Health Care Bill in the Supreme Court

[GeneralVeers]

BTW, it was referenced earlier that the states are the laboratories of democracy. That's true according to the 10th amendment, but we've been at this healthcare business for a century. How long are we to give the states to get it right?

Hardly true. One can argue there was very little in the way of meaningful medicine until Antibiotics were developed in the1930's. Then in the 1960's the Federal government took over care. We had less than 30 years for the States to experiment, and none of that time was with the advanced medicine that we've had since the 1980's.

Why not experiment? Let's abolish Medicare/Medicaid, turn the Medicare tax over to the states and let them figure it out. Certainly one of them can come up with a better solution than the existing system or Obamacare.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SepulvedaMD]

Hardly true. One can argue there was very little in the way of meaningful medicine until Antibiotics were developed in the1930's. Then in the 1960's the Federal government took over care. We had less than 30 years for the States to experiment, and none of that time was with the advanced medicine that we've had since the 1980's.

Why not experiment? Let's abolish Medicare/Medicaid, turn the Medicare tax over to the states and let them figure it out. Certainly one of them can come up with a better solution than the existing system or Obamacare.

what makes you think states will come up with better ideas? Suppose you did give states these dollars. It's not a far stretch to see that conservative states will go straight to block grants/vouchers for private insurance and more liberal states would go directly to state-run public models. neither of which would accomplish both expanded coverage and lower costs. As mentioned earlier, one of the issues hamstringing for better or worse these ideas is EMTALA. This also might create a system of cherry picking, much like is seen in the credit card industry.

I am also weary of giving it to the states, because states have to balance their budget every fiscal year and cannot carry debt like the fed (not that I'm advocating this). So, states with larger populations might have significantly more trouble.

Also, absolving these programs displaces a large number of people. However, I'd be for any idea that seemed practical.

 

[Lokhtar]

Hardly true. One can argue there was very little in the way of meaningful medicine until Antibiotics were developed in the1930's. Then in the 1960's the Federal government took over care. We had less than 30 years for the States to experiment, and none of that time was with the advanced medicine that we've had since the 1980's.

Why not experiment? Let's abolish Medicare/Medicaid, turn the Medicare tax over to the states and let them figure it out. Certainly one of them can come up with a better solution than the existing system or Obamacare.

The law already provides for this. Vermont is going to get an exception if their single payer plan is implemented. As long as you cover as many people and offer similar or better services, states are in fact free to come up with their own system.

 

[GeneralVeers]

The law already provides for this. Vermont is going to get an exception if their single payer plan is implemented. As long as you cover as many people and offer similar or better services, states are in fact free to come up with their own system.

So why not let the states do it? That way if the state I live in comes up with a sucky solution, I can move to one with a better plan. Again, I don't see the need for any Federal action on this.

 

[Lokhtar]

So why not let the states do it? That way if the state I live in comes up with a sucky solution, I can move to one with a better plan. Again, I don't see the need for any Federal action on this.

Because the Federal government wanted to provide a minimum standard for all its citizens. States, as Vermont has, can go above and beyond that. It's sort of like saying black people could have just moved out of the south if they didn't want to drink from separate fountains. I'm not comparing the situations, but segregation placed a huge burden on people and yet black people still lived in the South - the fact that they didn't all move North cannot be taken as an endorsement of segregation. Many people lack the means to uproot their family, businesses, etc. Or they may have that ability but like other parts of the State, even if they don't like their position on one or two issues. They are US citizens, they are allowed to lobby the government at any level if they feel that certain services ought to be provided. They shouldn't simply have to move.

There is a need for the federal government action because it costs the Federal Government a lot of $$ and it's trying to reform the market. Of course, we disagree whether the Federal Government should be involved at all but the people seem to all believe (as well as the states, by the way), that it should be the responsibility of the Federal government to pay for things like Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

 

[Lokhtar]

Based on the questioning that the mandate got, it seems to be in trouble. The bigger question now will be tomorrow, when they will hear if its severable from the rest of the law.

 

[GeneralVeers]

There is a need for the federal government action because it costs the Federal Government a lot of $$ and it's trying to reform the market. Of course, we disagree whether the Federal Government should be involved at all but the people seem to all believe (as well as the states, by the way), that it should be the responsibility of the Federal government to pay for things like Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

It doesn't have to cost the Feds money. They just choose to interfere. If we really believe that healthcare is a Federal issue, then we need to introduce a Constitutional amendment and have the States vote on it. We'd see how much support it had then....

