SCOTUS beyond People's United, Money = Free Speech!

[Kevatc]

Crazy how insurance premiums have gone up since that legislation was passed, DESPITE what President "Hope & Change" said it would do... but then this thread isn't about health care specifically, its about the SCOTUS.

You did get a little off track there. However, since you brought it up you really should be intellectually honest and stipulate that even though the health care legislation doesn't look like it will do anything to rein in costs those same costs were increasing at a pretty astounding rate long before the current POTUS even thought about running for his current postion.

 

[Stomper]

What is the connection to GE and why are they the specific corporation in your statement?

Because G.E. is perching itself with its "G.Emagination" medical database technologies for a centralized run health care system... you miss the T.V. commercials G.E. has been running for the last several months? "Evil Corporation" (that BTW, paid ZERO TAXES on its income, and is in the W.H. DAILY)... no outrage expressed about corporate "welfare" and "government influence"? (Just sayin')

The court may hear the Obamacare case and who knows how they will decide. The constitution does not limit the rights of our elected branch of government to cause people to buy something from a private marketplace nor does it grant them that specific authority. The laws that say you must have car insurance to drive legally have stood up. The laws requires all sorts of outfits to be bonded and insured to do all sorts of stuff, like run a tug boat, become a bank, sell stock, develop new drugs, run a hospital, or drill for oil. The gov has required participation in social security for most workers for a very long time. I don't see anything wrong with it because the private company involved is not a specific one it is only one of dozens of outfits that will be bidding for this business. The states legal actions are pretty much show boating and the basis of some of them is strange beyond belief. But the constitution does not say that corporations have the same rights of free speech as people either, and that is what the court decided in Citizen's United.

1.
The powers NOT SPECIFICALLY granted by the U.S. Constitution are reserved for the States.

2.
The Obama Administration has been all over the map with "justifying" this legislation from the commerce clause, to congress's authority to levy tax... they've called it one or the other to suit the situation (which is it?).

3.
All that other stuff you mentioned (insurance, licensing, etc.) are to regulate (because of crooks, etc.) ACTIVITIES, but what this amounts to is being regulated/taxed (whatever you want to call it) for merely EXISTING. What next, we pay a carbon tax for breathing? Pay a UV tax for sun exposure while we're outside? I know that sounds dumb, but its in the same trajectory and we have a government that is DESPERATE for increasing revenue, and given some of the things that have been said and DONE, that could possibly come into reality.

I find Obamacare (taking the rightie name for it) to be in the public good, as I've said before it isn't perfect but it is the best that we were going to get from the insurance - provider - government consortium that put the thing together.

I've argued that before in here, it does a lot of good things, and if you want to have insurance not toss people for pre-existing conditions you simply have to make sure that everyone is covered at all times. If you don't then people will wait to get insurance until after they are diagnosed with something. This issue was raised by the insurance companies from the start of planning the new law.

What the result is (and we're starting to see it now) is a drastic rise in medical premiums (Obama said it would drop our premiums 20%+). So by being "compassionate" and throwing EVERYONE into the "pot" we drag the level of care down for EVERYONE, limit our choices on Doctors and procedures, and increase the costs on the backs of the producers (i.e. gainfully employed) so "Joe Crackhead" smokin' on his porch (his major achievement in life) can have health care... plus I don't want to fund health care for illegals... and yes, it IS funded through "Obamacare" (BTW, my 1st wife is a Honduran that I brought back while in the Army, and prior GF was a 2nd gen Mexican/American immigrant so I'm not a racist).

I DO NOT find "Obamacare" to be in the "public good". Just for arguments sake, maybe it DOES do a few good things like you mentioned, but at what cost? We all know human nature; if you KNOW there are no consequences/benefits for your actions/in-actions there is no ambition to better yourself... just like in the former Soviet Union... just like LBJ's "Great Society" (i.e. welfare) basically DECIMATED the "Black American" family structure because it made the the Black Father irrelevant in the equation... you take away the incentive to WORK HARD, to PRODUCE something of VALUE, to better YOURSELF and YOUR FAMILY... and THAT my friend is a sin.

I'll give you a case in point to what I've said... my own situation. I have SIX children (me and my Australian wife each have three from prior marriages) that I'm responsible to provide for, plus basically pay the ex-wife (a blonde) a ton of cash every month. I could make a whopping $14-$18 and hour (the average in my trade) by installing residential HVAC systems and live like a popper and have crappy health care for everyone @ $400+/mo. in premiums with high deductibles.

What I have done was improve myself by pursuing education (Army College Fund that I earned "in spades" when I was younger, plus just paid cash out of pocket), getting the qualifications (took a couple years) to attain an electrical license; a pressure vessel/boiler license; certifications in various control networks; certifications in Variable Freq. Drives; etc. which opened up even more work to myself and made me more VALUABLE to prospective employers... it took me basically 20yrs. having started @ $6.00/hr. in 1990, but I have arrived (with plans to go higher).

