the employee is officially the one providing the funds.

And IANAL either, but I see no such constitutional difference.

The payment may (unless I'm misinterpretting 1790s legal-ese) be deducted from the sailor's income. Or the company can cover it in some other way. It's not an individual mandate; it's an institutional mandate. I don't know if those are constitutionally different, but (to me) they seem fairly different in practice.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
There isn't necessarily a constitutional difference. Of course, that means they could both be unconstitutional. And that founding fathers were involved in the bill is the flimsiest of defenses, for several reasons.

1) Constitutionality is not immutable.

2) The Constitution was a compromise document between vastly differing camps; that some subset of people involved think something is Constitutionally justified doesn't even come close to meaning the majority would.

3) The reason we have judicial review in the first place is because founding fathers were perfectly capable of acting unconstitutionally.

I think that "The Founding Fathers wanted it" is not great defense in terms of actual morality. The Founding Fathers decided black people counted as 3/5ths of a person. But in terms of constitutionality... given that these people wrote the constitution, and that the law WASN'T overturned when it was actually relevant strikes me as pretty damn convincing.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But in terms of constitutionality... given that these people wrote the constitution, and that the law WASN'T overturned when it was actually relevant strikes me as pretty damn convincing.
Except there are dozens (maybe more) of laws and practices of the time that have since been found unconstitutional. There's also another big reason: Marbury vs Madison didn't occur until 1803, and they didn't do judicial review again after it until 50 years later (despite numerous unconstitutional acts). That nobody pushed this particular act to be a groundbreaking instance of judicial review is entirely unconvincing about it being constitutional.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:
But in terms of constitutionality... given that these people wrote the constitution, and that the law WASN'T overturned when it was actually relevant strikes me as pretty damn convincing.
Except there are dozens (maybe more) of laws and practices of the time that have since been found unconstitutional. There's also another big reason: Marbury vs Madison didn't occur until 1803, and they didn't do judicial review again after it until 50 years later (despite numerous unconstitutional acts). That nobody pushed this particular act to be a groundbreaking instance of judicial review is entirely unconvincing about it being constitutional.
Fugu has a point. Not to mention at this early stage, Federalists were most definitely pushing the boundaries of what their new government could do quite vigorously. Judicial review, in its early days was used by James Marshall quite consistantly so as to give power to the federal government. It was not until after his tenure that that trend began to change.

Adams was the same president who signed the Alien Sedition act which today would be laughable in its constitutionality.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The payment may (unless I'm misinterpretting 1790s legal-ese) be deducted from the sailor's income.
My reading of the bill is that it is assumed that the tax will be paid by deducting from the sailor's income. Your emphasis on the word "may" implies that the deduction was listed as one of several options, when in fact it is the only suggested method.
quote:
the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.
quote:
And that founding fathers were involved in the bill is the flimsiest of defenses, for several reasons.
This article addresses the current conservative tactic of dismissing anything they don't like as "unconstitutional" by claiming that "the Founding Fathers wouldn't have intended it." The recent addition of a requirement that all new bills must be accompanied by constitutional justification is a lame procedural requirement intended to reinforce the notion that liberal bills are somehow less constitutional than conservative bills. This is a "burden of proof" fallacy. The conservatives have no evidence that the health care bill would not have been approved by the founding fathers, but they are insinuating that it wouldn't have been, and demanding that supporters of the bill find constitutional justification, which has never been a requirement.

In fact, whether this law was constitutional or not, the fact that the framers passed it directly undermines the argument that the framers wouldn't have intended it.


quote:
Judicial review, in its early days was used by James Marshall quite consistantly so as to give power to the federal government. It was not until after his tenure that that trend began to change.

Adams was the same president who signed the Alien Sedition act which today would be laughable in its constitutionality.

The author's response:
quote:
As for the Alien & Sedition Act, you do make a great point. Jefferson did believe it violated the 1st and 10th Amendments and, frankly, I agree.

However, here is the difference – because the Alien & Sedition Act expired when Adams’ term of office concluded – which was before the Marbury v. Madison decision that held that the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of legislative acts, the court never had the opportunity to review it. There were, however, references in the years following that indicated that had the court been able to review it, they surely would have found it unconstitutional.

“Sick Sailors”, however, survived well into the era of the Supreme Court review and beyond. It was never challenged or overruled as unconstitutional.