 

[pinipig523]

So what's the update on the issue?

Mandate's in trouble?

 

[GeneralVeers]

So what's the update on the issue?

Mandate's in trouble?

The questions asked by the justices (at least the 5 "Conservatives") seemed skeptical. The key vote is Justice Kennedy who is viewed as moderate.

Of course the questions and perceived skepticism of the justices do not necessarily indicate how they will vote in the end.

The mandate should go down. If we give the Feds that much broad authority, they can force you to do anything they want, up to and including forcing viewership of Gray's Anatomy.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[boggvir]

Well whether it's severable is what's going to be discussed tomorrow. It depends which part and what they sever. Later tomorrow is going to be arguments regarding Medicaid expansion. On that I don't think there's really much chance that it would be deemed unconstitutional.

Mandate however is gone. I listened to the whole thing and I think it will be 6-3 actually. Only Breyer and Sotomayor seemed to be absolutely in favor. Even Kagan, Obama's top lawyer sometimes seemed very skeptical though I think it would be shocking if she did end up voing agaisnt (I cant see her doing that).

Scalia was sarcastic and poking fun and he's against for sure. Thomas didnt ask a single question but he never does and it's hard to imagine him being for it. Roberts was dismissive too. Surpringly perhaps, Alito seemed more receptive than even Kennedy but he could just be playing devils advocate. Kennedy was withering and explicitly said that this would present a fundamental change in the relationship between government and the people and even though Breyer seemed to be able to soften up Kennedy a bit I still think he's going to vote against.

It's against conventional wisdom but I think Ginsberg will also vote to strike but that's just based on my perception of her tone and question. But 6-3 with her is what I would bet on.

I wished the mandate stayed but hey, the court has spoken I think. It will be interesting tomorrow.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Yes mandate down and with that likely forcing insurers to sign up anyone.

The medicaid expansion will likely stand simply because states CHOOSE to participate though like many things in the federal govt it has gotten so big and bloated states basically have no choice. This is the argument I believe the state of texas made. The expansion of covering adults up to age 26 on their parents insurance will stay and is popular.

The removal of the mandate IMO is huge and for us in EM from a financial POV is a win since we dont see our payor mix go to crap.

Surely did seem the SCOTUS and esp kennedy who is the swing vote was against it.

The mandate is garbage and IMO any law that the health insurance industry favors I believe is going to be bad for me and citizens in general. The health insurers IMO are one small notch above the trial attorneys.

 

[boggvir]

I wouldn't think so. I think if the law had stood we'd be stuck with a Massachusetts style system forever. This means that eventually we will go to a single payer Medicare for all type system. Won't be in the next couple years but it's inevitable.

Though I was and am still in support of the current law, and this will hurt in the short term. Hopefully it rallies the base like '08 for 2012.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I wouldn't think so. I think if the law had stood we'd be stuck with a Massachusetts style system forever. This means that eventually we will go to a single payer Medicare for all type system. Won't be in the next couple years but it's inevitable.

Though I was and am still in support of the current law, and this will hurt in the short term. Hopefully it rallies the base like '08 for 2012.

How can you support this law which directly threatens the freedom of all Americans? This argument has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with what the government can and cannot compel you to do. If this law stands, the government can force you into any agreement with any company it wishes. It can force you to engage in any activity it wishes even if you don't want to. That is a scary scary vision of a depressing America.

 

[boggvir]

How can you support this law which directly threatens the freedom of all Americans? This argument has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with what the government can and cannot compel you to do. If this law stands, the government can force you into any agreement with any company it wishes. It can force you to engage in any activity it wishes even if you don't want to. That is a scary scary vision of a depressing America.

Well clearly the state governments already can, but the question is if under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can. The Supreme Court is going to say no pretty emphatically so your argument will win out for now. However, my view is the same that is advocated by the government in this matter.

The following two statements are agreed upon by BOTH the Government and those challenging the mandate:

(1) Congress has the right to regulate healthcare.
(2) Congress could, in theory, force a person to buy insurance at the point of receipt of the service (eg in ER or at the doctors office) prior to receiving care

Both of these were agreed upon by both parties during the lawsuit (I can look up the audio minute number if you want, or you search the PDF transcript).

