Economy New study: Medicare for all to save 5.1 trillion dollars

[panamaican]

You call it government overreach, but then are ok with it because it saves some money? "You got to stick to your principles"

No, I called the mandate government overreach until the Supreme Court said that the mandate is a tax. Congress has taxing authority. Thus the mandate can't be government overreach.

Evaluating the effectiveness of the policy is separate from evaluating the constitutionality of the policy. I've never argued that it wouldn't reduce costs.

I still think there are better ways to go but if no one is willing to put them forward, you take the best option available. This reduces the deficit which is good for the country. It's better to reduce the deficit with the ACA than continue to let healthcare costs grow unchecked with no intervention.

Principles. I can't continue to argue that something is government overreach when the Supreme Court tells me that it's not. That would be idiotic. That would require me, a lawyer, saying that I refuse to accept a SCOTUS ruling. I, personally, don't do that.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

No, I called the mandate government overreach until the Supreme Court said that the mandate is a tax. Congress has taxing authority. Thus the mandate can't be government overreach.

Evaluating the effectiveness of the policy is separate from evaluating the constitutionality of the policy. I've never argued that it wouldn't reduce costs.

I still think there are better ways to go but if no one is willing to put them forward, you take the best option available. This reduces the deficit which is good for the country. It's better to reduce the deficit with the ACA than continue to let healthcare costs grow unchecked with no intervention.

Principles. I can't continue to argue that something is government overreach when the Supreme Court tells me that it's not. That would be idiotic. That would require me, a lawyer, saying that I refuse to accept a SCOTUS ruling. I, personally, don't do that.

Is it your position that the SCOTUS is incapable of supporting government overreach? That is to say that if the SCOTUS approves of something, it inherently cannot be government overreach?

For example.... if a law got passed forcing the worship of Jesus at Christmas time and the SCOTUS ruled it constitutional, would you be suddenly be ok with it?

 

[franklinstower]

CBO is part of the deep state and their figures are bogus.

Its worse unfortunately. I recently learned that the deep state is run by liberal child murdering reptilians. We have really got to do something about illegal aliens in this country.

 

[cleetus]

See above.

Wrong.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53300

And I've seen even more damning reports but I'm using your agency to show that obamacare adds to the deficit.

 

[cleetus]

You're talking about people who said a sitting president's name was un-American and who thought he was unfit to be president because of presumed affiliation with a certain religion. As I said elsewhere, they prove over and over again that no matter what the issue, if Dems do it, it's bad, and if Republicans do it, it's good, regardless of reality. It's traitorous if you ask me.

LOL. Pot meet kettle.

 

[panamaican]

Is it your position that the SCOTUS is incapable of supporting government overreach? That is to say that if the SCOTUS approves of something, it inherently cannot be government overreach?

For example.... if a law got passed forcing the worship of Jesus at Christmas time and the SCOTUS ruled it constitutional, would you be suddenly be ok with it?

Well, SCOTUS would never make that ruling. That's why they're appointed to SCOTUS. It would require the majority of 9 extremely bright, extremely experienced lawyers to make a decision that completely contradicts the Constitution and precedent and to set that decision down in writing with a coherent explanation. You might as well ask me how I would feel about pigs flying.

The law isn't anywhere near as malleable as non-lawyers seem to think it is. If you're going to give me a hypothetical it should be within the realm of reasonably possible.

As for SCOTUS and government overreach - the Supreme Court of the United States interprets the laws of Congress for their Constitutionality. If the SCOTUS says that a law is fine then the law is fine. You don't have to like the law, you don't have to agree with SCOTUS but the law itself is still fine. That's the role of SCOTUS. And if an individual cannot accept that then the problem lies within them.

If Congress passes a law criminalizing or decriminalizing possession of some drug then the citizens need to to adapt to the new laws. They can fight to change them but until the change takes place, those are the laws of the land. I've never been a believer in the concept of breaking laws just because a person doesn't like them. It's a path to the end of good citizenship because everyone disagrees with one law or another (for example - I don't think we should have speed limits. But as long as we do, I'll pay my speeding tickets.). If we can't agree on the basic premise that you follow the laws of the land that you're in, what's the point of having a country/government at all.

