I'm not appealing to authority, I am citing an argument as the reference to use in finding your answer.
Appeal to Authority: Because he is an authority, he is correct.
Me: You see that guy's reasoning? I agree with it.
Yes, it's implicit rather than explicit. It's still an appeal to authority, as well as a means of obfuscation.
I don't think it is at all unreasonable to ask you to present, in your own words, why you personally think that the ACA is unconstitutional. So, once again :
Why is it unconstitutional?
That's kinda silly actually. Saying that I'm persuaded by some guy's argument isn't an appeal to authority unless the reason I'm persuaded by it is because of the his credentials. I certainly should be able to paraphrase it, but if his argument is particularly eloquent and I don't feel I can do it justice, then just pointing to it isn't really a cop out.
Regardless, there is a fundamental difference in mandating that a business offer a certain service while operating in a sector and mandating that a citizen purchase a product simply because he is alive.
Only if you're suggesting that it's a product that people won't ever use, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
No, I believe there is a fundamental difference regardless of whether or not the product will be used. In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Regardless, there is a fundamental difference in mandating that a business offer a certain service while operating in a sector and mandating that a citizen purchase a product simply because he is alive.
Only if you're suggesting that it's a product that people won't ever use, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
No, I believe there is a fundamental difference regardless of whether or not the product will be used. In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
I thought the last time EMTALA came up it was pointed out that only Medicaid-funded hospitals (i.e. all of them) have to comply with it. So you could dodge it by not taking that funding.
Regardless, there is a fundamental difference in mandating that a business offer a certain service while operating in a sector and mandating that a citizen purchase a product simply because he is alive.
Only if you're suggesting that it's a product that people won't ever use, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
No, I believe there is a fundamental difference regardless of whether or not the product will be used. In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Isn't this true of every law?
Not in the slightest. Only Selective Service and the federal income tax share this property.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
Regardless, there is a fundamental difference in mandating that a business offer a certain service while operating in a sector and mandating that a citizen purchase a product simply because he is alive.
Only if you're suggesting that it's a product that people won't ever use, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
No, I believe there is a fundamental difference regardless of whether or not the product will be used. In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Isn't this true of every law?
Not in the slightest. Only Selective Service and the federal income tax share this property.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
In other words - if enough people in SCOTUS are ideologically inclined to ruin the reform, they will, and they will be able to come up with something.
If not, they will come up with something that allows to uphold the reform. Discussing what they should do by reading the constitution is a useless exercise for anti-government people that want to put on airs.
Regardless, there is a fundamental difference in mandating that a business offer a certain service while operating in a sector and mandating that a citizen purchase a product simply because he is alive.
Only if you're suggesting that it's a product that people won't ever use, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
No, I believe there is a fundamental difference regardless of whether or not the product will be used. In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Isn't this true of every law?
Not in the slightest. Only Selective Service and the federal income tax share this property.
You can't be forced to serve on a jury or testify in court either?
Are hospitals really businesses? I mean, the goal is to provide medical care, not to make money.
they absolutely are businesses right now, with an interest in profit margins and the capacity to be shut down if they can't pay the bills.
I personally think this is a mistake, and there should be a widespread, easily accessible class of hospitals for people which are funded the same way fire and police stations are, with another tier of for-profit hospitals for the people who can afford them.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Regardless, there is a fundamental difference in mandating that a business offer a certain service while operating in a sector and mandating that a citizen purchase a product simply because he is alive.
Only if you're suggesting that it's a product that people won't ever use, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
No, I believe there is a fundamental difference regardless of whether or not the product will be used. In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Isn't this true of every law?
Not in the slightest. Only Selective Service and the federal income tax share this property.
So, there's precedent. Good to know.
Selective Service uses a different justification and the income tax is Constitutional as per the 16th Amendment. Neither of those things use the Commerce clause for constitutional justification, or provide precedent for the individual mandate.
Are hospitals really businesses? I mean, the goal is to provide medical care, not to make money.
They are definitely businesses. Even nonprofit hospitals love to raise money to buy new crap to increase the amount of money they can raise so they can buy new crap even if the new crap isn't really needed.
Are hospitals really businesses? I mean, the goal is to provide medical care, not to make money.
HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh, naïveté.
Yeah any idea of that being true went away last year when in the midst of having an 8 hour gall attack the ER took my payment and insurance information before providing any care. By this point I was throwing up bile and was entering shock, but they had bills to pay motherfucker.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
So your solution would require all hospitals to stop being hospitals?