Where the two sides differ on is if (3) the purchase of insurance constitutes regulation of healthcare, and (4) if you're not actively seeking out healthcare (e.g not in the ER or at the doctors office), is it true that you are still a participant in the market since you will need healthcare eventually.

I buy the government's argument that the healthcare market is a unique one and you are a participant in the market even though you do not need healthcare at this very moment. And of course the fact is that decoupling the purchasing of insurance from the overall market of healthcare is a very artificial one - this is what was argued by the government and the liberal justices.

However, you of course disagree and that is a legitimate view - especially as at least five, and probably six (see my post above on which six) justices in the court agree with you and not me. So the mandate will fall - I'll listen to tomorrow's arguments as well and report my impressions on whether they will keep the rest of the law and what I think they will do about the medicaid expansion.

Overall as I said, I am quite dissapointed but I hope that this means that it will open the way for a medicare for all eventually. If this law had stood, we would have had private insurance as part of our healthcare system forever. I'm convinced we'll get there eventually as healthcare costs (with or without the bill) get more out of control and more and more people start feeling the insurance crunch. There are 'other' solutions but as the government argued today in response to Justice Scalia's question of why the government can't just say that people don't have to be treated if they can't pay - the social norms of our country have moved past that and wouldn't be acceptable. I think that type of libertarian solution is a pipe dream personally.

In any case, perhaps a bit premature (though I don't think so), congratulations to those who were as passionate as I, but on the other side. I can accept defeat graciously .

But I can still hope that like other issues (e.g gay marriage in 2000 vs. in 2012), this too will have its time. And just like that issue, once the momentum starts, it won't be stopped because people won't see the big deal and eventually it'll become as the accepted norm (like SS, medicare are now).

 

[IntelInside]

Surely you're not comparing the healthcare mandate to auto insurance. You only have to have auto insurance if you have a car. You aren't legally required to obtain a car. A car is a luxury.

The real issue here is that this will set a dangerous precedent for the government being allowed to require you to purchase something, which is what GeneralVeers is getting at. He's right in the fact that it would be a serious power grab by the government regardless of who's the President.

healthcare should be a luxury too

 

[boggvir]

Yea, I don't buy that in a modern society it should be treated as a "luxury" - e.g it's ok if you get no medical care whatsoever that we can deem you're just fine. Unless you mean constitutional right, in which case even food is not a 'right' explicitly guaranteed but that doesn't mean enough food to sustain yourself isn't a right. I think the difference is if you can force parents to do something for their kids, it's not a luxury but a right in a very real sense. E.g you can't choose not to feed your kids. You can't choose not to give them chemotherapy, etc. We feel those things are essential to human life.

 

[IntelInside]

I meant end of life healthcare specifically

 

[JacobMcCandles]

healthcare should be a luxury too

Was that just a simple statement or were you insinuating that I don't believe healthcare is a luxury. FWIW, I don't think healthcare is a right.

 

[deleted109597]

You can't choose not to give them chemotherapy, etc. We feel those things are essential to human life.

Yeah you can. And sometimes we should. Palliative chemo is rarely that. It's getting those last few dollars from the government before the patient dies. Not cool.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

Yea, I don't buy that in a modern society it should be treated as a "luxury" - e.g it's ok if you get no medical care whatsoever that we can deem you're just fine. Unless you mean constitutional right, in which case even food is not a 'right' explicitly guaranteed but that doesn't mean enough food to sustain yourself isn't a right. I think the difference is if you can force parents to do something for their kids, it's not a luxury but a right in a very real sense. E.g you can't choose not to feed your kids. You can't choose not to give them chemotherapy, etc. We feel those things are essential to human life.

For me, a right is defined as not having to rely on anybody for that given right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the original primitive rights. A modern society, as you say, complicates rights. Why stop at healthcare? Why not make unlimited gas, iPhones, and free Nike's a right? Where is the line drawn? I think that's what a lot of people don't get about this going before the Supreme Court, sure the topic is healthcare but it means MUCH more than that.

 

[IntelInside]

Was that just a simple statement or were you insinuating that I don't believe healthcare is a luxury. FWIW, I don't think healthcare is a right.