So, if SCOTUS tells me that the ACA mandate is not a government overreach but perfectly within the taxing power of the U.S. Congress, I will accept it. If the Supreme Court had ruled in the other direction, I would have accepted that too. Because it's their job to make that ruling, not mine.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

The law isn't anywhere near as malleable as non-lawyers seem to think it is. If you're going to give me a hypothetical it should be within the realm of reasonably possible.

I understand, but I'm talking about the philosophy behind what you said. I used an exaggerated example to drive the point home

So, if SCOTUS tells me that the ACA mandate is not a government overreach but perfectly within the taxing power of the U.S. Congress, I will accept it. If the Supreme Court had ruled in the other direction, I would have accepted that too. Because it's their job to make that ruling, not mine.

It may be law, but that doesnt mean we cant think it's also government overreach.

A more realistic example. The coast guard can board your boat without identifying themselves for any reason without suspicion of a crime being committed. This is a clear violation of the 4th ammendment yet it happens daily. Are we to say nah this isnt overreach because it hasn't been ruled as such? No it's a clear violation of the 4th

 

[panamaican]

Wrong.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53300

And I've seen even more damning reports but I'm using your agency to show that obamacare adds to the deficit.

You have no idea what you're reading. Eliminating the mandate reduces the deficit relative to having the mandate by reducing the number of people getting insurance and thus getting subsidies. You insure fewer people, you spend less money on them.

However, if you're going to discuss the ACA, it needs to be relative to the pre-ACA model. And even with the mandate, the ACA reduced the federal deficit relative to what we had before the ACA.

I'll try to explain with an analogy. You have an old gas guzzler for a car. You buy a new fuel-efficient vehicle and start buying the most expensive gas. You're saving a ton of money on gas relative to your old car, even with the most expensive gas. One day, you decide to start buying the cheapest gas. Now you're saving money relative to the most expensive gas. But either way, the real source of your savings is that you're now in a fuel efficient car, not the old gas guzzler. It would be a mistake to say "I didn't need a fuel efficient car because I save money buying cheaper gas...in the fuel efficient car." You should be comparing it to the gas guzzler but you're not.

You're comparing one version of the ACA to another version of the ACA instead of comparing the ACA to no-ACA at all.

 

[Andy Capp]

LOL. Pot meet kettle.

<mma2>
In other words, I invite you to elaborate.

 

[SammyPops]

One way to cut costs is to take the government out of the equation. Doctors / hospitals are in the habit of billing exorbitant amounts because they know Uncle Sam foots the bill. It's similar to the situation we see in higher education.

Anyway, I don't see providing health care as a legitimate function of the government. Is providing health care to more people a laudable goal? Yes. We have mechanisms in place to make sure people get emergency care when they need it. But if people care about their long term health, they need to do what they need to do to get coverage. If they are incapable of providing for their own health care, charity organizations should step in. This is how we have traditionally handled every other "must have" commodity (e.g., food, water, clothing, shelter, telephones, etc.), and health care is no different.



Yes, I am an open-minded person, and I can be persuaded. But this is not exactly an old idea. The perils of socialized medicine are widely known. When it comes to socialized anything, I am very wary of these rose-tinted sales pitch "studies." I can refer back to rather large body of evidence pointing toward the inevitable failure of socialized programs. In fact, the only socialized programs that have ever succeeded did so in stable, homogenous populations with predictable habits, such as those found in Scandinavian countries. But the USA is a very diverse place, and the allocation of government resources is already extremely contentious, even without throwing in a massive entitlement to health care. We can't even agree that the government should enforce the border and deport illegal aliens (arguably a function of the government's first priority, to provide for common defense).

On that note, consider the following: this study is talking about providing "stable access to good care for all U.S. residents" (emphasis added). Nowhere in this 205-page manifesto do the authors refer to U.S. "citizens," "illegal aliens," "immigrants," "undocumented immigrants," "foreigners," etc. They have ignored the issue of illegal immigration entirely. One can fairly infer from the authors' pervasive use of the word "residents" that illegal aliens will be entitled to "Medicare for All." What do you think of the possibility that 30-40% of those "residents" are non-citizens and/or non-taxpayers? What do you think happens to this country over time in that scenario? The program will be underfunded, taxes will need to be increased, tensions will increase as a result, and all of the problems associated with SOCIALISM will be laid at our front doorstep.

The biggest problem with many of these studies is they deal with abstractions and hypothetical scenarios that rarely reflect the complexity of the real world. This is apparently one such study.

Fair enough. Socilized or single payer helath care surre has its issues. The key is what system has less perils for less people.