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
Not just hospitals. It takes a corporation that's major among majors to simply pick and choose what sector they do business in. My workplace will not simply stop doing its current business and become a fruitmarket later this year. It will do business in its current sector or it will fail in its current sector. General Motors may be able to shift from gasoline power to electric in the future, but they will still be a automobile company - the costs to dismantle their operations and become something else are not feasible. One way you do this is by being a company that doesn't do business itself, but is in the business of owning other companies. Another is to be one of those many-headed hydras like Sony, which could stop being a music company and continue doing business because they're many other things already. Another is to be batshit insane like Pocketmail and just randomly decide to stop making portable computers and start mining uranium before going quietly bankrupt three years later. None of those of course mean squat to all the people left jobless in the process, but hey, free market.
To suggest that businesses can just start doing something else to escape regulation is just like the recent Republican definition of small business (by which the capital firm that owns the real estate group that underwrites the landlord who owns six hundred units including the one I work in is a small business, and my actual workplace doesn't exist). It might be literally true, and it might fall into somebody's definition of business, but it's simply not in the game plan even for most major global corporations.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
So your solution would require all hospitals to stop being hospitals?
Am I getting you right?
All hospitals run by corporations or individuals unable or unwilling to abide by the regulatory requirements, yes.
spool32 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
Not just hospitals. It takes a corporation that's major among majors to simply pick and choose what sector they do business in. My workplace will not simply stop doing its current business and become a fruitmarket later this year. It will do business in its current sector or it will fail in its current sector. General Motors may be able to shift from gasoline power to electric in the future, but they will still be a automobile company - the costs to dismantle their operations and become something else are not feasible. One way you do this is by being a company that doesn't do business itself, but is in the business of owning other companies. Another is to be one of those many-headed hydras like Sony, which could stop being a music company and continue doing business because they're many other things already. Another is to be batshit insane like Pocketmail and just randomly decide to stop making portable computers and start mining uranium before going quietly bankrupt three years later.
To suggest that businesses can just start doing something else to escape regulation is just like the recent Republican definition of small business (by which the capital firm that owns the real estate group that underwrites the landlord who six hundred business suites including the one I work in is a small business, and my actual workplace doesn't exist). It might be literally true, and it might fall into somebody's definition of business, but it's simply not in the game plan even for most major global corporations.
Not to mention the fact that we're still going to have to have some fucking hospitals.
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Are hospitals really businesses? I mean, the goal is to provide medical care, not to make money.
HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh, naïveté.
Yeah any idea of that being true went away last year when in the midst of having an 8 hour gall attack the ER took my payment and insurance information before providing any care. By this point I was throwing up bile and was entering shock, but they had bills to pay motherfucker.
That was the free market making them more efficient - get it right.
Selective Service uses a different justification and the income tax is Constitutional as per the 16th Amendment. Neither of those things use the Commerce clause for constitutional justification, or provide precedent for the individual mandate.
Not sure why you're linking
In the 1918 decision of the Selective Draft Law Cases (Arver v. United States),(5) the United States Supreme Court first upheld the constitutionality of congressional conscription. These decisions have never been seriously challenged, and have been cited repeatedly as determining that question once and for all time. This Article will attempt to show that the Selective Draft Law Cases were based upon superficial arguments, disregard of substantial historical evidence, and undue deference to the exigencies of the First World War— in short, that they were incorrectly decided.
Perhaps it would be more enlightening to link to the actual case
The grant to Congress of power to raise and support armies, considered in conjunction with the grants of the powers to declare war, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and to make laws necessary and proper for executing granted powers (Constitution, Art. I, § 8), includes the power to compel military service, exercised by the Selective Draft Law of May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76. This conclusion, obvious upon the face of the Constitution, is confirmed by an historical examination of the subject.
This is almost the exact argument that the individual mandate is Constitutional.
Rephrased:
The grant to Congress of power to regulate Commerce, and to make laws necessary and proper for executing granted powers (Constitution, Art. I, § 8), includes the power to compel ownership of healthcare insurance, . This conclusion, obvious upon the face of the Constitution, is confirmed by an historical examination of the subject.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
Not just hospitals. It takes a corporation that's major among majors to simply pick and choose what sector they do business in. My workplace will not simply stop doing its current business and become a fruitmarket later this year. It will do business in its current sector or it will fail in its current sector. General Motors may be able to shift from gasoline power to electric in the future, but they will still be a automobile company - the costs to dismantle their operations and become something else are not feasible. One way you do this is by being a company that doesn't do business itself, but is in the business of owning other companies. Another is to be one of those many-headed hydras like Sony, which could stop being a music company and continue doing business because they're many other things already. Another is to be batshit insane like Pocketmail and just randomly decide to stop making portable computers and start mining uranium before going quietly bankrupt three years later. None of those of course mean squat to all the people left jobless in the process, but hey, free market.