Simple statement

 

[Apollyon]

For me, a right is defined as not having to rely on anybody for that given right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the original primitive rights. A modern society, as you say, complicates rights. Why stop at healthcare? Why not make unlimited gas, iPhones, and free Nike's a right? Where is the line drawn? I think that's what a lot of people don't get about this going before the Supreme Court, sure the topic is healthcare but it means MUCH more than that.

Exactly. Is health care a right? If one says "yes", that means that someone else will be REQUIRED to provide it. It doesn't stand on it's own. And slavery was abolished almost 150 years ago.

However, as is common, jurisprudence (about which nothing is prudential) crosses things up, such as giving the right to counsel - which is dependent on someone else.

 

[SepulvedaMD]

For me, a right is defined as not having to rely on anybody for that given right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the original primitive rights. A modern society, as you say, complicates rights. Why stop at healthcare? Why not make unlimited gas, iPhones, and free Nike's a right? Where is the line drawn? I think that's what a lot of people don't get about this going before the Supreme Court, sure the topic is healthcare but it means MUCH more than that.

Regardless of the eventual SCOTUS decision (they took their shots to be on the record, but I still think it will be upheld), I can't help but see the argument about what the government can "make" you purchase as a false equivalent. Every time someone criticizes the law, it devolves into the realm of ridiculousness like being compelled to buy this or that trivial item. It the same thing opponents of gay marriage say, "oh today it's homosexuals, tomorrow it will be man on dog'. Really?

Healthcare is a serious issue, not only because of its costs but it's implications on the nation. We are trailing many other countries in a myriad of healthcare parameters. How long will this be acceptable?

I can understand if there is debate about whether or not congress can compel you into a market v regulating a market you are already in. That's fair. In fact, one of the justices made reference to a penalty for not buying burial insurance since we will all eventually die. On the surface, this seems as close to healthcare as I've seen, but even here there are options e.g. cremation, donation of body to science, etc. There is no alternative to healthcare(i.e. being outside the market), no sane one at least. I suppose one could be DNR and refuse to be seen for anything at all, but I doubt most americans would take this route.
Yes, if upheld, it would be a major power grab for congress. However, with regards to 'freedom', it is a widely accepted concept in this country that one person's 'freedom' may not infringe on that of another. Thus, for a young and healthy person to sit on the sidelines and exercise his 'freedom' not to purchase healthcare directly impacts the 'freedom' of another to even obtain said services.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Gosh.. I must say it is entertaining to have a bunch of doctors discuss the constitution and legal issues. Pretty funny.

While it seems to not make sense the govt is forcing people with obamacare to buy a good. The liberals somehow think health insurance is the end all be all for the system.

IMO dumping 30M people into a terribly broken system is pure stupidity. It didnt do mass any favors with cost overruns, longer waits to see outpt docs and of course an increase in ED visits (as compared to the national increase). I could continue to pain the bleak picture but thats boring.

What the liberals really want is the young and healthy to supplement healthcare for the old.

 

[boggvir]

What the liberals really want is the young and healthy to supplement healthcare for the old.

Yes, we do! Of course that has to happen...

 

[boggvir]

Supposedly, they had the option to allow certain portions to be voided if it came to that, but waived it somehow in the writing of the law. Could one of you legal eagles confirm this?

(I still think this is all for show, and that it will be upheld)

Yes, what happened was that in one of the drafts there was a 'severability' clause. Congress could have kept that and there would be no lawsuit because Congress would have said that it wants the rest of the law to stand even if a part was declared unconstitutional and that would be that - as long as the rest of the law is not unconstitutional, the courts wouldn't even hear the case. It could have also gone the other way and Congress could have said that NO PART of the law is severable and so if one part falls, the rest does as well.

They did neither, so it's upto the court to figure out what the Congress 'would have wanted'.

 

[boggvir]

More good news for you guys. The conservative faction seems to think the whole law should go. Scalia, Alito and Roberts leading the charge. Though this one might be closer than the individual mandate question, which, especially after this mornings comments, is all but gone. Breyer and Sotomayor doing their best to salvage the remains but I don't see it happening. 6-3 against the mandate, and 5-4 to strike down the whole law!

One more set of arguments left - this time on medicaid expansion.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Yes, we do! Of course that has to happen...

What is really happening is that poorest group (young working-age people) are giving subsidies to the richest group of people (the old and retired).

