One of the most recent things being brought by the left about the individual health insurance mandate, is that it was originally proposed by Republicans years ago. And the only thing I can say in response to that is, that is good enough reason for liberals to oppose the individual mandate.
Think about it, liberals are opposed to anything Republicans propose right? I mean, if Republicans originally proposed it, and they are supported by the insurance companies, then it has to be a bad idea because it supports the insurance companies.
In fact, guess who supports the individual mandate in the current law? The insurance companies. AHIP, America's Health Insurance Plans has been supporting the individual mandate for the past year. They have told the Democrats that they can accomplish the goal of universal health care, lower costs, and no denial of pre-existing conditions so long as there is an individual mandate that pushes everyone to have insurance. Go to AHIP's website and look up their press releases for the past year.
So who are the hypocrites, Republicans for opposing the individual mandate, or the Democrats for adopting the individual mandate and siding with the insurance companies? I'll leave that for you to figure out.
One other thing though, papers are saying Senator John McCain (R-AZ) proposed the idea and saying he's a conservative. Interesting that McCain is a moderate when they like him and a conservative when they don't. They are also attacking Mitt Romney. For the ignorant liberals who see a contradiction that isn't there, the Federal Government does not have the plenary powers that states like Massachusetts have. What is constitutional for Massachusetts to do may not be constitutional for the Federal Government. For some reason liberals have trouble telling the difference between Federal and State.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
More About the Individual Health Insurance Mandate
After my post yesterday I spent some more time reading opinions about the Individual Health Insurance Mandate. A couple almost had me convinced, but after I shook my head and cleared my eyes of the hypnotized look I came back to reality.
One of the principle uses of the commerce clause to defend the mandate is that even if you don’t have health insurance you affect interstate commerce when you pay out of pocket. You are not part of a pool to keep costs down yet you still contribute to the demand for health insurance. Therefore the Government can require you to join a private health insurance plan where you become part of a risk pool and the cost of health care is spread out by premiums, thus the group as a whole benefits and that is good for everyone.
The penalty is defended as a tax penalty. Which is allowable under the government’s taxation authority. That one almost had me convinced.
As far as the commerce clause goes, there is just one problem. When you purchase health care in a state, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. When you purchase health insurance, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. The states control the health insurance companies in their own state, and health insurance companies are prohibited by the Federal Government from selling across state lines. So how do I affect interstate commerce when I pay out of pocket?
One of the examples about interstate commerce is a case involving a wheat grower, Roscoe Filburn who grew wheat for his own consumption above his allowed quota. Back in the 1930s, the price of wheat had dropped to all time lows. Farmers were growing wheat faster than it could be sold. Storehouses were filled up, railroad companies were rejecting shipment, and thus supply was outstripping demand. This was a problem around the world and the price of wheat globally was in decline. Therefore, to make money, farmers had to grow more wheat, and thus the price dropped more because they couldn’t sell it.
To combat the problem, the Federal Government put quotas in place to limit the amount of wheat grown and raise the price of wheat through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Well, Filburn decided to grow wheat for his own consumption and keep it apart from the wheat he wanted to sell in the market under the quota system. He was allowed to grow 20.1 bushels on 11.1 acres, but grew on 23 acres. He was taken to court in Wickard v. Filburn, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that even though he was growing wheat for his own consumption, it still affected interstate commerce because he was growing wheat for himself instead of buying it from the market. If everyone did that, than the controls the government put in place to raise the price of wheat would be useless and the price of wheat would continue to drop.
This example is used to support the individual mandate, because if you buy health insurance out of pocket you are buying health care that you would otherwise get through insurance, and thus you are affecting the price of health care to the insured. Your additional demand for healthcare contributes to rising costs.
The difference between these two examples is that in Filburn’s case, the government was trying to control supply. In the health care example, they are trying to control demand.
One point I have and others have raised is, can the government compel you to buy a product because failure to do so negatively impacts interstate commerce? General Motors is often used as an example. General Motors, as we know, went bankrupt. The reason was, they could not sell enough vehicles to keep up with the cost to make them. Very simple economics, if I make a product I need to sell enough of it to make up the cost, if it costs more to make a product than to sell it, then I go out of business. That’s what happened to General Motors.
