(07-07-2011 12:14 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 01:23 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 05:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-30-2011 07:19 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  

(06-30-2011 12:03 AM)niuguy Wrote:  I just figured you don't support the legislation.

I think we need to do something about healthcare, but this isn't it, so no, I don't support the legislation, and this court decision is dangerous if the Supreme Court upholds it or doesn't hear the case. It basically means the Government can regulate EVERYTHING you do just be the fact that you're breathing, and that is absolutely ridiculous.

For example, the anti-gun crowd would go nuts if the feds required every American to own a gun. How is this any different?

It's totally different. If I don't have a gun it doesn't lead to additional expense for you.

Yes it does. For example it has been estimated that the reduction in crime in Pennsylvania and Oregon result in savings of $5,079 and $3,439, respectively, for each additional handgun permit ("More Guns, Less Crime," John Lott Jr.) therefore NOT having a gun leads to additional expenses for all of us the same way it is being argued not having health insurance does. So, clearly, using this application of the Commerce Clause, the Government could require gun ownership of all citizens.

Given the clear cost and societal benefits all the liberals who support Obamacare should be all for that right? It reduces rape, murder, and other violent crimes - shouldn't the Government require gun ownership as well? How is this different than the insurance mandate?

First, the commerce clause allows for congress to regulate INTERSTATE commerce. If your proposed law was challenged in court you would have to demonstrate, with evidence, that gun ownership effects interstate commerce. And don't give some silly slippery slope argument. Congress has tried this before and has it has gotten shot down by the courts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison)

Before I answer, please explain how someone not buying health insurance effects interstate commerce.

(07-07-2011 12:36 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Before I answer, please explain how someone not buying health insurance effects interstate commerce.

I'll cite the recent legal decision.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...68p-06.pdf

Quote:The rub is the other method of paying for medical care: self-insurance. There are two ways to self-insure, and both, when aggregated, substantially affect interstate commerce. One option is to save money so that it is there when the need for health care arises. The other is to save nothing and to rely on something else—good fortune or the good graces of others—when the need arises. Congress found that providing uncompensated medical care to the uninsured cost $43 billion in 2008 and that these costs were shifted to others through higher premiums. See 42 U.S.C. § 18091(a)(2)(F). Based on these findings, Congress could reasonably conclude that the decisions and actions of the self-insured substantially affect interstate commerce.

In choosing how to regulate this group, Congress also did not exceed its power.The basic policy idea, for better or worse (and courts must assume better), is to compel individuals with the requisite income to pay now rather than later for health care. Faced with $43 billion in uncompensated care, Congress reasonably could require all covered individuals to pay for health care now so that money would be available later to pay for all care as the need arises. Call this mandate what you will—an affront to individual autonomy or an imperative of national health care—it meets the requirement of regulating activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

(07-07-2011 12:56 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 12:36 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Before I answer, please explain how someone not buying health insurance effects interstate commerce.

I'll cite the recent legal decision.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...68p-06.pdf

Quote:The rub is the other method of paying for medical care: self-insurance. There are two ways to self-insure, and both, when aggregated, substantially affect interstate commerce. One option is to save money so that it is there when the need for health care arises. The other is to save nothing and to rely on something else—good fortune or the good graces of others—when the need arises. Congress found that providing uncompensated medical care to the uninsured cost $43 billion in 2008 and that these costs were shifted to others through higher premiums. See 42 U.S.C. § 18091(a)(2)(F). Based on these findings, Congress could reasonably conclude that the decisions and actions of the self-insured substantially affect interstate commerce.

In choosing how to regulate this group, Congress also did not exceed its power.The basic policy idea, for better or worse (and courts must assume better), is to compel individuals with the requisite income to pay now rather than later for health care. Faced with $43 billion in uncompensated care, Congress reasonably could require all covered individuals to pay for health care now so that money would be available later to pay for all care as the need arises. Call this mandate what you will—an affront to individual autonomy or an imperative of national health care—it meets the requirement of regulating activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

This exact same argument fits my argument. The savings related to concealed carry permits is the reduction in violent crime, which directly reduces healthcare costs. The two are intertwined, so, if healthcare insurance can be mandated then gun ownership can be mandated as well (and God knows what else).

(07-07-2011 01:04 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  This exact same argument fits my argument. The savings related to concealed carry permits is the reduction in violent crime, which directly reduces healthcare costs. The two are intertwined, so, if healthcare insurance can be mandated then gun ownership can be mandated as well (and God knows what else).