I do see and hear your point – but I don’t think you can argue that because one law was passed two days before that would likely have been found to be unconstitutional that it necessarily follows the next law also would.This is particularly true when SCOTUS would have had the opportunity to review the law in question and it never did.


Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Sure, the argument that the founding fathers wouldn't have intended it is weak, but the argument that this previous law not being overturned makes it likely constitutional is just about as weak. The article isn't just claiming the former is false, but that the latter is true, and that's plain weak reasoning.

As for "surviving well into the era of the Supreme Court review and beyond", it was 50 years until they applied judicial review again! They used it once, to get out of a horrible bind, then put it away and avoided using it for as long as possible. Unless the court was again caught between scylla and charybdis, they weren't at all likely to pull it out anytime in the period shortly after Marbury vs Madison.

And the author makes a number of interesting, and as far as I know untrue, claims. Particularly,

quote:
This is particularly true when SCOTUS would have had the opportunity to review the law in question and it never did.
Was there some case over this that I'm not aware of? The court cannot take up an issue without a complaint. Without a case, the court never even had the opportunity to consider constitutionality (not that, again, it would have been likely to -- lots of things passed in that 50 year gap were unconstitutional and they weren't overturned until later).

So again, the author of the piece claims

quote:
So much for the claim that “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty….”
While that claim can certainly be contested, he has hardly dismissed it, and is guilty of flawed, trivially undermined reasoning in claiming he has.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
The early act does nothing to establish constitutionality. As fugu noted, many early acts of congress would not pass later constitutional muster.

WHat it DOES do is pull the teeth, somewhat, from the "Original intent," crowd.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes. I think that point is very well taken (and would be even better taken if not bedfellows with such a badly reasoned second point that dominates the article). Many act like the system of medicine we have is some sort of natural state of things, ignoring that it is a recent establishment, in many ways a deviation from a (somewhat) straightforward historical movement between no healthcare and socialized healthcare of various flavors, due to a confluence of historical coincidences that derailed the US from previous tendencies to follow the same path.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As for "surviving well into the era of the Supreme Court review and beyond", it was 50 years until they applied judicial review again!
quote:
The program eventually became the Public Health Service, a government operated health service that exists to this day under the supervision of the Surgeon General.
quote:
Was there some case over this that I'm not aware of? The court cannot take up an issue without a complaint.
Which is to say, that nobody brought such a complaint. Why is it even a question whether this law is constitutional if no one has a complaint about it?

I'm not sure what your complaint is. You are arguing that his argument is weak, against something that is not his point in making the argument. And from what I can tell, you aren't even arguing that the law wasn't constitutional, only that he makes a weak argument for why or whether it was.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
My reading of the article is:

An early act of a congress containing several framers of the constitution was to create a (limited) socialized health care system. Therefore,

1. The argument that an individual mandate for coverage goes against the Framers' intent is largely nullified, and

2. The individual mandate is likely constitutional.

I believe fugu is saying that although the first point is sound the second is invalid because of the circumstances surrounding the creation and early (non)application of judicial review.

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why is it even a question whether this law is constitutional if no one has a complaint about it?
Seriously? There are laws that go unchallenged for long periods of time that are later found unconstitutional all the time. What's more, there needed to be not just a complaint, but a complaint that was not resolved at a lower court -- choosing not to appeal something is not ironclad evidence (or even evidence at all) that it wouldn't win on appeal. The argument you just made is nearly equivalent to arguing that because no law in that 50 year period was declared unconstitutional, they must all have been constitutional. And that's ludicrous.

Furthermore, if there was no such case, then he's just making shit up -- there was no chance for the supreme court to declare it unconstitutional, as he asserted there was.

quote:
You are arguing that his argument is weak, against something that is not his point in making the argument.
I just quoted him making that point explicitly! Please go back and reread my posts, and the original news story, which explicitly makes exactly the argument that I've completely shut down.

quote:
And from what I can tell, you aren't even arguing that the law wasn't constitutional, only that he makes a weak argument for why or whether it was.
Of course. The former is a highly debatable point, as I've mentioned a few times. The article, however, dwelled at considerable length on the idea that this previous act not having been overturned somehow proved the current act isn't unconstitutional, and did so with very, very flawed arguments.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2