Instead of bailing out General Motors, what if the government had instead told all of us to go buy a new car. Your failure to buy a new car from General Motors negatively impacts interstate commerce. Because you are driving around in a used car or a foreign car, General Motors stands to go out of business, which would affect their employees, their suppliers, the suppliers to the suppliers, and so on down the line. It would devastate the economy. So the Government will compel you to buy a new car from General Motors, and if you can’t afford one, they will subsidize it. They’ll create new taxes to pay for it, they’ll have a real Cadillac tax, and they’ll even tell you the minimum type of vehicle you must own. And they’ll tell General Motors what type of vehicles they have to make. And you’ll be required to buy a new care every three years, and it’ll be great. It will stimulate the economy and drive new technologies, and we’ll all be better for it. And if you don’t buy a new car, you’ll pay a tax penalty to the IRS, and the IRS will be setup to know when you have bought a new car and how long you’ve driven your current one. They can get it from State Departments of Motor Vehicles.
So what the government is doing in that example is they are using you to manage the economy. That throws the ideas of free commerce on its head. It’s not the governments role to tell you what product you must buy and from whom and threaten you with penalties if you don’t. It’s your role to decide for yourself what goods and services you want and can afford to buy. It’s the role of suppliers to attract you to buy their product and manage their costs to make a profit. But what’s happening here with health care is the Federal Government is ordering you to buy healthcare regardless of it’s cost, regardless of if you want it, regardless of the insurance industries ability to control costs and attract you to buy product. Now you will not have a choice. The government will tell you the minimum product you must buy and you will have to buy it. Is there anything more backwards than that?
As for the penalty, I have read other people’s writing saying it’s just a tax. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll just pay more in tax. No where in the bill is the penalty defined as a tax or a tax penalty. It is called a penalty, that’s it. I also saw someone say that the bill doesn’t require you to buy health insurance. Well that person apparently didn’t read the bill. Here is what the bill says;
Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for
Health Care
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(b) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
COVERAGE
‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the
individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during
any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided
in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty
with respect to the individual in the amount determined under
subsection (c).
‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—
‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of
another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year
including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable
for such penalty, or
‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
With that said, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying about this requirement. If this is Constitutional, then it represents the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we know. It will give the National Government unprecedented power to compel its citizens to engage in commerce, something it has never done in history. If this remains law it only represents the beginning of what the current Congress and Administration are prepared to do. There is no telling how far they will take this new power.
Extremus.
One of the principle uses of the commerce clause to defend the mandate is that even if you don’t have health insurance you affect interstate commerce when you pay out of pocket. You are not part of a pool to keep costs down yet you still contribute to the demand for health insurance. Therefore the Government can require you to join a private health insurance plan where you become part of a risk pool and the cost of health care is spread out by premiums, thus the group as a whole benefits and that is good for everyone.
The penalty is defended as a tax penalty. Which is allowable under the government’s taxation authority. That one almost had me convinced.
As far as the commerce clause goes, there is just one problem. When you purchase health care in a state, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. When you purchase health insurance, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. The states control the health insurance companies in their own state, and health insurance companies are prohibited by the Federal Government from selling across state lines. So how do I affect interstate commerce when I pay out of pocket?
One of the examples about interstate commerce is a case involving a wheat grower, Roscoe Filburn who grew wheat for his own consumption above his allowed quota. Back in the 1930s, the price of wheat had dropped to all time lows. Farmers were growing wheat faster than it could be sold. Storehouses were filled up, railroad companies were rejecting shipment, and thus supply was outstripping demand. This was a problem around the world and the price of wheat globally was in decline. Therefore, to make money, farmers had to grow more wheat, and thus the price dropped more because they couldn’t sell it.
To combat the problem, the Federal Government put quotas in place to limit the amount of wheat grown and raise the price of wheat through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Well, Filburn decided to grow wheat for his own consumption and keep it apart from the wheat he wanted to sell in the market under the quota system. He was allowed to grow 20.1 bushels on 11.1 acres, but grew on 23 acres. He was taken to court in Wickard v. Filburn, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that even though he was growing wheat for his own consumption, it still affected interstate commerce because he was growing wheat for himself instead of buying it from the market. If everyone did that, than the controls the government put in place to raise the price of wheat would be useless and the price of wheat would continue to drop.