To suggest that businesses can just start doing something else to escape regulation is just like the recent Republican definition of small business (by which the capital firm that owns the real estate group that underwrites the landlord who owns six hundred units including the one I work in is a small business, and my actual workplace doesn't exist). It might be literally true, and it might fall into somebody's definition of business, but it's simply not in the game plan even for most major global corporations.
Of course it's not in the game plan - that's why regulation works up to a point, but regulation also creates barriers to entry for new competitors. On the other end from large corporations you have, say, smalltime food service businesses that are forced to close up shop because while the food for sale is healthy and safe, it's (for example) baked in the same oven used for home cooking. Assuming the regulations are sensible, that loss of business opportunity is the price paid for ensuring the public buys safe food, and the business owner is free to avoid sanction by not participating in the food service industry, i.e. commerce.
Individual citizens are not free to avoid participation in life. There is a fundamental difference between the two situations.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
So your solution would require all hospitals to stop being hospitals?
Am I getting you right?
All hospitals run by corporations or individuals unable or unwilling to abide by the regulatory requirements, yes.
You're just talking in circles now, goose.
All hospitals have to abide by EMTALA. There's no real option to the contrary.
Why do you think that kind of supply-side federal mandate is tolerable when the demand-side mandate is overreaching?
PantsB, Necessary and Proper is subordinate clause - if the government has no power under the Commerce clause to regulate a thing, it can be neither Necessary nor Proper to make laws regarding the thing's regulation.
But this is trending a bit far afield, yeah. I'm trying to limit scope here but it's not working!
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Spool, do you believe Medicare is constitutional? Y/N
Regardless, there is a fundamental difference in mandating that a business offer a certain service while operating in a sector and mandating that a citizen purchase a product simply because he is alive.
Only if you're suggesting that it's a product that people won't ever use, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
No, I believe there is a fundamental difference regardless of whether or not the product will be used. In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Can we talk about the new 538 data that shows pretty much what recent polling has led us to believe: that the race will be tighter (particularly the popular vote) than 2008 but Obama should still win with a decent margin?
This election looks so much like 2004 to me, with the roles reversed, that it's funny. Nice to see pubs with a candidate no one can muster a shit about for once.
I also think it's quite laughable that PA is still considered a toss-up. Obama is up by 12 in recent polls, and this is a state that voted for John freaking Kerry. No way they go Republican.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
So your solution would require all hospitals to stop being hospitals?
Am I getting you right?
All hospitals run by corporations or individuals unable or unwilling to abide by the regulatory requirements, yes.
You're just talking in circles now, goose.
All hospitals have to abide by EMTALA. There's no real option to the contrary.
Why do you think that kind of supply-side federal mandate is tolerable when the demand-side mandate is overreaching?
I'm not talking in circles - I've been very explicit. Businesses that don't wish to abide by hospital regulations can choose not to operate a hospital. If they choose to do so, they must abide by the regulations. If all the business does is run hospitals, that's not a very hard choice to make but the choice does exist - if the business were to stop operating a hospital, it would no longer be subject to the regulatory burden.
There is no analogous choice available to citizens under the individual mandate's regulatory requirement, and that is one of many reasons there's a fundamental difference between the two.
The difference between "supply-side" regulation and "demand-side" (that's a novel way to put it, hadn't heard that before) is that the one is predicated on the actual act of supplying something, and the other is predicated on the expectation that at some point the demand may materialize.
Can we talk about the new 538 data that shows pretty much what recent polling has led us to believe: that the race will be tighter (particularly the popular vote) than 2008 but Obama should still win with a decent margin?
This election looks so much like 2004 to me, with the roles reversed, that it's funny. Nice to see pubs with a candidate no one can muster a shit about for once.
I also think it's quite laughable that PA is still considered a toss-up. Obama is up by 12 in recent polls, and this is a state that voted for John freaking Kerry. No way they go Republican.
