How does it feel to now be a taxpayer?

Althea said:
So Medicare is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

No, Medicare and Medicaid fall under the Social Security Act and the Medicare Act, legitimately passed by Congress and upheld by SCOTUS. It was upheld because both programs met the test of constitutionality under the commerce clause. You see, when a taxpayer contributes to Medicare or Medicaid through SSI, it is something that our society as a whole, benefits from. They will eventually realize a benefit, their neighbors and families will realize a benefit, and therefore, it is permissible for the Federal government to do this under their constitutional authority. With the mandate to purchase health insurance, there is no mutual benefit. I do not benefit from you having health insurance. My neighbors and family do not benefit from you purchasing health insurance. Proponents tried to argue that the effect of having fewer sick indigents and less burden on society to have to pay for their health care, was a mutual benefit, and SCOTUS rejected this argument, because you can't 'regulate' something that hasn't yet happened.
 
Dixie said:
DIRECTLY FROM YOUR SOURCE:

Under the plan’s proposal to replace Medicaid with a block grant, the federal government would no longer pay a fixed share of states’ Medicaid costs.[1] States would instead receive a fixed dollar amount that would rise annually with the general inflation rate and the percentage increase in the size of the U.S. population.[2]
The Ryan plan does not provide much more detail about its Medicaid block grant proposal, but the proposal appears very similar to the block grant in last year’s House-approved Ryan budget. Assuming the design specifications are the same as in last year’s proposal (except for moving the block grant’s start date back by one year, along with the base year used to calculate the initial state block grant amounts), each state would receive a fixed dollar amount starting in fiscal year 2014 that is set at the amount of federal Medicaid funding the state received in fiscal year 2011, adjusted for inflation and U.S. population growth since 2011.[3] The block grant amounts for subsequent years would be based on the prior year’s amount, adjusted for inflation and population growth.
----------------------------------------------------------

There has been no "CUT" proposed here. You can CALL it a "CUT" because you have redefined what "CUT" means. A "fixed dollar amount that would rise annually" is certainly not a cut or "gutting" anything. You made the claim that Republicans want to "gut Medicaid" and as we see, you can't support that claim with FACTS.
Click to expand...
If you'd read anything I've offered in my lessons, you'd understand that Medicaid is in constant flux due to the constantly changing income levels of each state.

As such, Medicaid funding is in constant flux. Increasing a fixed dollar amount based on inflation, doesn't provide the same amount of money to each state.

Dixie said:
No, Medicare and Medicaid fall under the Social Security Act and the Medicare Act, legitimately passed by Congress and upheld by SCOTUS. It was upheld because both programs met the test of constitutionality under the commerce clause. You see, when a taxpayer contributes to Medicare or Medicaid through SSI, it is something that our society as a whole, benefits from. They will eventually realize a benefit, their neighbors and families will realize a benefit, and therefore, it is permissible for the Federal government to do this under their constitutional authority. With the mandate to purchase health insurance, there is no mutual benefit. I do not benefit from you having health insurance. My neighbors and family do not benefit from you purchasing health insurance. Proponents tried to argue that the effect of having fewer sick indigents and less burden on society to have to pay for their health care, was a mutual benefit, and SCOTUS rejected this argument, because you can't 'regulate' something that hasn't yet happened.
Click to expand...

Yes...everyone pays into Medicare, and receives the benefit if they live long enough. With a public option, anyone who OPTS in, will pay into Medicare, and receive a benefit now.

Why is that unconstitutional? It would actually help the system, as you would add younger/healthier clients, and change the demographic.
 
Althea said:
If you'd read anything I've offered in my lessons, you'd understand that Medicaid is in constant flux due to the constantly changing income levels of each state.

As such, Medicaid funding is in constant flux. Increasing a fixed dollar amount based on inflation, doesn't provide the same amount of money to each state.
Click to expand...

blah blah blahther... bottom line, no one has proposed a CUT to Medicare. You are a LIAR.

Yes...everyone pays into Medicare, and receives the benefit if they live long enough. With a public option, anyone who OPTS in, will pay into Medicare, and receive a benefit now.
Why is that unconstitutional? It would actually help the system, as you would add younger/healthier clients, and change the demographic.
Click to expand...

But you can't add younger people to a specific program with taxpayer funding designated for the old and poor. That is what is unconstitutional. You can pass a new program funded by a tax, like Social Security, and do that... you can't use the program that was established for a different purpose. Now, you see, I don't understand why this is a liberal vs. conservative argument, we should all agree, future Congresses can't hijack a program intended for one thing, in order to do something else. It's not fundamentally right, and not something we should allow. This should be something we can all agree on, but you are so rabid for Obamacare, you apparently aren't grasping that particular aspect of this argument.