This example is used to support the individual mandate, because if you buy health insurance out of pocket you are buying health care that you would otherwise get through insurance, and thus you are affecting the price of health care to the insured. Your additional demand for healthcare contributes to rising costs.
The difference between these two examples is that in Filburn’s case, the government was trying to control supply. In the health care example, they are trying to control demand.
One point I have and others have raised is, can the government compel you to buy a product because failure to do so negatively impacts interstate commerce? General Motors is often used as an example. General Motors, as we know, went bankrupt. The reason was, they could not sell enough vehicles to keep up with the cost to make them. Very simple economics, if I make a product I need to sell enough of it to make up the cost, if it costs more to make a product than to sell it, then I go out of business. That’s what happened to General Motors.
Instead of bailing out General Motors, what if the government had instead told all of us to go buy a new car. Your failure to buy a new car from General Motors negatively impacts interstate commerce. Because you are driving around in a used car or a foreign car, General Motors stands to go out of business, which would affect their employees, their suppliers, the suppliers to the suppliers, and so on down the line. It would devastate the economy. So the Government will compel you to buy a new car from General Motors, and if you can’t afford one, they will subsidize it. They’ll create new taxes to pay for it, they’ll have a real Cadillac tax, and they’ll even tell you the minimum type of vehicle you must own. And they’ll tell General Motors what type of vehicles they have to make. And you’ll be required to buy a new care every three years, and it’ll be great. It will stimulate the economy and drive new technologies, and we’ll all be better for it. And if you don’t buy a new car, you’ll pay a tax penalty to the IRS, and the IRS will be setup to know when you have bought a new car and how long you’ve driven your current one. They can get it from State Departments of Motor Vehicles.
So what the government is doing in that example is they are using you to manage the economy. That throws the ideas of free commerce on its head. It’s not the governments role to tell you what product you must buy and from whom and threaten you with penalties if you don’t. It’s your role to decide for yourself what goods and services you want and can afford to buy. It’s the role of suppliers to attract you to buy their product and manage their costs to make a profit. But what’s happening here with health care is the Federal Government is ordering you to buy healthcare regardless of it’s cost, regardless of if you want it, regardless of the insurance industries ability to control costs and attract you to buy product. Now you will not have a choice. The government will tell you the minimum product you must buy and you will have to buy it. Is there anything more backwards than that?
As for the penalty, I have read other people’s writing saying it’s just a tax. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll just pay more in tax. No where in the bill is the penalty defined as a tax or a tax penalty. It is called a penalty, that’s it. I also saw someone say that the bill doesn’t require you to buy health insurance. Well that person apparently didn’t read the bill. Here is what the bill says;
Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for
Health Care
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(b) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
COVERAGE
‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the
individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during
any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided
in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty
with respect to the individual in the amount determined under
subsection (c).
‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—
‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of
another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year
including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable
for such penalty, or
‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
With that said, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying about this requirement. If this is Constitutional, then it represents the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we know. It will give the National Government unprecedented power to compel its citizens to engage in commerce, something it has never done in history. If this remains law it only represents the beginning of what the current Congress and Administration are prepared to do. There is no telling how far they will take this new power.
Extremus.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Arguments That the Individual Mandate to Have Health Insurance Is Constiutional Fall Flat on Their Faces
Since the signing today of the health care reform bill, I have been reading comments by people on a number of different sites. I have taken particular note of those who agree with this bill and argue that the individual mandate is Constitutional. Often sighted as examples that it is Constitutional are the fact that we have Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security. I even saw one poster use Civil Rights and Selective Service as examples. Clearly an individual who has little in the way of education and probably couldn’t tell you one thing about what the Constitution said. Now that I’ve gotten my frustration out on that poster I would like to use those examples to point out why supporters are wrong.
Medicare as you know is a program designed to help senior citizens with healthcare. It was challenged in the Courts and the Courts found it to be Constitutional as it helped the “General Welfare” of the United States. The Medicare tax is permissible under Article 1 Section 8 and the 16th Amendment to the United States (which did not create the income tax, we already had one before the 16th Amendment). The Federal Government can create just about any tax it wants under the Constitution. It’s our duty as citizens to oppose those taxes politically and vote out the people who pass them when we disagree with the tax. But here’s the thing; you don’t have to sign up for Medicare. There is no mandate that you sign up for Medicare. Medicare Part D has a late enrollment penalty, but still you don’t have to sign up.