At this point "toss ups" are just what the media is calling states that traditionally go either way no matter what the polling is showing. With PA it appears that John Kerry errr Mitt Romney won't even contest it, he doesn't have any campaign apparatus in the state. Hell comparing him to Kerry is unfair, Kerry at least served and continues to serve his country.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
PantsB, Necessary and Proper is subordinate clause - if the government has no power under the Commerce clause to regulate a thing, it can be neither Necessary nor Proper to make laws regarding the thing's regulation.
But this is trending a bit far afield, yeah. I'm trying to limit scope here but it's not working!
N&P would imply that if guaranteed-issue is legitimate then individual-mandate is as well.
Open question: Does Obama get an edge in November if the ACA gets decapitated? I wouldn't mind running against the court that broke the health care system.
Can we talk about the new 538 data that shows pretty much what recent polling has led us to believe: that the race will be tighter (particularly the popular vote) than 2008 but Obama should still win with a decent margin?
This election looks so much like 2004 to me, with the roles reversed, that it's funny. Nice to see pubs with a candidate no one can muster a shit about for once.
I also think it's quite laughable that PA is still considered a toss-up. Obama is up by 12 in recent polls, and this is a state that voted for John freaking Kerry. No way they go Republican.
At this point "toss ups" are just what the media is calling states that traditionally go either way no matter what the polling is showing. With PA it appears that John Kerry errr Mitt Romney won't even contest it, he doesn't have any campaign apparatus in the state. Hell comparing him to Kerry is unfair, Kerry at least served and continues to serve his country.
A toss-up state is defined as a state that would make the race look uncompetitive if we assigned it to its likely winner.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
So your solution would require all hospitals to stop being hospitals?
Am I getting you right?
All hospitals run by corporations or individuals unable or unwilling to abide by the regulatory requirements, yes.
You're just talking in circles now, goose.
All hospitals have to abide by EMTALA. There's no real option to the contrary.
Why do you think that kind of supply-side federal mandate is tolerable when the demand-side mandate is overreaching?
I'm not talking in circles - I've been very explicit. Businesses that don't wish to abide by hospital regulations can choose not to operate a hospital. If they choose to do so, they must abide by the regulations. If all the business does is run hospitals, that's not a very hard choice to make but the choice does exist - if the business were to stop operating a hospital, it would no longer be subject to the regulatory burden.
There is no analogous choice available to citizens under the individual mandate's regulatory requirement, and that is one of many reasons there's a fundamental difference between the two.
The difference between "supply-side" regulation and "demand-side" (that's a novel way to put it, hadn't heard that before) is that the one is predicated on the actual act of supplying something, and the other is predicated on the expectation that at some point the demand may materialize.
There absolutely is an analogous choice to citizens, they could stop being citizens and leave the country. Just like the hospital would have to stop being a hospital and leave the hospital business to avoid the regulation
PantsB, Necessary and Proper is subordinate clause - if the government has no power under the Commerce clause to regulate a thing, it can be neither Necessary nor Proper to make laws regarding the thing's regulation.
But this is trending a bit far afield, yeah. I'm trying to limit scope here but it's not working!
N&P would imply that if guaranteed-issue is legitimate then individual-mandate is as well.
Open question: Does Obama get an edge in November if the ACA gets decapitated? I wouldn't mind running against the court that broke the health care system.
I'm not sure that translates into an edge but it does translate into an animating issue. Republicans certainly were fired up about the ACA, and "if you re-elect Obama he will nominate justices who will undo all our success" is a powerful argument. It's very high on my personal list of reasons not to vote for Obama.
I don't think it's clear who will reap the net benefit from a possible overturning of some / all the ACA.
Can we talk about the new 538 data that shows pretty much what recent polling has led us to believe: that the race will be tighter (particularly the popular vote) than 2008 but Obama should still win with a decent margin?
This election looks so much like 2004 to me, with the roles reversed, that it's funny. Nice to see pubs with a candidate no one can muster a shit about for once.
I also think it's quite laughable that PA is still considered a toss-up. Obama is up by 12 in recent polls, and this is a state that voted for John freaking Kerry. No way they go Republican.
At this point "toss ups" are just what the media is calling states that traditionally go either way no matter what the polling is showing. With PA it appears that John Kerry errr Mitt Romney won't even contest it, he doesn't have any campaign apparatus in the state. Hell comparing him to Kerry is unfair, Kerry at least served and continues to serve his country.
