The letter from Don Smith (April 8) is yet another attack on hapless Tribune contributor Jon Beydler, who could do no better than pose a lame analogy comparing auto insurance to a mandate for health insurance. Smith dismisses Beydler’s analogy as “quite foolish.”
What’s new? Most in the Inbox and in guest commentaries, and especially in the Vent, is that or worse.
Mr. Smith repeats the obvious, that owning an automobile is not mandatory, but both gentlemen fail to realize that this and broccoli are irrelevant to the constitutional issue. Let me repeat with modification a part from Mr. Smith’s third paragraph: “I know of no law mandated by the federal or any state government that requires me to” (modification here) pay Social Security (insurance) taxes. Sorry, not true in general. In the same general sense as in the health mandate, many people who die by age 60 get not even one cent back in compensation. If the health mandate survives Supreme Court review, there will be many more people who get back during their lifetime at least a few cents of health care. That means for less “losers,” but in both cases this is government insurance, no matter who writes the policy: “e pluribus unum” = insurance. What applies here is the essential need for insurance to make society even slightly fair for everyone. Do not get me confused that some end up without having to pay a mandate. There are people, for example, who know how to make buckets of money but pay little or no Social Security taxes.
If the majority of Supreme Court ideologues rule this mandate unconstitutional, they are morally obligated to find a scheme to drag FDR’s mandate back into court and declare it unconstitutional, because the same legal arguments apply. This would result in an 80-plus year delay in rendering justice! Otherwise, let’s pursue “e pluribus unum,” and keep as many people alive and healthy as possible.
S.M. Adolos
Mesa
VofReason posted at 12:56 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
Here is the kicker "the essential need for insurance to make society even slightly fair for everyone." This is the major exception to all liberal logic, there is no expectation of fair in the contitution other than Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No fair. If fair was the job of the government, some people make more then others- is that fair? Some buy better food then others- fair? Some drive nicer cars then other, smarter then others-Fair? Fair? Life is not fair. Learn this and move on.
Arizona Willie posted at 5:25 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
Life is essentially unfair in some senses. i was born better looking and smarter than 98% of the population [beam]
But there is a difference between karmic unfairness and systemic unfairness wherein the system is designed to keep some people at the bottom of the pile.
I believe he is arguing the system is rigged and that groups of people are denied a fair chance at insurance / medical care.
There is a difference between that kind of unfairness and my obvious intellectual superiority. [beam]
Cerulean posted at 5:36 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
“Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants.”
Edmund Burke
Burke continues, "In nature, obviously, men are unequal: unequal in mind, in body, in energies, in every material circumstance. The less civilized a society, and the more generally will and appetite prevail unchecked, the less equal is the position of individuals."
So - no one is saying that we can change nature by providing Health Care to more people at a reasonable fare, no.
Burke also said,"Divine Mercy judges us not by our worldly estate, but by our goodness, and this, after all, far transcends mundane political equality.
You have scripted a very sensible and good letter Mr. Adolos.
Accuracy posted at 6:26 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
S.M. Adolos’ argument is: “If the majority of Supreme Court ideologues rule this mandate unconstitutional, they are morally obligated to find a scheme to drag FDR’s mandate back into court and declare it unconstitutional, because the same legal arguments apply.”
Adolos questions whether any federal program or federal department that was created after 1800 is constitutional.
We are required to pay into Social Security . . . paying a tax for our future healthcare with deductions from our pay for Medicare. But forcing people to buy a private product is constitutionally different from taxing people and then purchasing or providing a service for them.
President Obama seems to have challenged the U.S. Supreme Court’s authority to declare the mandate unconstitutional when he commented that it could be considered judicial activism if the high court strikes down his “ObamaCare” law.
Rich posted at 6:46 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
The point you are missing isn't insurance. Insurance is a private, for profit entity that has destroyed most of what it touches. For the government to assume the duties and obligations of insurance, without profit is one thing, and actually valid under the Constitution, without a lot of question. It can be merely a tax. However, the government, supposedly under the Commerce clause, cannot hold a gun to your head (which, face it, with healthcare is exactly what is being done) and force you to sign a contract with a private party. This opens a door to total corruption and anarchy. When 'health' insurance, 'auto' insurance, and the next one up to bat, 'life' insurance, inflate the cost beyond the average means to pay it, we all become criminals. Look at what private insurance has done to medical costs, auto insurance costs, for declining services. The government getting involved is one thing; supporting a failing, and continually declining system to handle it by holding a gun to our heads isn't exactly an answer.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 6:47 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
The Letter Writer is totally ..."right" for a change.
So let's go back to his "Democrat Logic" = 2 WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT.....wow........that's real "logical thinking"....no wonder he is affilitated with the ...DEMOCRAT PARTY.
If we follow this ........."DEMOCRAT LOGIC".......let's see where it leads us (or should I say "US"...as in ...."US of A" .......us.
Legalize all Class A .......DRUGS = MARIJUANA, HEROIN, OPIUM, METH, CRACK, COCAINE...EVERYTHING.
Get rid of all ....DUI DRIVING LAWS.....they infringe on people's (well Democrats anyway) rights.
Get rid of all ....SEXUAL ABUSE AND ABERATION LAWS....they infringe on people's (ditto) rights.
Get rid of the ...INCOME TAX...that infringes on peoples (well the Republican Citizens of America who do all the work in America...because the Democrats are all Union Members...and we all "KNOW"...HOW HARD ...or is the operative word...HARDLY.......lol......work).