 

[panamaican]

I understand, but I'm talking about the philosophy behind what you said. I used an exaggerated example to drive the point home

You can't drive a point home if the hypo is impossible. It's like saying you're driving home a point about aerodynamics based on how the Millenium Falcon operates. That's not an exaggerated example of aerodynamics, it's a work of fiction and has no relationship to aerodynamics at all.

SCOTUS throwing out a basic principle that every 1st year law student grasps is Millenium Falcon level fiction. It's like saying "If your doctor prescribed drugs manufactured on Jupiter, would you take them?" There are so many non-existent steps to get there, it can't be realistically discussed.

It may be law, but that doesnt mean we cant think it's also government overreach.

You can think whatever you want. You can think apples are oranges and water is wood. You can think a Ferrari is a Honda. That doesn't mean your thoughts are an accurate reflection of reality. It's the basic difference between people who learn and grow and people who can't. Some people realize that what they thought was wrong and adapt. Some people refuse.

A more realistic example. The coast guard can board your boat without identifying themselves for any reason without suspicion of a crime being committed. This is a clear violation of the 4th ammendment yet it happens daily. Are we to say nah this isnt overreach because it hasn't been ruled as such? No it's a clear violation of the 4th

That's not a parallel at all since, as you stated, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the subject (at least I think that's what you're saying - maritime case law isn't something I know). What you're describing is where I was pre-SCOTUS on the mandate. I thought something was a government violation but there was no SCOTUS ruling on the subject.

What I've been discussing is what happened after a SCOTUS ruling.

But since you made me look up the law

While the Fourth Amendment may protect the citizen, law abiding or not, from the threat of an “unwarranted” search, that protection ceases once the citizen is on a vessel. The Coast Guard has sweeping authority to board any vessel (subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) at any time, any place. It does not require a warrant. It does not require probable cause. Boardings need not be based on a suspicion that a violation already exists aboard the vessel. Their purpose is to prevent violations and the courts have upheld this authority. Also, the Coast Guard has full legal law enforcement power on any land under the control of the United States, as needed to complete any mission. 14 USC 89 has its roots in the Revenue Service Act of 1790 which provided “all collectors, naval officers, surveyors, inspectors and the officers of the revenue cutters . . . to go on board ships in any part of the United States . . . for the purposes of demanding manifests . . . examining and searching the said ships, and the officers shall have free access to the cabin and every other part of the vessel . . .” This statute was passed by the first Congress, the same Congress that enacted the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment with its guarantees for citizens to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. By enacting the Revenue Service Act, the first Congress showed unequivocally that the Coast Guard’s significant law enforcement authorities to board and search a U.S. flag vessel anywhere in the world, as well as vessels intending to call on U.S. ports, were consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. Courts over the last 200 years have consistently validated the right of the Coast Guard to board and inspect vessels, probable cause or not.

Plainly stated, when it comes to Coast Guard boarding, you don’t have any rights. As stated by Capt. Rasicott and CDR Cunningham in their article found in Proceedings, Summer 2009; “There are two main ways to board a vessel – either with permission, or without.”

It would seem that your understanding of the 4th Amendment and its applicability iare wrong. SCOTUS isn't going to overturn a Congressional law that has been defended in court numerous times since 1790.

This goes back to my general point about people not understanding the laws under which they live but being insistent that they have the correct interpretation over the people who have actually trained to make those interpretations. I try not to be in that group of people.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

You can't drive a point home if the hypo is impossible. It's like saying you're driving home a point about aerodynamics based on how the Millenium Falcon operates. That's not an exaggerated example of aerodynamics, it's a work of fiction and has no relationship to aerodynamics at all.

SCOTUS throwing out a basic principle that every 1st year law student grasps is Millenium Falcon level fiction. It's like saying "If your doctor prescribed drugs manufactured on Jupiter, would you take them?" There are so many non-existent steps to get there, it can't be realistically discussed.




You can think whatever you want. You can think apples are oranges and water is wood. You can think a Ferrari is a Honda. That doesn't mean your thoughts are an accurate reflection of reality. It's the basic difference between people who learn and grow and people who can't. Some people realize that what they thought was wrong and adapt. Some people refuse.



That's not a parallel at all since, as you stated, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the subject (at least I think that's what you're saying - maritime case law isn't something I know). What you're describing is where I was pre-SCOTUS on the mandate. I thought something was a government violation but there was no SCOTUS ruling on the subject.