A toss-up state is defined as a state that would make the race look uncompetitive if we assigned it to its likely winner.
Pretty much, though it is good to keep the democrat base fired up to vote. Don't want them to get complacent and lose like california.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
Not just hospitals. It takes a corporation that's major among majors to simply pick and choose what sector they do business in. My workplace will not simply stop doing its current business and become a fruitmarket later this year. It will do business in its current sector or it will fail in its current sector. General Motors may be able to shift from gasoline power to electric in the future, but they will still be a automobile company - the costs to dismantle their operations and become something else are not feasible. One way you do this is by being a company that doesn't do business itself, but is in the business of owning other companies. Another is to be one of those many-headed hydras like Sony, which could stop being a music company and continue doing business because they're many other things already. Another is to be batshit insane like Pocketmail and just randomly decide to stop making portable computers and start mining uranium before going quietly bankrupt three years later. None of those of course mean squat to all the people left jobless in the process, but hey, free market.
To suggest that businesses can just start doing something else to escape regulation is just like the recent Republican definition of small business (by which the capital firm that owns the real estate group that underwrites the landlord who owns six hundred units including the one I work in is a small business, and my actual workplace doesn't exist). It might be literally true, and it might fall into somebody's definition of business, but it's simply not in the game plan even for most major global corporations.
Of course it's not in the game plan - that's why regulation works up to a point, but regulation also creates barriers to entry for new competitors. On the other end from large corporations you have, say, smalltime food service businesses that are forced to close up shop because while the food for sale is healthy and safe, it's (for example) baked in the same oven used for home cooking. Assuming the regulations are sensible, that loss of business opportunity is the price paid for ensuring the public buys safe food, and the business owner is free to avoid sanction by not participating in the food service industry, i.e. commerce.
Individual citizens are not free to avoid participation in life. There is a fundamental difference between the two situations.
Hang on, let me get the gist of this: The business owner is free to go out of business to avoid regulation, while the individual's only escape is death.
Do you realize what closing a business typically means for a business owner? Here's a hint: It can be worse than just unemployment, and unemployment is damn near the end of the world. You are giving up your livelihood, and ex business owners are cursed with the fact that they're now considered overqualified for the huge majority of available jobs - they weren't just selling fruit, they were upper management.
This is like saying the individual citizen can avoid paying taxes by simply not earning income. You might as well say you won't have to get a flu shot this year because razor blades and rat poison are on sale at Wal Mart, or that we don't need to fix the roads because we can just get that whole nuclear armageddon thing going. This isn't an option in any way that applies to actual, real businesses.
That's why when new health laws get those food services businesses up in arms, they don't stop making food and start grooming dogs. The option you describe is not an option for business owners.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
So your solution would require all hospitals to stop being hospitals?
Am I getting you right?
All hospitals run by corporations or individuals unable or unwilling to abide by the regulatory requirements, yes.
You're just talking in circles now, goose.
All hospitals have to abide by EMTALA. There's no real option to the contrary.
Why do you think that kind of supply-side federal mandate is tolerable when the demand-side mandate is overreaching?
I'm not talking in circles - I've been very explicit. Businesses that don't wish to abide by hospital regulations can choose not to operate a hospital. If they choose to do so, they must abide by the regulations. If all the business does is run hospitals, that's not a very hard choice to make but the choice does exist - if the business were to stop operating a hospital, it would no longer be subject to the regulatory burden.
There is no analogous choice available to citizens under the individual mandate's regulatory requirement, and that is one of many reasons there's a fundamental difference between the two.
The difference between "supply-side" regulation and "demand-side" (that's a novel way to put it, hadn't heard that before) is that the one is predicated on the actual act of supplying something, and the other is predicated on the expectation that at some point the demand may materialize.
There absolutely is an analogous choice to citizens, they could stop being citizens and leave the country. Just like the hospital would have to stop being a hospital and leave the hospital business to avoid the regulation
Ceasing commerce to avoid commercial regulation is not analogous to abandoning citizenship to avoid commercial regulation.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
What the media calls a 'toss-up', 538 calls a 'tipping-point state'. Except 538 changes its tipping point states based on data. The media goes 'Okay, what was really close in a previous election and had a whole bunch of electoral votes at stake? And also is in the East because we'll be tired and cranky and in crappier timeslots by the time the western polls close? THOSE WILL DECIDE THE ELECTION EVERY TIME!'