Medicaid is a program that is administered by the States; but States don’t have to administer it. If they don’t administer it however, they lose matching Federal Funds. So again, it’s Constitutional, and you don’t have to sign up for Medicaid.
Social Security was actually created to get older workers out of the work force and into retirement to make way for younger workers. The tax is Constitutional, see my argument above on that. You don’t have to retire at 65, you don’t have to retire at all, and you don’t have to collect it if you don’t want it. Don’t file for it and you won’t get it.
Selective Service is the military draft that all men must register for when they reach the age of 18. Article one section 8 provides that Congress shall have power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for calling forth the militia…, and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. That means the congress can create the Selective Service.
As for Civil Rights, the government has a right to protect your rights of due process and equitable treatment, in order to keep the peace. But you don’t have to exercise your civil rights, though you would be foolish not to.
The Government doesn’t have the power to compel you to buy a product or enter into a contractual agreement for either the public good or in support of interstate commerce, and I’ve argued that in an earlier blog as to why. I still contend that if the government can order you about at will, that it is a threat to our freedom and liberty. We will no longer live in a republic; we will live under a tyrannical government that will feel compelled to watch you to make sure you comply with the law. The IRS will become the agent of enforcement.
So there is no way, based on the examples above, that an individual mandate to buy health insurance is Constitutional. It is my belief that anyone who believes the government has the power to order you to buy a product, or else, does not believe in individual freedom and liberty, which were two principles this nation was founded on. They are socialists. They are telling you that you don’t have freedom. That should scare you. This is almost Orwellian. The IRS is going to track, every month, whether or not you have health insurance? 1984 may not be as far away as it seems. Heck Joe Biden has already tried to change history by suggesting Iraq would be the Administration’s greatest achievement.
The “General Welfare” clause was never meant to give this much power to the government. When the Constitution was drafted, people attacked this clause as giving too much power to the government. A favorite passage of mine in the Federalist Papers is one in Federalist 41. “It has been urged and echoed, that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.” What James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, is saying is that the “General Welfare” clause does not give the government unlimited power.
He went on to say. “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expression just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare.”
If the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution gives the Congress unlimited power to do what it wishes then James Madison either lied to the people of New York, or he was flat out wrong. Would you dare to try and argue that one of the principle authors of the Constitution was wrong about the “General Welfare” clause? And if he lied, then the Constitution was passed through deceit and the States need to amend the Constitution to restore the balance of power between the States and the National Government.
It’s my firm belief that if the States fail to overturn this law in the Courts, then they must be prepared to defend the freedoms of its citizens any way that it can. The Founding Fathers, like James Madison knew that in order for the government to become tyrannical, all three branches of government must be in agreement and the States and the people must become subservient to them. The Founding Fathers believed that the States and the people would not allow that to happen. We must preserve that belief and remind people that power of the Federal Government comes from the States and the people, not the other way around.
Extremus.
Medicare as you know is a program designed to help senior citizens with healthcare. It was challenged in the Courts and the Courts found it to be Constitutional as it helped the “General Welfare” of the United States. The Medicare tax is permissible under Article 1 Section 8 and the 16th Amendment to the United States (which did not create the income tax, we already had one before the 16th Amendment). The Federal Government can create just about any tax it wants under the Constitution. It’s our duty as citizens to oppose those taxes politically and vote out the people who pass them when we disagree with the tax. But here’s the thing; you don’t have to sign up for Medicare. There is no mandate that you sign up for Medicare. Medicare Part D has a late enrollment penalty, but still you don’t have to sign up.
Medicaid is a program that is administered by the States; but States don’t have to administer it. If they don’t administer it however, they lose matching Federal Funds. So again, it’s Constitutional, and you don’t have to sign up for Medicaid.
Social Security was actually created to get older workers out of the work force and into retirement to make way for younger workers. The tax is Constitutional, see my argument above on that. You don’t have to retire at 65, you don’t have to retire at all, and you don’t have to collect it if you don’t want it. Don’t file for it and you won’t get it.
Selective Service is the military draft that all men must register for when they reach the age of 18. Article one section 8 provides that Congress shall have power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for calling forth the militia…, and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. That means the congress can create the Selective Service.
