Hedge fund managers don't pay any SS/Medicare/FICA taxes.
Feel free to start your own hedge fund business.
Perfectly legal and you won't go to jail for it.
Hedge fund managers don't pay any SS/Medicare/FICA taxes.If I don't pay into the Social Security insurance do I also not get fines and jail? If I run a business am I also not forced to pay by threat of jail, fines, and lose of my job/business?
Also just in case you don't know. The SC ruled SS was legal in 37. SS expansion and many amendments did not take place until 1939 and later. So yes the original SS was legal but since then it has been expanded and adjusted so many times since then... well.
Which was not an expression of approval, but a recognition of reality.
It is funny, because this issue exposes liberals V "not republicans."
True liberals...
It is funny, because this issue exposes liberals V "not republicans."
True liberals despise the fact that the goverment would force them to buy into the private insurance racket. The wanna-be libs however, would hate it much more if they had to agree with a "repuke" on an issue.
His words...
"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals,"
Or congress could require people to pay into a retirement account and Disability Insurance.
Oh yea, SS is insurance and I am forced to pay it. You forget that?
SS is NOT insurance.
SS is a TAX. If they ended the program today they wouldn't owe you a single dime for the SS taxes you have already paid. Just because they collect a tax from you and pay someone else with it does not mean it is in anyway shape or form "insurance".
Valid points, although I hardly think that constructionism is a "radical agenda". A constitution that means anything you want is a constitution that means nothing. But Bowfinger was not addressing the constitutionality of Obamacare, merely agreeing with me that since many things which are arguably more unconstitutional have been approved by SCOTUS, it's unreasonable to expect that this ruling overturning it will be upheld. That's just admitting reality and projecting its likely extension - a totally separate issue from whether Obamacare is constitutional or whether the constitutionality of other measures should be examined.To be fair, that's (ship's sailed on the government ignoring the limits of its constitutional power) an unsatisfying response to the concerns.
If effectively says no concern is worth addressing, the constitution is 'inoperative', and that is a non-starter for a political position.
The thing is, to recognize there are at least two categories, which the right conflates:
Areas that may indeed have crossed a more reasonable line of constitutional authority; and the fact they on the right have a radical view for where they draw that line making all kinds of things that are and should be constitutional, unconstitutional by their radical version of the constitution. To them, the two are the same.
That's the thing, when you try to listen to a concern and discuss it, at any moment the next sentence is, 'so the income tax is unconstitutional'. Whoa, there, Rand Paul.
It's a hard talk to have with these people - but I don't dismiss it all out of hand.
The fact is, there are various interpretations of the constitution, and we have to pick one (at any given time).
The first thing to recognize, though, is that we ARE picking one, and no one version is 'the one written clearly in black in white and all the others are lies for agendas'.
The founding fathers themselves had conflicts over basic meanings of the constitution, and intentionally left parts of it very vague - look at the ninth and tenth amendments closing out the Bill of Rights - and had a very messy process of approval, over whether to specify some rights explicitly, making others seem less clear, leading to the Bill of Rights.
As long as people think the very small, vague constitution exactly and explicitly backs all their opinion, and anyone who disagrees with them is trying to get rid of the constitution altogether, there's not going to be much discussion. We could use people having a better understanding of the constitution, of what's reasonable.
It's unsettling to think the constitution is not clear on the specific things you are concerned about, but recognizing it is is the only way to get to a useful and honest discussion how to interpret it. To do anything else leaves it in the hands of ideologues to push radical agendas claiming they're the only ones who follow the constitution, as with Scalia et al.
People who want a political outcome like to say 'the constitution says so', because it's a powerful document everyone agrees to follow, trumping the debate over the politics and merit of the issue. And yet, it undermines the constitution and support for it, to misuse it and misrepresent it in this manner - not to mention the bad policy.
This is the sort of approach that takes issues out of the intended forum of rational debate, and lets things like money determine outcomes, where whoever can buy the huge megaphone to say 'THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO ON MY SIDE' 10,000 times for every one peep of 'no it doesn't'.
Valid points, although I hardly think that constructionism is a "radical agenda". A constitution that means anything you want is a constitution that means nothing. But Bowfinger was not addressing the constitutionality of Obamacare, merely agreeing with me that since many things which are arguably more unconstitutional have been approved by SCOTUS, it's unreasonable to expect that this ruling overturning it will be upheld. That's just admitting reality and projecting its likely extension - a totally separate issue from whether Obamacare is constitutional or whether the constitutionality of other measures should be examined.