That should offend any LIberal sensibility....

I personally think that no one should exist based on the forced confiscation of property from another person. You're poor and can't afford care? You should go to a Catholic charity hospital then. You shouldn't be sucking the life out of taxpayers.

 

[boggvir]

What is really happening is that poorest group (young working-age people) are giving subsidies to the richest group of people (the old and retired).

That should offend any LIberal sensibility....

By that definition, no taxing at all should exist. By definition, no one person will ever use all of the services offered by the government yet you pay for all of them. I may never have kids, yet I pay for education.

I totally reject the premise of your argument - that giving subsidies to other people, the definition of taxation - is somehow a bad thing.

 

[GeneralVeers]

By that definition, no taxing at all should exist. By definition, no one person will ever use all of the services offered by the government yet you pay for all of them. I may never have kids, yet I pay for education.

I totally reject the premise of your argument - that giving subsidies to other people, the definition of taxation - is somehow a bad thing.

You may reject it, but at least you understand it. If you CHOOSE to have kids, why should I pay for them?

Taxation was conceived to solely fund the operations of government. I don't have a problem with that provided it's funding the basic functions as laid out in the Constitution. The problem is that it's changed into a tool for social experimentation. Giving out tax credits for good behavior and penalties for bad, while rewarding personal choices (like having kids). It's also been changed so that we have redistribution of wealth, which in my opinion is one of the most immoral policies of the 20th century.

 

[boggvir]

You may reject it, but at least you understand it. If you CHOOSE to have kids, why should I pay for them?

Because we live in a civil society and we decide that certain minimum standards (eg making sure kids can learn to read despite being poor) helps the whole society. I may never need police protection but I pay for it.

It's also been changed so that we have redistribution of wealth, which in my opinion is one of the most immoral policies of the 20th century.

Well, I wouldn't use the term 'redistribution of wealth' but I get your gist, and I would say it's one of our most glorious moments. We'll just agree to disagree on all of that, and leave it at that.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Because we live in a civil society and we decide that certain minimum standards (eg making sure kids can learn to read despite being poor) helps the whole society. I may never need police protection but I pay for it.



Well, I wouldn't use the term 'redistribution of wealth' but I get your gist, and I would say it's one of our most glorious moments. We'll just agree to disagree on all of that, and leave it at that.

Ahh the socially-conscious idealism of a medical student! Your egalitarian ideals are amusing, if quaint.

We went for over 100 years without wealth redistribution (starting with income taxes under Wilson). I think we can easily live without it again.

 

[boggvir]

Ahh the socially-conscious idealism of a medical student! Your egalitarian ideals are amusing, if quaint.

We went for over 100 years without wealth redistribution (starting with income taxes under Wilson). I think we can easily live without it again.

Well I'm a non trad and Ive been out in the real world and had a career, bills, mortgage etc.

Theres a chance I'm older than you if you happen to be fresh out of residency . Not that it should matter either way.


And I wouldn't ever want to live in that society (pre-100 years ago). No way in hell.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Well I'm a non trad and Ive been out in the real world and had a career, bills, mortgage etc.

Theres a chance I'm older than you if you happen to be fresh out of residency . Not that it should matter either way.


And I wouldn't ever want to live in that society (pre-100 years ago). No way in hell.

I would definitely! Back then doctors had respect. My family were the primary doctors for Niagara Falls in Canada (before socialism). They had a huge mansion with a cook, a maid, and lived extremely well. In comparison we live like paupers as physicians and we're treated with contempt by society as the "evil rich".

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[8654Marine]

Wait. If you're not a non-trad, then you don't live in the real world? Or have a career or bills?

Maybe you didn't mean to imply that?

 

[pinipig523]

I was following this today but I don't think there's much if any updates.

When will they decide?

 

[Apollyon]

I was following this today but I don't think there's much if any updates.

When will they decide?

Maybe June? That was one date I heard. It's going to take a while.

 

[zinjanthropus]

Decision will be announced in late June

 

[FulfilledDeer]

I personally think that no one should exist based on the forced confiscation of property from another person. You're poor and can't afford care? You should go to a Catholic charity hospital then. You shouldn't be sucking the life out of taxpayers.

What if Catholic charity hospitals didn't exist? Or any charity hospitals? Then would the poor be SOL?