There are days that I think they think Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania are the only states in the Union. Though they're starting to recognize that Virginia exists too.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
So your solution would require all hospitals to stop being hospitals?
Am I getting you right?
All hospitals run by corporations or individuals unable or unwilling to abide by the regulatory requirements, yes.
You're just talking in circles now, goose.
All hospitals have to abide by EMTALA. There's no real option to the contrary.
Why do you think that kind of supply-side federal mandate is tolerable when the demand-side mandate is overreaching?
I'm not talking in circles - I've been very explicit. Businesses that don't wish to abide by hospital regulations can choose not to operate a hospital. If they choose to do so, they must abide by the regulations. If all the business does is run hospitals, that's not a very hard choice to make but the choice does exist - if the business were to stop operating a hospital, it would no longer be subject to the regulatory burden.
There is no analogous choice available to citizens under the individual mandate's regulatory requirement, and that is one of many reasons there's a fundamental difference between the two.
The difference between "supply-side" regulation and "demand-side" (that's a novel way to put it, hadn't heard that before) is that the one is predicated on the actual act of supplying something, and the other is predicated on the expectation that at some point the demand may materialize.
There absolutely is an analogous choice to citizens, they could stop being citizens and leave the country. Just like the hospital would have to stop being a hospital and leave the hospital business to avoid the regulation
Ceasing commerce to avoid commercial regulation is not analogous to abandoning citizenship to avoid commercial regulation.
It's analogous to dying to avoid regulation. Corporations that don't do commerce are toast.
Posts
That's kinda silly actually. Saying that I'm persuaded by some guy's argument isn't an appeal to authority unless the reason I'm persuaded by it is because of the his credentials. I certainly should be able to paraphrase it, but if his argument is particularly eloquent and I don't feel I can do it justice, then just pointing to it isn't really a cop out.
No, I believe there is a fundamental difference regardless of whether or not the product will be used. In the one case, the business can avoid regulatory action by not participating in the sector being regulated, and in the other, the citizen can only avoid government sanction by acquiescing to the government's demand or committing suicide.
Isn't this true of every law?
Not in the slightest. Only Selective Service and the federal income tax share this property.
Wrong. At least in the case of hospitals and emergency rooms.
The federal government regulates medical care access. Hospitals can't avoid that part of their business model, since, you know, that's the whole thing.
So, there's precedent. Good to know.
You misunderstand. The business could avoid regulatory action by engaging in some other business activity than being a hospital. While this might be challenging, businesses change their product lines and service offerings all the time. A living citizen cannot avoid regulatory action in the same way, except through death.
If not, they will come up with something that allows to uphold the reform. Discussing what they should do by reading the constitution is a useless exercise for anti-government people that want to put on airs.
You can't be forced to serve on a jury or testify in court either?
HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh, naïveté.
they absolutely are businesses right now, with an interest in profit margins and the capacity to be shut down if they can't pay the bills.
I personally think this is a mistake, and there should be a widespread, easily accessible class of hospitals for people which are funded the same way fire and police stations are, with another tier of for-profit hospitals for the people who can afford them.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Selective Service uses a different justification and the income tax is Constitutional as per the 16th Amendment. Neither of those things use the Commerce clause for constitutional justification, or provide precedent for the individual mandate.
Yeah any idea of that being true went away last year when in the midst of having an 8 hour gall attack the ER took my payment and insurance information before providing any care. By this point I was throwing up bile and was entering shock, but they had bills to pay motherfucker.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So your solution would require all hospitals to stop being hospitals?
Am I getting you right?
Not just hospitals. It takes a corporation that's major among majors to simply pick and choose what sector they do business in. My workplace will not simply stop doing its current business and become a fruitmarket later this year. It will do business in its current sector or it will fail in its current sector. General Motors may be able to shift from gasoline power to electric in the future, but they will still be a automobile company - the costs to dismantle their operations and become something else are not feasible. One way you do this is by being a company that doesn't do business itself, but is in the business of owning other companies. Another is to be one of those many-headed hydras like Sony, which could stop being a music company and continue doing business because they're many other things already. Another is to be batshit insane like Pocketmail and just randomly decide to stop making portable computers and start mining uranium before going quietly bankrupt three years later. None of those of course mean squat to all the people left jobless in the process, but hey, free market.
To suggest that businesses can just start doing something else to escape regulation is just like the recent Republican definition of small business (by which the capital firm that owns the real estate group that underwrites the landlord who owns six hundred units including the one I work in is a small business, and my actual workplace doesn't exist). It might be literally true, and it might fall into somebody's definition of business, but it's simply not in the game plan even for most major global corporations.