Luckily for us, there is a case that deals with congress, gun laws, and the commerce clause! :D Admittedly, it is about gun control, but the logic in the argument is the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

(07-07-2011 01:16 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 01:04 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  This exact same argument fits my argument. The savings related to concealed carry permits is the reduction in violent crime, which directly reduces healthcare costs. The two are intertwined, so, if healthcare insurance can be mandated then gun ownership can be mandated as well (and God knows what else).

Luckily for us, there is a case that deals with congress, gun laws, and the commerce clause! :D Admittedly, it is about gun control, but the logic in the argument is the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Given there is a LOT more data on the economic benefits of handgun ownership than was available 16 years ago when this decision was made, it is very possible that this slim 5-4 decision would no longer stand, especially since is stated (according to your link) that:

"...there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale."

That sentence is no longer true.

(07-07-2011 01:56 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 01:16 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 01:04 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  This exact same argument fits my argument. The savings related to concealed carry permits is the reduction in violent crime, which directly reduces healthcare costs. The two are intertwined, so, if healthcare insurance can be mandated then gun ownership can be mandated as well (and God knows what else).

Luckily for us, there is a case that deals with congress, gun laws, and the commerce clause! :D Admittedly, it is about gun control, but the logic in the argument is the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Given there is a LOT more data on the economic benefits of handgun ownership than was available 16 years ago when this decision was made, it is very possible that this slim 5-4 decision would no longer stand, especially since is stated (according to your link) that:

"...there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale."

That sentence is no longer true.

As they say, "leave it to the judge." :)

(07-06-2011 03:09 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 03:00 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 02:54 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 02:47 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 08:31 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Well then we need to increase the medicare tax so that everyone has skin in the game. Plus we should deduct money from peoples welfare checks and unemployment checks so that they are paying for their health care costs. Left to their own devices, they will spend on Cigarettes, booze and other non necessities. If the go without Cable, Cell phones etc, that is fine with me. What will happen is their kids will do without.

Unemployment pay is taxed. You shouldn't label all unemployed as lazy. Hard working people get laid off all the time these days.

Not if you don't make enough. Someone on uemploymebnt the whole year pays little tax if any tax

Then what you are saying is that you want to raise the tax rates on those under the poverty line.

No quit extending unemployment and make people go out and get a job. There is no incentive to get off unemployment as long as checks keep coming. I am not saying everyone does this but you can make $10 an hr on unemployment or work at McDonalds for $10. If the money stopped, people would be more inclined to find a job.

You are State of IL deducts 10% from UC on nearly everyone. UC is not paid with tax revenue but is insurance paid by employers. There are 4 unemployed people for every available job, which means that those 3 not hired will continue to be unemployed.

State of Illinois should be proactive and form the Bank of Illinois from the new gambling revenue to lend to small businesses who want to expand and hire more employees or startup firms that have a real opportunity to succeed. It will add more corporate and individual income tax revenue and decrease the number of unemployed. In addition it will add significant interest income to the state's coffers when loans are repaid. North Dakota has received $300Million in the last 10 years from it's state owned bank. TIme for Illinois to enact one.

(07-11-2011 12:53 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 03:09 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 03:00 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 02:54 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 02:47 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Unemployment pay is taxed. You shouldn't label all unemployed as lazy. Hard working people get laid off all the time these days.

Not if you don't make enough. Someone on uemploymebnt the whole year pays little tax if any tax

Then what you are saying is that you want to raise the tax rates on those under the poverty line.

No quit extending unemployment and make people go out and get a job. There is no incentive to get off unemployment as long as checks keep coming. I am not saying everyone does this but you can make $10 an hr on unemployment or work at McDonalds for $10. If the money stopped, people would be more inclined to find a job.

You are State of IL deducts 10% from UC on nearly everyone. UC is not paid with tax revenue but is insurance paid by employers. There are 4 unemployed people for every available job, which means that those 3 not hired will continue to be unemployed.

State of Illinois should be proactive and form the Bank of Illinois from the new gambling revenue to lend to small businesses who want to expand and hire more employees or startup firms that have a real opportunity to succeed. It will add more corporate and individual income tax revenue and decrease the number of unemployed. In addition it will add significant interest income to the state's coffers when loans are repaid. North Dakota has received $300Million in the last 10 years from it's state owned bank. TIme for Illinois to enact one.

I know how it is paid. It is a tax on businesses. It keeps going up. Even if you business does not lay off people, it goes up. I am in corporate accounting and deal with it. We are paying for all lay offs not just ours. As the fund runs lower, the charge businesses in Illinois more even if your experience rating goes down or does not change. This is money that we could use to hire more workers but we have to pay it to support the unemployed.