As for Civil Rights, the government has a right to protect your rights of due process and equitable treatment, in order to keep the peace. But you don’t have to exercise your civil rights, though you would be foolish not to.
The Government doesn’t have the power to compel you to buy a product or enter into a contractual agreement for either the public good or in support of interstate commerce, and I’ve argued that in an earlier blog as to why. I still contend that if the government can order you about at will, that it is a threat to our freedom and liberty. We will no longer live in a republic; we will live under a tyrannical government that will feel compelled to watch you to make sure you comply with the law. The IRS will become the agent of enforcement.
So there is no way, based on the examples above, that an individual mandate to buy health insurance is Constitutional. It is my belief that anyone who believes the government has the power to order you to buy a product, or else, does not believe in individual freedom and liberty, which were two principles this nation was founded on. They are socialists. They are telling you that you don’t have freedom. That should scare you. This is almost Orwellian. The IRS is going to track, every month, whether or not you have health insurance? 1984 may not be as far away as it seems. Heck Joe Biden has already tried to change history by suggesting Iraq would be the Administration’s greatest achievement.
The “General Welfare” clause was never meant to give this much power to the government. When the Constitution was drafted, people attacked this clause as giving too much power to the government. A favorite passage of mine in the Federalist Papers is one in Federalist 41. “It has been urged and echoed, that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.” What James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, is saying is that the “General Welfare” clause does not give the government unlimited power.
He went on to say. “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expression just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare.”
If the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution gives the Congress unlimited power to do what it wishes then James Madison either lied to the people of New York, or he was flat out wrong. Would you dare to try and argue that one of the principle authors of the Constitution was wrong about the “General Welfare” clause? And if he lied, then the Constitution was passed through deceit and the States need to amend the Constitution to restore the balance of power between the States and the National Government.
It’s my firm belief that if the States fail to overturn this law in the Courts, then they must be prepared to defend the freedoms of its citizens any way that it can. The Founding Fathers, like James Madison knew that in order for the government to become tyrannical, all three branches of government must be in agreement and the States and the people must become subservient to them. The Founding Fathers believed that the States and the people would not allow that to happen. We must preserve that belief and remind people that power of the Federal Government comes from the States and the people, not the other way around.
Extremus.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Health Care Reform Won't Reduce Costs
Health Care Reform won't reduce costs. Any argument that it will is false. Economically it's not possible to increase demand without increasing supply and reduce cost. It's not possible.
When demand increases and supply doesn't, two things can happen. First, if the price doesn't change a shortage will occur, because more people will demand the product at the same price, but the quantitly supplied at that price will not increase. Second, prices will increase resulting in an increase in the quantitly supplied, but then some people will not be able to afford the same product at the new price. That is what happens today, increases in demand result in higher prices which means fewer people can afford the same amount of health care.
There is nothing in the bill to increase the quantity supplied or the amount of supply. If prices are not allowed to increase to meet the new demand, then shortages in health care will occur. This is why Health Care Reform won't reduce cost.
Extremus
When demand increases and supply doesn't, two things can happen. First, if the price doesn't change a shortage will occur, because more people will demand the product at the same price, but the quantitly supplied at that price will not increase. Second, prices will increase resulting in an increase in the quantitly supplied, but then some people will not be able to afford the same product at the new price. That is what happens today, increases in demand result in higher prices which means fewer people can afford the same amount of health care.
There is nothing in the bill to increase the quantity supplied or the amount of supply. If prices are not allowed to increase to meet the new demand, then shortages in health care will occur. This is why Health Care Reform won't reduce cost.
Extremus
Health Care Reform- Deem it Passed is Constitutional
This past week, conservatives were up in arms, and after listening to them, I was too. But then I read Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution and realized there isn't anything to be up in arms about. Let me explain. The Democrats are planning to use a procedure this week called "deem it passed." What they are planning to do is vote on a rule that says if the package of changes to the Senate bill is approved, then the Senate bill is deemed passed.
Conservatives has said that Article 1 Section 7 says "the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house repsectively." But they make a mistake by taking that sentence out of context. Article 1 Section 7 actually says the the following in its entirety, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
"Every bill which shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nay, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays accepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a slaw, in like manner as if he had signed, unless congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
"Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the senate and house of representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."