All hospitals run by corporations or individuals unable or unwilling to abide by the regulatory requirements, yes.
Not to mention the fact that we're still going to have to have some fucking hospitals.
That was the free market making them more efficient - get it right.
Not sure why you're linking
Perhaps it would be more enlightening to link to the actual case
This is almost the exact argument that the individual mandate is Constitutional.
Rephrased:
ed
But we're getting pretty OT
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Of course it's not in the game plan - that's why regulation works up to a point, but regulation also creates barriers to entry for new competitors. On the other end from large corporations you have, say, smalltime food service businesses that are forced to close up shop because while the food for sale is healthy and safe, it's (for example) baked in the same oven used for home cooking. Assuming the regulations are sensible, that loss of business opportunity is the price paid for ensuring the public buys safe food, and the business owner is free to avoid sanction by not participating in the food service industry, i.e. commerce.
Individual citizens are not free to avoid participation in life. There is a fundamental difference between the two situations.
You're just talking in circles now, goose.
All hospitals have to abide by EMTALA. There's no real option to the contrary.
Why do you think that kind of supply-side federal mandate is tolerable when the demand-side mandate is overreaching?
But this is trending a bit far afield, yeah. I'm trying to limit scope here but it's not working!
This election looks so much like 2004 to me, with the roles reversed, that it's funny. Nice to see pubs with a candidate no one can muster a shit about for once.
I also think it's quite laughable that PA is still considered a toss-up. Obama is up by 12 in recent polls, and this is a state that voted for John freaking Kerry. No way they go Republican.
There is no analogous choice available to citizens under the individual mandate's regulatory requirement, and that is one of many reasons there's a fundamental difference between the two.
The difference between "supply-side" regulation and "demand-side" (that's a novel way to put it, hadn't heard that before) is that the one is predicated on the actual act of supplying something, and the other is predicated on the expectation that at some point the demand may materialize.
Y
At this point "toss ups" are just what the media is calling states that traditionally go either way no matter what the polling is showing. With PA it appears that John Kerry errr Mitt Romney won't even contest it, he doesn't have any campaign apparatus in the state. Hell comparing him to Kerry is unfair, Kerry at least served and continues to serve his country.
pleasepaypreacher.net
N&P would imply that if guaranteed-issue is legitimate then individual-mandate is as well.
Open question: Does Obama get an edge in November if the ACA gets decapitated? I wouldn't mind running against the court that broke the health care system.
A toss-up state is defined as a state that would make the race look uncompetitive if we assigned it to its likely winner.
There absolutely is an analogous choice to citizens, they could stop being citizens and leave the country. Just like the hospital would have to stop being a hospital and leave the hospital business to avoid the regulation
I'm not sure that translates into an edge but it does translate into an animating issue. Republicans certainly were fired up about the ACA, and "if you re-elect Obama he will nominate justices who will undo all our success" is a powerful argument. It's very high on my personal list of reasons not to vote for Obama.
I don't think it's clear who will reap the net benefit from a possible overturning of some / all the ACA.
Pretty much, though it is good to keep the democrat base fired up to vote. Don't want them to get complacent and lose like california.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Hang on, let me get the gist of this: The business owner is free to go out of business to avoid regulation, while the individual's only escape is death.
Do you realize what closing a business typically means for a business owner? Here's a hint: It can be worse than just unemployment, and unemployment is damn near the end of the world. You are giving up your livelihood, and ex business owners are cursed with the fact that they're now considered overqualified for the huge majority of available jobs - they weren't just selling fruit, they were upper management.
This is like saying the individual citizen can avoid paying taxes by simply not earning income. You might as well say you won't have to get a flu shot this year because razor blades and rat poison are on sale at Wal Mart, or that we don't need to fix the roads because we can just get that whole nuclear armageddon thing going. This isn't an option in any way that applies to actual, real businesses.
That's why when new health laws get those food services businesses up in arms, they don't stop making food and start grooming dogs. The option you describe is not an option for business owners.
Ceasing commerce to avoid commercial regulation is not analogous to abandoning citizenship to avoid commercial regulation.
There are days that I think they think Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania are the only states in the Union. Though they're starting to recognize that Virginia exists too.
It's analogous to dying to avoid regulation. Corporations that don't do commerce are toast.