What I've been discussing is what happened after a SCOTUS ruling.

But since you made me look up the law


It would seem that your understanding of the 4th Amendment and its applicability iare wrong. SCOTUS isn't going to overturn a Congressional law that has been defended in court numerous times since 1790.

This goes back to my general point about people not understanding the laws under which they live but being insistent that they have the correct interpretation over the people who have actually trained to make those interpretations. I try not to be in that group of people.

It sounds a lot like you're saying as long as the law is on the books and the SCOTUS has either ruled it constitutional or haven't ruled at all, then it is completely legit in the philosophical sense.

Using my coast guard example. If the SCOTUS said it was constitutional despite the obvious ways it violates the 4th, youd suddenly be ok with it?

I'm having trouble articulating what I'm trying to specifically ask you. I understand that I, as a lowly citizen, dont have much recourse against the SCOTUS, and their rulings will stand. That doesnt mean they cant be objectively wrong or perhaps even corrupt.

 

[panamaican]

It sounds a lot like you're saying as long as the law is on the books and the SCOTUS has either ruled it constitutional or haven't ruled at all, then it is completely legit in the philosophical sense.

Using my coast guard example. If the SCOTUS said it was constitutional despite the obvious ways it violates the 4th, youd suddenly be ok with it?

I'm having trouble articulating what I'm trying to specifically ask you. I understand that I, as a lowly citizen, dont have much recourse against the SCOTUS, and their rulings will stand. That doesnt mean they cant be objectively wrong or perhaps even corrupt.

Again - your Coast Guard example is off-base. Re-read the legal explanation of what I posted regarding the Coast Guard and boarding vessels on the water. It doesn't violate the 4th. Starting an example with an untrue premise is a waste of time. Insisting that it is a violation is simply choosing to be wrong for no discernible reason.

You're having trouble with what you're asking me because your question is based on a bad foundation. Your basic question is "Can the SCOTUS be wrong philosophically/morally and would you still support the SCOTUS despite a philosophic/moral disagreement with their rulings?"

The problem is that you're falsely equating 2 things. An individual's philosophical/moral opinion on something vs. the legality of that something. "Government overreach" is not a philosophical principle, it's a legal one. What government can and can't do is dictated by legal strictures, not philosophical musings. When government goes beyond those legal strictures, you have government overreach. One's philosophical opinion doesn't matter. When government stays within the strictures, you don't have government overreach and philosophical opinions still don't matter.

You can disagree with the morality of a law or with the philosophical principles behind it but that has zero bearing on the legality of the laws. My oft-repeated position is that too often people think that the law should reflect their individual sense of right/wrong. Your individual sense of right/wrong should dictate which laws you push to have enacted, which politicians you choose to support with your vote. But the laws on the books are the laws you follow until such time as they are changed.

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on the morality or the philosophy behind a law. They rule on its legality. If I support the 3 branches of government and respect their individual roles in good governance then when the Supreme Court says that something is legal, I roll with that, personal philosophies aside. If I truly disagree with a philosophical principle then it's my job to articulate a better one to accomplish the goal, not just to continuously, mindlessly, oppose something.

I oppose 60 mph speed limits. I have to come up with a better way to manage highway traffic beyond simply saying that I philosophically oppose limiting how fast people drive. If speed limits are saving lives but I refuse to acknowledge that because of the philosophical difference then I'm a moron.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Again - your Coast Guard example is off-base. Re-read the legal explanation of what I posted regarding the Coast Guard and boarding vessels on the water. It doesn't violate the 4th. Starting an example with an untrue premise is a waste of time. Insisting that it is a violation is simply choosing to be wrong for no discernible reason.

I don't feel this is productive any longer. It seems you have no principle and follow whatever the courts of the time say. The 4th amendment is to protect american citizens from being searched without cause.

How that law holds up in this day and age is beyond me. I guess because people like you support it. You don't see how that flies in the face of the 4th?

 

[panamaican]

I don't feel this is productive any longer. It seems you have no principle and follow whatever the courts of the time say. The 4th amendment is to protect american citizens from being searched without cause.

How that law holds up in this day and age is beyond me. I guess because people like you support it. You don't see how that flies in the face of the 4th?