The section of Section 7 that conservatives have been referring to deals with overturning a presidential veto. If the President vetoes a bill, the bill is returned to the house which originatted the bill, and if that houses chooses to vote to override the veto, the votes of that veto must be recorded.
Deem it passed, can be considred Constitutional because, by the rule, everyone who votes to deem it passed will no that they are voting to approve the bill along with the changes to it they want to make. So the vote is a vote on both the Senate bill and the house changes.
Now what's not clear to me is if by doing this, the House passes two seperate bills, or one new bill. If the it is considered two seperate bills, then the Senate has no obligation to approve the changes the house has made, and the Senate bill passes as it is to the President for his signature. If it is one new bill, the bill must return to the Senate for debate and a vote according to Senate rules, and it would be subject to amendments by the Senate, which would then force the bill back to the conference committee where the Senate bill ended up before Scott Brown was elected to the Senate.
So forget arguing that "deem it passed" is unconstitutional. I don't agree. But I do agree that this bill is bad for the United States, and I will make that arguement in my next piece.
Extremus
Conservatives has said that Article 1 Section 7 says "the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house repsectively." But they make a mistake by taking that sentence out of context. Article 1 Section 7 actually says the the following in its entirety, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
"Every bill which shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nay, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays accepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a slaw, in like manner as if he had signed, unless congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
"Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the senate and house of representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."
The section of Section 7 that conservatives have been referring to deals with overturning a presidential veto. If the President vetoes a bill, the bill is returned to the house which originatted the bill, and if that houses chooses to vote to override the veto, the votes of that veto must be recorded.
Deem it passed, can be considred Constitutional because, by the rule, everyone who votes to deem it passed will no that they are voting to approve the bill along with the changes to it they want to make. So the vote is a vote on both the Senate bill and the house changes.
Now what's not clear to me is if by doing this, the House passes two seperate bills, or one new bill. If the it is considered two seperate bills, then the Senate has no obligation to approve the changes the house has made, and the Senate bill passes as it is to the President for his signature. If it is one new bill, the bill must return to the Senate for debate and a vote according to Senate rules, and it would be subject to amendments by the Senate, which would then force the bill back to the conference committee where the Senate bill ended up before Scott Brown was elected to the Senate.
So forget arguing that "deem it passed" is unconstitutional. I don't agree. But I do agree that this bill is bad for the United States, and I will make that arguement in my next piece.
Extremus
Monday, March 8, 2010
Illegal Immigration - my idea for a solution
I realize I haven’t been on in a while. With so much going on, I found it hard to decide what to write about. One of the topics I did want to write about is immigration. I propose some ideas, and wish to clarify my position so both the left and right knows where I stand. I don’t believe my view would be agreeable to either side, but I believe my view is fair.
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” This means that Congress can establish laws regarding immigration and how a person may enter the United States and become a citizen of the United States. Those on the left want open borders and no enforcement of immigration law, while those on the right demand enforcement of immigration law and that all those in the country illegally be deported. I believe that immigration law needs to be enforced, and that those in the country should be deported. However, with an estimated 12 million or more illegal immigrants in the United States, deporting them all is easier said than done.
My solution is this. First, we must secure the borders of the United States. No proposal to solve the problem of illegal immigration can succeed without first securing the border. Second, once the border is secure, I propose we set a date at some time in the future whereby we demand all illegal immigrants report themselves to Immigration, and tell us who they are, where they are living, where they are working, and why they are here. Then give them two options; ask them if they want to be citizens or legal resident aliens. If they want to be legal resident aliens, visas exist for that. If they want to be citizens, they go to the back of the line of everyone else that has already applied. Any illegal alien that is caught before they report to immigration gets deported, no questions asked. Enforcement doesn’t stop before or after the deadline is met.
This proposal allows us to accomplish certain things. First, it secures the border. This is important not simply as a security measure, but as a humanitarian measure also. People crossing the border illegally; regularly take their lives into their own hands by doing so. They cross inhospitable terrain at great risk to themselves and their families; they are smuggled into the United States in box trucks and packed into vans and minibuses by people out to make money. Organized Crime gets involved by brining people into the United States, setting them up with a place to live, many times packed into a residence with many people in it, and they are given employment which is under the table and not reported. Securing the border will get a handle on these practices and end them. In my view, the greatest crime done to these people is by their so called advocates who do not speak out against these atrocities committed to their own people.