The Social Security system, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, were established to provide a specific benefit to our collective American society. That benefit, was to insure the elderly would have some means of social support in old age, and later, we added poor people essential services through Medicaid. Providing health care insurance for millions of people who are not yet old, and aren't below poverty level, and are as much as 133% ABOVE poverty level, is simply NOT what Social Security was passed for, designed, or intended to do. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for you to fund Obamacare with this money.
 
Dixie said:
blah blah blahther... bottom line, no one has proposed a CUT to Medicare. You are a LIAR.

U

But you can't add younger people to a specific program with taxpayer funding designated for the old and poor. That is what is unconstitutional. You can pass a new program funded by a tax, like Social Security, and do that... you can't use the program that was established for a different purpose. Now, you see, I don't understand why this is a liberal vs. conservative argument, we should all agree, future Congresses can't hijack a program intended for one thing, in order to do something else. It's not fundamentally right, and not something we should allow. This should be something we can all agree on, but you are so rabid for Obamacare, you apparently aren't grasping that particular aspect of this argument.

The Social Security system, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, were established to provide a specific benefit to our collective American society. That benefit, was to insure the elderly would have some means of social support in old age, and later, we added poor people essential services through Medicaid. Providing health care insurance for millions of people who are not yet old, and aren't below poverty level, and are as much as 133% ABOVE poverty level, is simply NOT what Social Security was passed for, designed, or intended to do. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for you to fund Obamacare with this money.
Click to expand...

Wow. You really are a cornucopia of misinformation!
 
it continues to amaze me that the board liberals "counter" all of Dix's documentation with "na-na-na-naaa-na".......and thank each other for it.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it continues to amaze me that the board liberals "counter" all of Dix's documentation with "na-na-na-naaa-na".......and thank each other for it.....
Click to expand...


I countered it with cites to the Roberts Opinion itself and his responce was that I was wrong. Nobody was willing to agree with him. He simply makes shit up!

The vast majority of posters on this board belive him to be a quack.
 
Dixie said:
Public option is pretty much a dead issue now. The SCOTUS ruled the Feds can't regulate health care under the commerce clause, so there goes any idea of a public option. Now, congress could come back and pass legislation to allow insurance carriers to compete across state lines, like Republicans suggested we do.. and THEN, perhaps the Feds have authority to regulate this under the commerce clause, and could offer a public option. But until that happens, there is no way to constitutionally establish a public option health care plan.
Click to expand...

And the Repubs would oppose a public option just like they did before.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it continues to amaze me that the board liberals "counter" all of Dix's documentation with "na-na-na-naaa-na".......and thank each other for it.....
Click to expand...

What's really crazy, is how this shouldn't even be a 'left/right' issue.

Let me illustrate with a scenario... let's say Republican fanatics took over Congress, and 'decided' that the best way to help the poor and needy was to provide good paying jobs on oil rigs, and in order to do this, they want to take all the money we have appropriated to help the poor and needy, and give it to the oil companies to create these new high-paying jobs. Would the Democrats sit back and say... welp, they won the election, guess they can do that? I highly doubt that!

It doesn't MATTER how much the evil Republicans 'explained' what a great and wonderful idea this was! It doesn't matter that they could tell us all how it would be the best thing that ever happened in all of human history! It would STILL not give them the right to take the money we have designated to do one thing, and do something entirely different with it. We should ALL be on the same page here, but we're obviously NOT!
 
Dixie said:
Let me dumb it down for you, Chicklet... IF we cover the cost of insuring or caring for those who have no insurance or are too poor to afford insurance, the overall cost per paying individual HAS to increase. Hospitals and medical professionals do not work for free, it doesn't matter if the person they are working on is poor, black, white, or an asshole. Money does not simply materialize in order to pay for these things, it would be GREAT if that were the case, but it isn't. Cost doesn't remain the same in spite of expense... again, it would be GREAT if that were the case, I wish it WAS the case! But alas... it's NOT the case.
Click to expand...

The Dixie Dunce rides again!

You're either just plain stupid or insipidly stubborn, Dixie. Let me pablum feed you one more time: If those who draw a paycheck and can pay for health insurance but don't, then they pay a penatly via their individual income tax....that goes also for companies with a certain amount of employees who can but do not purchase health insurance for them. BOTH are offered gov't assistance to do so, but if they REFUSE, then that means a penalty tax. This money goes into the coffers to alleviate the cost of those who are working but can't afford health insurance to varying degrees and let things go to the point where they need emergency services.

In other words, when more people are brought into the system, then the costs goes down because there is MORE money to pay the Hospitals and medical professionals.

Insurance company gets more PAYING customers, more people get to take care of their problems before they become critical, more money is put into the coffers for hospital emergency services. This doesn't SOLVE the poverty problem regarding healthcare, but it sure as hell doesn't exaccerbate it....in fact it does the opposite...it helps alleviate it. Got it now, bunky?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top