Now in addition to those smaller systems I work on the systems in the high-rises in downtown, and at the Intel plants in Hillsboro, and make OVER DOUBLE per hour with an all paid health care package through my employer. Its doable by ANYONE who makes the effort by getting his arse out of bed every morning ON TIME, AND stays off drugs, AND doesn't abuse alchohol, AND doesn't commit crimes and spend time in the pen.

The crown jewel of all this, I PAY way more in income taxes every month than some (if not most) make in wages, and the government has more revenue to operate than if I was still just a "popper" who used to get back more in "refunds" than was actually withheld from his paycheck... THAT'S how you properly fund government, THAT'S how you have a strong economy, THAT'S how you have prosperous citizens... all WITHOUT government "handouts".

You get out of life what you put into it.

 

[Stomper]

You did get a little off track there. However, since you brought it up you really should be intellectually honest and stipulate that even though the health care legislation doesn't look like it will do anything to rein in costs those same costs were increasing at a pretty astounding rate long before the current POTUS even thought about running for his current position.

Intellectually honest.... hmmm... lemme see.


First off, its pretty simplistic to "poo-poo" the FACT that Obama outright lied with a straight face that premiums would go down 20%-30% with this legislation simply because, "costs were increasing at a pretty astounding rate long before the current POTUS even thought about running for his current position."

What else did he lie about... you can keep your doctor? You can keep you current coverage if you like it? There are no "death panels" and/or rationing? The national debt will be lowered because of this? All of which are being "fleshed out" and exposed for the lies they were/are as people are actually READING the thing now.

Here's another tidbit of "intellectual honestly"; the main driving force of rising health care cost in the past is GOVERNMENT MANDATES... like not being able to shop for coverage from providers from outside of your home state, or blanket mandates on ALL policies for stuff like, "well-baby care" even though retired elderly couples, middle-aged couples done having kids and have had vasectomies (like me) or "tubes tied", and single men (in general) have no need of that but still have to pay for that in their premiums...

Socialist "one size fits all" mentalities/programs DO NOT WORK. Mandates take away the flexibility of free-market needs and forces. You drive up costs, become less efficient/effective and EVERYONE suffers. Its the same principle why the American military command structure could beat the Soviet military structure and actually stand a chance of winning a conflict at a 10:1 size disadvantage.

I could go on about TORT reform as well, but I don't think some of you could take all that "honesty".


So, back to the SCOTUS free speech issue of the OP.

 

[Kevatc]

So, back to the SCOTUS free speech issue of the OP.

I had a response to your health care thoughts but didn't want to have the thread drift any further than it has so I'll save my thoughts for a health care thread.

Getting back to the OP: one question ... why is an entity seen in the same light as an actual person when it comes to free speech and relative to this particular thread get to throw what will turn out to be huge sums of cash at political races?

 

[Stomper]

The way I see it is these "entities" are made of people that are in a group (in this case a LEGAL U.S. corporation) most likely of the same accord on any given issue (usually money and business regs for sure). They have as much right to advocate their position via volunteering their time (i.e. campaigning or donating money) as do a "concerned group" of citizens (i.e. PAC) who would pool their resources to get a ballot measure/legislation passed, or a candidate elected... plain and simple.

 

[bugeye]

Because G.E. is perching itself with its "G.Emagination" medical database technologies for a centralized run health care system... you miss the T.V. commercials G.E. has been running for the last several months? "Evil Corporation" (that BTW, paid ZERO TAXES on its income, and is in the W.H. DAILY)... no outrage expressed about corporate "welfare" and "government influence"? (Just sayin')

1.
The powers NOT SPECIFICALLY granted by the U.S. Constitution are reserved for the States.

2.
The Obama Administration has been all over the map with "justifying" this legislation from the commerce clause, to congress's authority to levy tax... they've called it one or the other to suit the situation (which is it?).

3.
All that other stuff you mentioned (insurance, licensing, etc.) are to regulate (because of crooks, etc.) ACTIVITIES, but what this amounts to is being regulated/taxed (whatever you want to call it) for merely EXISTING. What next, we pay a carbon tax for breathing? Pay a UV tax for sun exposure while we're outside? I know that sounds dumb, but its in the same trajectory and we have a government that is DESPERATE for increasing revenue, and given some of the things that have been said and DONE, that could possibly come into reality.




What the result is (and we're starting to see it now) is a drastic rise in medical premiums (Obama said it would drop our premiums 20%+). So by being "compassionate" and throwing EVERYONE into the "pot" we drag the level of care down for EVERYONE, limit our choices on Doctors and procedures, and increase the costs on the backs of the producers (i.e. gainfully employed) so "Joe Crackhead" smokin' on his porch (his major achievement in life) can have health care... plus I don't want to fund health care for illegals... and yes, it IS funded through "Obamacare" (BTW, my 1st wife is a Honduran that I brought back while in the Army, and prior GF was a 2nd gen Mexican/American immigrant so I'm not a racist).