Second, by getting the illegal aliens to report to Immigration, we find out who they are, and we can find out if they are wanted in the home countries, we can determine if they are allowed to stay in the United States or are sent back. We find out where they work, and then we know which employers are obeying the law, and which are breaking it. We may uncover links to organized crime, and we also uncover illegal housing.
I don’t support making them pay fines or back taxes, as I believe those ideas are counter productive, and don’t really accomplish anything. I know too, those on the right would look at this and cry that it’s amnesty. I don’t agree amnesty would just give everyone a pass, and my idea does not. It allows us to enforce the law. Those on the right need to understand that just demanding all of them to be deported is like screaming into the wind. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If you believe we should deport them all, please tell me how we deport 12 million people en masse. It’s not going to happen. And I also believe there are some on the right and left, who don’t want immigration reform because they profit from it.
Now to be fair, the open borders crowd on the left doesn’t like my idea because it doesn’t give everyone a pass. They need to understand that people who enter the United States illegally or over stay their visas, don’t have rights. They don’t deserve them either. I get a laugh out of illegal immigrant rallies that demand their rights, because they don’t have any. If you want rights, leave the United States and come back legally, then you will have rights. Until then, stay hidden, as it is best to not be seen.
That’s my 2 cents on the issue of immigration. I hope to write some more about this in the future.
Extremus
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” This means that Congress can establish laws regarding immigration and how a person may enter the United States and become a citizen of the United States. Those on the left want open borders and no enforcement of immigration law, while those on the right demand enforcement of immigration law and that all those in the country illegally be deported. I believe that immigration law needs to be enforced, and that those in the country should be deported. However, with an estimated 12 million or more illegal immigrants in the United States, deporting them all is easier said than done.
My solution is this. First, we must secure the borders of the United States. No proposal to solve the problem of illegal immigration can succeed without first securing the border. Second, once the border is secure, I propose we set a date at some time in the future whereby we demand all illegal immigrants report themselves to Immigration, and tell us who they are, where they are living, where they are working, and why they are here. Then give them two options; ask them if they want to be citizens or legal resident aliens. If they want to be legal resident aliens, visas exist for that. If they want to be citizens, they go to the back of the line of everyone else that has already applied. Any illegal alien that is caught before they report to immigration gets deported, no questions asked. Enforcement doesn’t stop before or after the deadline is met.
This proposal allows us to accomplish certain things. First, it secures the border. This is important not simply as a security measure, but as a humanitarian measure also. People crossing the border illegally; regularly take their lives into their own hands by doing so. They cross inhospitable terrain at great risk to themselves and their families; they are smuggled into the United States in box trucks and packed into vans and minibuses by people out to make money. Organized Crime gets involved by brining people into the United States, setting them up with a place to live, many times packed into a residence with many people in it, and they are given employment which is under the table and not reported. Securing the border will get a handle on these practices and end them. In my view, the greatest crime done to these people is by their so called advocates who do not speak out against these atrocities committed to their own people.
Second, by getting the illegal aliens to report to Immigration, we find out who they are, and we can find out if they are wanted in the home countries, we can determine if they are allowed to stay in the United States or are sent back. We find out where they work, and then we know which employers are obeying the law, and which are breaking it. We may uncover links to organized crime, and we also uncover illegal housing.
I don’t support making them pay fines or back taxes, as I believe those ideas are counter productive, and don’t really accomplish anything. I know too, those on the right would look at this and cry that it’s amnesty. I don’t agree amnesty would just give everyone a pass, and my idea does not. It allows us to enforce the law. Those on the right need to understand that just demanding all of them to be deported is like screaming into the wind. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If you believe we should deport them all, please tell me how we deport 12 million people en masse. It’s not going to happen. And I also believe there are some on the right and left, who don’t want immigration reform because they profit from it.
Now to be fair, the open borders crowd on the left doesn’t like my idea because it doesn’t give everyone a pass. They need to understand that people who enter the United States illegally or over stay their visas, don’t have rights. They don’t deserve them either. I get a laugh out of illegal immigrant rallies that demand their rights, because they don’t have any. If you want rights, leave the United States and come back legally, then you will have rights. Until then, stay hidden, as it is best to not be seen.
That’s my 2 cents on the issue of immigration. I hope to write some more about this in the future.
Extremus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)