Or to put it slightly better - isn't any argument that relies on a non-codified form of charity relying on people (or at least enough people with means) being intrinsically good to their fellow man to avert fairly preventable deaths of those who have-not (taking the most extreme example)?




To take my own bait....then is it the job of the government to mandate morality? If that is the will of the people as evinced by their completely free actions, should that not stand? If there are not enough people who are willing to give up 50% (+) of their income to support the poor and marginalized, then do we just have to deal with that reality instead of glossing it over in a grossly non-sustainable way?


I'm trying to come up with an argument to that, but I'm blanking.

 

[deleted109597]

What if Catholic charity hospitals didn't exist? Or any charity hospitals? Then would the poor be SOL?

Or to put it slightly better - isn't any argument that relies on a non-codified form of charity relying on people (or at least enough people with means) being intrinsically good to their fellow man to avert fairly preventable deaths of those who have-not (taking the most extreme example)?

Essentially, yes. Because Darwinian results are more "fair" than stealing from people, and natural law is simply natural.
I daresay you wouldn't be on your side of the fence if the government went from "taking your money" to "taking your time". Instead of 33% income tax, say they just made you work for them 1/3 of the time. And you wouldn't get to choose what you did. They just put you where you're needed. Would you think that a good plan?

To take my own bait....then is it the job of the government to mandate morality? If that is the will of the people as evinced by their completely free actions, should that not stand? If there are not enough people who are willing to give up 50% (+) of their income to support the poor and marginalized, then do we just have to deal with that reality instead of glossing it over in a grossly non-sustainable way?


I'm trying to come up with an argument to that, but I'm blanking.

Government shouldn't mandate morality. People should be allowed to do whatever they want. The problem with today's society is that people want to do what they want, but want other people to pay for it. If all you want to do is sit on your couch and watch tv, that's fine. But you'll starve doing that if you don't get your gubmint check. Similarly, if you want to smoke/drink/get fat, go right ahead. But the taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for your choices.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

 

[EctopicFetus]

This thread is so intriguing because the "liberal" viewpoints are all med students and perhaps a resident or 2. The more "conservative" viewpoint are the attendings. Just something I am sure others noted that I find highly amusing.

In the end we can not have a society where 47% pay no federal income tax yet reap those benefits. We must all chip in our fair share. IMO govt should never be allowed to take more than 25% of earnings from anybody. Govt also should find ways (consumption tax) to tax those who cheat the system by working under the table.

 

[GeneralVeers]

This thread is so intriguing because the "liberal" viewpoints are all med students and perhaps a resident or 2. The more "conservative" viewpoint are the attendings. Just something I am sure others noted that I find highly amusing.

People tend to be less idealistic the more they have to work with real people. Not the theoretical "downtrodden poor". The reality is much more complex, and much less black and white.

In the end we can not have a society where 47% pay no federal income tax yet reap those benefits. We must all chip in our fair share. IMO govt should never be allowed to take more than 25% of earnings from anybody. Govt also should find ways (consumption tax) to tax those who cheat the system by working under the table.

Be careful with the "fair share" talk. Fair is all relative to your point of view and depends on what you are trying to accomplish. To the Liberals "fair share" is code for wealth redistribution. The tax system should pay the bills for essential services. It should not be "fair", not promote "justice", and not "help people".

 

[SepulvedaMD]

Be careful with the "fair share" talk. Fair is all relative to your point of view and depends on what you are trying to accomplish. To the Liberals "fair share" is code for wealth redistribution. The tax system should pay the bills for essential services. It should not be "fair", not promote "justice", and not "help people".

On the first point true.
However, liberals don't see "fair share" as wealth redistribution. Rather, trying to increase opportunities for citizens to join/stay within the middle class, which is essential for the survival of our capitalist system. One reason it may seem like redistribution is that often it looks like taking from the wealthy, but it too is more nuanced. Especially since those that are wealthy have more money and thus more influence on legislative outcomes, often to their favor. As a result, changes to the tax structure should be for essential services, one of those being the maintenance of our republic by ensuring their will still be a republic.

 

[deleted109597]

On the first point true.
However, liberals don't see "fair share" as wealth redistribution.

Yes. They. Do. That's why the tax code isn't flat. To each according to his abilities, to each according to his need(s). It's all about redistributing to the have nots.