Open all the Borders so that every Mexican, Honduran, El Salvadoran and Guatamalan citizen can come up North and get on ...WELFARE & SOCIAL SECURITY & OBAMA-CARE.
YES, FOLKS.........LET'S GO WITH THIS ...."DEMOCRAT" LOGIC AND TURN AMERICA INTO ANOTHER.....HAITI....OR....THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO.......(BOY, DID WHOM EVER NAMED THAT CESSPOOL OF A COUNTRY SURE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD......."DEMOCRATIC" ...IS RIGHT....LOL.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:49 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
S.M. Adolos
????
sockratties posted at 7:07 am on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
One place the health care vs. auto insurance analogy holds true is that both are mandates that protect the public from those that won’t or can’t meet their financial liability should it become necessary. Maybe we do or don’t care if they get their car repaired or if they are nursed back to health, but we shouldn’t get stuck with their bills. There may be other answers but we haven’t seen them here or from our bickering politicians. Letting them just die is not an answer… even that has its costs (and lawyers).
Voice … “then” refers to a specific time in the past. You want “than” which compares.
Azwillie: I heard you won second place in the looks and I.Q. contensts… Everyone else tied for first! [tongue_smile]
VofReason posted at 11:48 am on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
Here is the rub. Most people have healthcare. People who clearly cannot pay for it are available for Medicaid (State coverage). There is a segment of the population that can afford health insurance but choose not to because they see the risk as low- young and healthy. There are 12-20 million illegal aliean in the country that seem to be using the ER as their clinic, but they shouldn't be here in the first place. Who exactly are they "helping" or are they helping themselves to 1/6 of the economy?
fae4now posted at 12:38 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.
Surprizing. Sounds like many of the above comments are really advocating for universal health care coverage provided by the government by way of a tax, eliminating the 'gun to the head' requirement of purchasing from 'for profit' companies, which is what the Pres wanted in the first place.
Excluding of course, Poor Misguided Leon whose only position is always the same: spewing hatefulness and self-proclaimed superiority with fragmented, barely coherent emphasis.
S.M. Adolos has made a valid observation and I thank him/her for that.
fae4now posted at 12:50 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.
VofR- this is not a matter of providing health care for illegals. One in six Americans has NO HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. They are not, I repeat, not all eligible for Medicaid. Our dear governor supported a recent effort to boot another 1.5 million Arizonans off the eligibility list.
And insurance companies routinely deny coverage to anyone deemed to have a pre-existing condition like allergies or being a woman of child bearing age. Oh wait, Obamacare fixed that. :) 2012
sockratties posted at 9:28 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.
Perhaps Sheriff Joe should place a deputy in each of the E.R.s. Looks like he could catch 11-20 million illegals right there. Should have the problem solved in a couple of weeks!
fae4now posted at 9:53 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.
But hospitals are not Joe's jurisdiction, entrapment is illegal, and health care is not his problem to fix. Talk about over reaching!
Can't wait to hear your proposed solution for the millions of LEGAL citizens who still have no health care coverage and are also forced to use the ER to receive care.
VofReason posted at 12:48 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.
Wonder how many of those people who cannot afford healthcare and cannot get on Medicaid have a cell phone with internet access? Or a new car? Or whose children have a shelf full of videogames? Oh, I know, cannot ask them these kind of questions when they apply for free Obamacare. Wouldn't be "fair".
sockratties posted at 8:34 am on Sat, Apr 21, 2012.
Temporary Fairy – sorry you lack the acumen required to see the irony of Arizona Politics. You made several comments criticizing others but where are your constructive suggestions? I do, however, agree with you about leon...
[“But hospitals are not Joe's jurisdiction, entrapment is illegal, and health care is not his problem to fix. Talk about over reaching!”]
*Just as much as the Mesa city offices were Joe's jurisdiction. Or the City of Guadalupe.
*Entrapment is luring someone under false pretenses. Only freebies lure freeloaders to the ER.
*Immigration is not Joe's problem to fix either. He chooses it as a political strategy.
Joe should be going after illegal guns, gangs, scams, warranted criminals, violent crime, chop shops, drug trade, crack houses, and other COUNTY related crime. I think he's afraid to go after the major gangs in Maricopa County. Gang activity may be the primary cause of major crime in his jurisdiction. Instead he panders to the vote by grandstanding with a few immigration sweeps and defiant sound bites. He's a politician first and a sheriff second.
Don't forget that each time someone uses the ER they either pay then or sign an agreement to do so. When they don't pay they willingly defraud. They skate on the bill. Everyone else pays for what is their responsibility. Being poor is not a free pass but it can be used as an excuse by those who would choose to do so.
Who is it that is “forcing” your millions of legal citizens with no health care coverage to use the ER? Why aren't they in the waiting room at a doctor's office?...because they can get something for nothing. Otherwise they'd have to pay. Look at the lines of legal citizens that belly up to the table at charity food kitchens. The able and lazy far outnumber the needy! Same at the ER.
ER means Emergency Room, but when I was there (on a true emergency which was paid for) many were people with the flu or other common ailments that are not emergencies for most of us. These people are not dying, they're freeloading. Why are they being “forced” to use the ER instead of being “forced” to look for work or “forced” to pay for their liabilities?
Sometimes you have to quit feeding the birds so they'll eat the insects and earn their own way.