reply to post by OutKast Searcher
1) Taxes on those that choose not to purchase health insurance. This is absolutely needed if the system is going to work. You can't get rid of
pre-existing conditions and allow people to grift the system. So you either get health insurance...or you pay a tax up the amount of what an average
health plan would cost. I'm glad they are doing this...the uninsured is one of the big problems with health care costs.
This is a quote from your first reply in this thread. This is an example of your logic. According to your logic any individual who chooses to opt
out of this so called mandatory insurance scheme is a grifter playing the system. In order to defend this so called logic of yours you ignore
several important facts that undermine your own position. Instead you hope to deflect away from your lapses of reason and point to issues not at all
relevant. The so called "public option" you keep lobbying for in this thread has nothing to do with forcing people to buy health insurance, or pay
taxes on the insurance they don't buy.
The "public option" you continually advocate was not the "only solution" to a reasonable health care reform package. If Congress wants to
regulate the insurance industry and impose bans on pre-existing illness qualifications, or suppressing rate increases or just simply imposing minimum
standards upon the industry not all ready in place, that would be one thing, and even then, perhaps arguably not Constitutional, but when Congress
insists the only way it can effectively regulate the insurance business is by forcing all people to do business with that industry then it should be
clear whose logic is faulty.
Your naivete in regards to how government works, how the law works is not helping your cause. You on the one hand openly admit to ignorance,
justifying your ignorance of the law by claiming you can't know everything. Of course, in a court of law, you are not presumed to know everything,
merely the law. On the other hand, why would you be in a court of law regarding this issue? You've all ready surrendered your inherent political
power to a "process" you are ignorant of.
You speak about legislation that has not yet been passed as if it all ready has been passed. You then attempt to demonstrate the peoples
powerlessness by pointing to a hypothetical, that being that in the event this legislation actually passes, if the people are so powerful why
couldn't they stop it from passing? Whether the legislation passes or not, whether Obama signs it into an Act of Legislation, or not, has no bearing
on the force and weight of that legislation. If the people don't want this intrusion in their lives then they won't accept it.
It will be in the rejection of this legislation, (assuming it does indeed pass), by individuals where this law will be challenged, and it will not be
the courts who decide this if it is a jury rendering a verdict. If a jury, any jury in any court, finds the legislation itself to be abhorrent to
the Constitution, that jury can, in effect, nullify the law by refusing to acquit the individual charged with a crime simply because he or she refused
to buy health insurance.
A jury is a body of people who are peers of the defendant. They are We the People. Indeed, even a Grand Jury consists of people who can and should,
if confronted with this legislation, refuse to indict any individual who asserts their right to decide for themselves whether or not they will
purchase health insurance.
When you analyze the situation from this equation, and what is analysis if not a necessary part of logic, then it is clear the people are not
powerless at all when confronted with intrusive legislation and can do much without having to rely upon a Final Court of Appeals that can take years,
sometimes even decades, to reach a decision. Any individual can challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislation from the get go, which
means from the moment it is passed. You ask if the people are so powerful then why haven't they stopped this legislation from passing, and now in
direct response I answer:
1.) Thus far, the people have stopped this legislation from passing
2.) If it ever does pass, how will the government stop people from willfully refusing to acknowledge this law as valid? What power will they rely
upon in order to exert their authority?
There was a time in the United States when it was endemic among Grand Juries across the nation that they would as a matter of course indict whomever
came before them. In the past the Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich if the District Attorneys office or some other branch of government asked
for that indictment, but more and more, We the People are shedding our velvet blanket of ignorance and less and less Grand Juries are willing to
indict a person simply because they have been charged with a crime.
More and more people are beginning to question the efficacy of government and its ability to govern effectively. Logically speaking, when a
government passes anti trust laws to prevent businesses from becoming too big to fail, then creates administrative agencies tasked with regulating
businesses, only to turn around and shrug their collective shoulders and say, "oh well, they got too big to fail anyway, and now we can't let them
fail", is ineffective government and demonstrates just how useless government regulation is, or at the very least can be. That is actually quite
To trust that government will effectively regulate health care, when they have so demonstrably failed to regulate businesses they have a
Constitutional authority to regulate, is not at all logical. To demand a so called "public option" as a health insurance policy because the cost of
health care is rising is not logical. Lack of health insurance coverage is not what has driven the cost of health care up. It is not logical to
argue that expanding health insurance coverage will drive the costs down.
In economics it is important to understand that price controls are not cost controls and if any government regulation that would impose price controls
refuses to adjust for costs then the business they are regulating will fail. This regulatory process does not authorize Congress to force people to
pay for insurance schemes. Congress can not legislate themselves the authority it must all ready exist by Constitution and it does not.
The problem with the health care reform package is that its focus has been on health insurance schemes rather than working in directions that would
reduce the costs of health care. Expanding coverage of insurance will not reduce that cost. Equating insurance schemes with health care is not
logical. A persons health should not be predicated, and indeed is not predicated upon the quality of insurance one posses.
Your own insistence that finding cures to diseases should not be the focus of attention only demonstrates your own pretzel logic in this whole sordid
affair. Finding cures to disease is the central issue of health care, not which insurance policy is best. Discovering why cancer is on the rise and
not on the wane despite the untold billions of dollars spent attempting to cure it, should be a big issue, not fanciful socialist ideals such as
"public options". It is fairly evident why diabetes is on the rise and not on the wane, and expanding health care coverage will only facilitate
this disease and not curb it.
We the People have time and time again proven to people like you, including ambitious government tyrants, that we do indeed have the power to overturn
bad legislation, and the undeniable failure of the Prohibition Amendment and the willful disregard for that legislation by numerous people only led to
its inevitable repeal.