I DO NOT find "Obamacare" to be in the "public good". Just for arguments sake, maybe it DOES do a few good things like you mentioned, but at what cost? We all know human nature; if you KNOW there are no consequences/benefits for your actions/in-actions there is no ambition to better yourself... just like in the former Soviet Union... just like LBJ's "Great Society" (i.e. welfare) basically DECIMATED the "Black American" family structure because it made the the Black Father irrelevant in the equation... you take away the incentive to WORK HARD, to PRODUCE something of VALUE, to better YOURSELF and YOUR FAMILY... and THAT my friend is a sin.
...."

Congratulations on your success, as someone who has sacrificed to acomplish similar goals I know what your talking about. Being a good man is not an easy job these days. I also know about being a parent to other peoples children, and anyone who survives that deserves lots of respect especially from a fellow survivor! I can also check the divorce box with you, and know that the existing laws are unfair to men, many who fall into that system never get up under the burden imposed on them.

As to the constituionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - or Obamacare as the clever weasels at some right wing think tank labled it, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer and have no training beyond watching a few Perry Mason Episodes and reading a Grisham novel or two. This is a complex issue.

2. Congress has the power to tax is a fundamental, and is not based on the commerce clause and it also superceeds the 10th.

3. Yes, existing, yet the current laws say that if you exist you can't be denied treatment at an emergency room, so existing is a rather big deal in terms of health care and it forms a reasonable basis for inclusion. Vehicle Insurance is required if you drive , so heath insurance if you exist is not much of a push!

As to the costs, most of the PPACA is not yet in place. It is having very little effect on current prices. One good thing it does is to lower the maximum overhead a health care insurance company can have to 25%, they are currently averaging about 31%. The complexities of the PPACA make it hard to figure out what the costs are going to be, as some employers may drop health care coverage for lower paid employees, give them a pay raise and send them to the exchanges. The exchanges aren't going to be free lunches though and much of what costs there will be are based on agreements made between health care companies and the admin at the start of the negotiation. As I've said, had I been made god of our health care system the private insurance outfits would be out looking for new blood to suck and the gov would be single payer, inefficient service providers would be forced to a new reality, investigators is the power of the FBI would be locking up cheating providers and holding them for ransom, subsidized discounts for citizens improving their health, tort reform, drug stores would be able to provide simple medications and antibiotics, simplifeid single payer paperwork, and many government paid nurse practitioners would be setting up in empty storefronts all across the country. Why, because that is how you would cut our costs in half, putting us in line with the rest of the developed world.

As to GE, I ignore all ads.

Much of the developed world provides free health care for its citizens. As to your argument that it will make us lazy, I can only point to the state of that quality in our current system. China, Japan, and Germany have public health care and who could argue with these productive systems. In short, I don't think health care is as much of a factor as you do. How we can motivate people to better themselves is another topic, how do you teach duty and honor?

 

[bugeye]

I had a response to your health care thoughts but didn't want to have the thread drift any further than it has so I'll save my thoughts for a health care thread.

Getting back to the OP: one question ... why is an entity seen in the same light as an actual person when it comes to free speech and relative to this particular thread get to throw what will turn out to be huge sums of cash at political races?

I think the 1st provides the basis for no restrictions on Citizens for electioneering. So, why not make that the basis for a corporation. Corporations are subject to other amendments, some because they are made of people, for example:

2. Corporation can and do bear arms.
4. Unreasonable searches and seizures
5. Corporate leaders can not be made to testify against themselves.
6. .. Have the assitance of a Cousel for the Defense.
7. Can be tried by a Jury....

I can see the basis for this argument, and the framers didn't consider the rights of a corporation vs. the rights of a citizen.

The way around it, not that our sell out congress will do it, is to tax the heck out of corporate electioneering. The constitutional basis for this is clear, and indeed if they are going to buy the government than at least, out of common decency, they should pay for the care and feeding of it. I call this idea the liberty abatement tax, and I suggest it be set at 95% of the total cost of any such activity.

 

[Stomper]

I think there should be an "intelligence and general knowledge" test before one can vote... basic things like: how many branches of government are there? What's the B-day of the U.S.A.? LOL

 

[bugeye]

I think there should be an "intelligence and general knowledge" test before one can vote... basic things like: how many branches of government are there? What's the B-day of the U.S.A.? LOL

Yeah, fundamental things like name ten radio personalities on NPR, or does Obama have a birth certificate, lol.

 

[Kevatc]

The way I see it is these "entities" are made of people that are in a group (in this case a LEGAL U.S. corporation) most likely of the same accord on any given issue (usually money and business regs for sure). They have as much right to advocate their position via volunteering their time (i.e. campaigning or donating money) as do a "concerned group" of citizens (i.e. PAC) who would pool their resources to get a ballot measure/legislation passed, or a candidate elected... plain and simple.

You don't see the difference? One is meant for politics specifically and is totally voluntary in terms of who donates. The other is about commerce and the contribution looks like it could represent the corp. in total when it may not accurately reflect the employees. If it's the view of the owner of the corp. to contribute to whatever cause then why not do it under that persons name alone? Oh, that's right ... because the owner can donate in their name and then again perhaps in greater sums of cash through the business.

I've yet to hear sound logic on why it is good to empower big business at the expense of the individual voter. I don't believe the founding fathers would agree that actions that disempower the people is a good idea.