Or because people like you don't understand the 4th or the law that you're discussing. Let me demonstrate -

How exactly does the Revenue Service Act of 1790 operate? How does 14 US 89 operate? What requirements are placed upon owners of maritime vessels when operating within US waters? Are those requirements explicitly spelled out at some point before operating on US waters? Which of those requirements violate the 4th?

Don't just say 'That law violates the 4th". Explain how the exact law violates the 4th. I don't want generalities, I want specifics related to the laws themselves, not just the generic principles related to the 4th.

Don't look up anything since you've already stated, in the affirmative, that there's a violation. Just type your explanation.

When you're done, I'll explain the point I'm making.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Or because people like you don't understand the 4th or the law that you're discussing. Let me demonstrate -

How exactly does the Revenue Service Act of 1790 operate? How does 14 US 89 operate? What requirements are placed upon owners of maritime vessels when operating within US waters? Are those requirements explicitly spelled out at some point before operating on US waters? Which of those requirements violate the 4th?

Don't just say 'That law violates the 4th". Explain how the exact law violates the 4th. I don't want generalities, I want specifics related to the laws themselves, not just the generic principles related to the 4th.

Don't look up anything since you've already stated, in the affirmative, that there's a violation. Just type your explanation.

When you're done, I'll explain the point I'm making.

From my understanding, the coast guard was the cutter service or something like that before. They were responsible for collection of tariffs etc. They would board boats and ensure the people had paid what they needed to. Is it reasonable to assume everybody is a criminal who doesn't pay their tariffs? Wouldn't they require some probable cause to be in line with the 4th?

Currently, they board boats for whatever reason they see fit (often times to check for life vests, while they really are looking for drugs etc.).

If the 4th doesn't protect me on a boat from the US government searching my property without cause, why does it protect me anywhere else?

 

[panamaican]

From my understanding, the coast guard was the cutter service or something like that before. They were responsible for collection of tariffs etc. They would board boats and ensure the people had paid what they needed to. Is it reasonable to assume everybody is a criminal who doesn't pay their tariffs? Wouldn't they require some probable cause to be in line with the 4th?

Currently, they board boats for whatever reason they see fit (often times to check for life vests, while they really are looking for drugs etc.).

If the 4th doesn't protect me on a boat from the US government searching my property without cause, why does it protect me anywhere else?

You didn't answer my question - How exactly does the Revenue Service Act of 1790 operate? How does 14 US 89 operate? What requirements are placed upon owners of maritime vessels when operating within US waters? Are those requirements explicitly spelled out at some point before operating on US waters? Which of those requirements violate the 4th?

I don't want generic principles about the 4th. I don't want rhetorical questions. I understand the general principles and the rhetorical devices don't serve any purpose beyond rhetoric and we're beyond rhetoric. I'm taking your claim of a 4th Amendment violation at face value, you don't need to convince me. Instead, I want specific explanations related to how the relevant laws violate the 4th Amendment. I'm can't finish my example until you've filled in those spaces.

If you can't be specific as to my questions, just tell me that so I can move forward and stop asking for it.

 

[panamaican]

@oleDirtyBast4rd - To help you with the 4th Amendment here's some relevant opinions.

"[t]here is a substantial distinction between a landlocked vehicle and a nautical vessel for Fourth Amendment purposes."'" The court emphasized the relative difficulty of policing the nautical frontiers when compared to policing the territorial boundaries of land6 ' and stated that "the extensive federal and international regulation of shipping and boating significantly limits the privacy that anyone might expect to have on the seas. 66 The court cited the observations of one commentator that "nlike a land bound citizen in constant contact with the government and police, the mobility and anonymity of persons aboard vessels at sea require that the government be able to exercise effective control when an opportunity is presented.,

United States v. Williams, 617 F.2d 1063, 1070 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc)

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

If you can't be specific as to my questions, just tell me that so I can move forward and stop asking for it.

I can't without causing more confusion I admit.

It would seem that they cared more about getting their money then they did about the 4ths protection against searches of American citizens without warrant or cause

Regulations shouldn't be an excuse to search a us citizen without cause. An example... drivers are required to have insurance. Can a cop just pull you over to make sure you are within regulations?

I dont buy the "expectation of privacy"argument. Just because I'm on a boat doesnt mean ive lost all expectation of privacy

 

[HIMBOB]

No you're just outing yourself as someone that has no fucking clue what they're talking about.

Are you saying you would prefer to get your answers from a stranger on a forum than from a properly constructed study?