Both left and right need to understand that a view on which way SCOTUS will rule is not (or should not be) an opinion SCOTUS should rule. Bowfinger's taking heat from both sides for merely recognizing reality.
I'm inclined to agree with this decision aside from one nagging issue. All citizens will at some point participate or utilize the healthcare system. Every single one of us has been to the doctor and probably the ER for some thing or another over the course of our lives. That's where the "inactivity" deal doesn't really fly with me. It may not be regular participation but everyone is a consumer of healthcare services.
The slippery slope argument for me is stronger in this case however - so it's a good decision. The SC will decide, hopefully soon so that the potential for wasting money one way or the other isn't disgustingly high.
Single payer is still the best solution in my opinion and we'll get there eventually when things reach critical mass.
I just looked up "Obamacare" Could someone explain to me what it is and what's wrong with it, it seems fine from what wikipedia says.
"The laws focus on reform of the private health insurance market, provide better coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, improve prescription drug coverage in Medicare and extend the life of the Medicare Trust fund by at least 12 years"
It forces people to buy a product from a private enterprise on the mere fact that they are alive and live in the united states on penalty of fines. Our constitution does not give congress the authority to pass a law that has such a mandate.
Theres a lot of questionable things about this law, both in terms of effectiveness of lowering healthcare costs and in terms of constitutionality.
No it does not.
It requires people to have insurance, that be Private or Gov based, if they do not fit any of the exemptions.
I just looked up "Obamacare" Could someone explain to me what it is and what's wrong with it, it seems fine from what wikipedia says.
"The laws focus on reform of the private health insurance market, provide better coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, improve prescription drug coverage in Medicare and extend the life of the Medicare Trust fund by at least 12 years"
It is funny, because this issue exposes liberals V "not republicans."
True liberals despise the fact that the goverment would force them to buy into the private insurance racket. The wanna-be libs however, would hate it much more if they had to agree with a "repuke" on an issue.
I agree that the goals of "Obamacare" are worthy. However, in order to accomplish those goals Congress set out to regulate the health insurance industry by mandating that all citizens purchase health insurance from a non-governmental insurance company, participate in a government-run "exchange", or face fines and/or jail.
Many people object to the fact that citizens are being forced by their government to purchase a product from (typically) a for-profit corporation in the form of a health insurance company. Many here view the health insurance companies as part of, or the root of, the US's health care problems. Given the ever-increasing premiums and more-frequent denials of coverage, being forced to become customers of theirs can be viewed as immoral.
Other people, like myself, object to the fact that this is a large leap for the Federal government to take. Regulation of the insurance industry has always been a State matter. Our Constitution was specifically designed to limit Federal powers only to those delineated in the Constitution. Over the course of the last couple hundred years many things that were State issues have been chipped away at through broad interpretations of vague wording. This appears to be the case here as well.
Compounding the issue is the fact that the specific clause and wording being invoked is of such importance that, given an affirmation of Congress' intent by the USSC, the Federal government would theoretically be given carte blanche to regulate citizens' lives in every conceivable way.
The clause at hand, commonly known as the Commerce Clause, allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce. This is important because, being sovereign States, no single State can forcibly impose its laws upon another (plus some other factors with interstate highways and Federal funding, etc). Should a dispute arise between a shipper in Montana and receiver in Louisiana there could be problems absent Federal regulation or some other form of mutual consent. In this case the Federal government is claiming that merely by being alive you will be a consumer of health services and that said consumption will *likely* cross State borders. In order to ensure a working system, then, the Federal government must regulate health insurance activity, even if that entails regulating inactivity (the choice to not purchase insurance).
From a broad, general perspective it would not be ontoward to say that "left" and "right" each have their own issues with "Obamacare". The "right" views it generally as an unwanted and unwarranted intrusion upon their lives and they are actively trying to get it repealed. The "left" views it generally as inadequate, since it still relies on an imperfect insurance industry as the backbone, but also as 'the best we can get right now' so are trying to defend it to prevent the country from reverting back to what they view as a worse system.
Either way, its still unconstitutional.
Theres nothing in the constitution that allows regulation of healthcare anyway, but thats a separate matter, and like people say in this thread, "that ship has sailed"
Regulation of the insurance industry has always been a State matter.
Do you then also believe that Republican proposal to allow individuals to buy health insurance across state lines even if their state laws forbid it is unconstitutional too?
Imagine that! An old document like that that doesn't mention health care. Well there you have it then, case closed.
Imagine that! An old document like that that doesn't mention health care. Well there you have it then, case closed.