Rather, trying to increase opportunities for citizens to join/stay within the middle class, which is essential for the survival of our capitalist system. One reason it may seem like redistribution is that often it looks like taking from the wealthy, but it too is more nuanced.

They've done a pretty good job of marginilizing the middle class lately. And since by Sunday the US will have the highest corporate tax in the world, they're not getting much better anytime soon. The party that depends on people "needing" them will never be in a hurry to make people stop actually needing them.

Especially since those that are wealthy have more money and thus more influence on legislative outcomes, often to their favor. As a result, changes to the tax structure should be for essential services, one of those being the maintenance of our republic by ensuring their will still be a republic

Change the world wealthy to "physicians" and see if that sentence is still true.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

Essentially, yes. Because Darwinian results are more "fair" than stealing from people, and natural law is simply natural.
I daresay you wouldn't be on your side of the fence if the government went from "taking your money" to "taking your time". Instead of 33% income tax, say they just made you work for them 1/3 of the time. And you wouldn't get to choose what you did. They just put you where you're needed. Would you think that a good plan?

Time = money. If they were willing to do an actual substitute, like 33% of the time I would be working having me go do sewage treatment or whatever instead of 33% of my overall time....maybe. It's something I would at least consider. I accept that living in a society requires certain demands because of that. If I'm not okay with that, then maybe I'd go find an island.

People tend to be less idealistic the more they have to work with real people. Not the theoretical "downtrodden poor". The reality is much more complex, and much less black and white.

Government shouldn't mandate morality. People should be allowed to do whatever they want. The problem with today's society is that people want to do what they want, but want other people to pay for it. If all you want to do is sit on your couch and watch tv, that's fine. But you'll starve doing that if you don't get your gubmint check. Similarly, if you want to smoke/drink/get fat, go right ahead. But the taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for your choices.

Despite the insistence that the reality is more complex and that I'm idealistic, I do believe there is an issue with the above. Well two issues, one being slightly more important than the other.

1. It seems to me (and you're welcome to argue otherwise) that a hidden premise in the "non-liberal" point of view is that we all start off on a level playing field. That's just not the case. Not only do some people start off way ahead in the race, but I think there are convincing arguments that there are some that begin handicapped (metaphorically, although clearly physical handicap is an important consideration too). So yes, while I have no problem with the idea that an adult who understands consequences can choose to harm themselves for whatever reason - drugs, alcohol, sitting and watching T.V. eating nothing by Cheez-it's and Mountain Dew for weeks on end - and they are responsible for what they have brought on themselves, I just can't apply that reasoning to everyone.

Take eating: some people don't have the requisite knowledge to eat in a way that won't destroy themselves, some don't have the means. Some were simply brought up by their parents in a way that the fake stuff (like canned green beans vs fresh ones) just tastes better. It's a weird thing, but it happens sometimes. To put all the blame on to them ignores the fact that you are condemning someone based on the fact that they started off in a situation that was not equal to the ideal (usually to more affluent people). Part of their problem isn't their desire, or motivation, or effort, but merely the position in life they occupy.

2. This is the more important one: children. Are you going to say that a child of parents who are generally lazy and work hard enough for some food and shelter but don't have any money in reserve for the inevitable medical issue have to suffer because of that? Even if it is totally that parent's fault (that is, it would have been preventable if they worked harder or whatever) I have a difficult time punishing the child.

That's not to say that there aren't exceptions to these two, or that practical complications and limitation don't exist, but I don't think policy should be based on those things.

 

[Apollyon]

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need(s).

Just correcting the quote.

Take eating: some people don't have the requisite knowledge to eat in a way that won't destroy themselves, some don't have the means. Some were simply brought up by their parents in a way that the fake stuff (like canned green beans vs fresh ones) just tastes better. It's a weird thing, but it happens sometimes.

The US is the only place you'll see fat poor people (maybe extending into Aus/NZ and the UK and Canada now, too).

 

[GeneralVeers]

1. It seems to me (and you're welcome to argue otherwise) that a hidden premise in the "non-liberal" point of view is that we all start off on a level playing field. That's just not the case. Not only do some people start off way ahead in the race, but I think there are convincing arguments that there are some that begin handicapped (metaphorically, although clearly physical handicap is an important consideration too). So yes, while I have no problem with the idea that an adult who understands consequences can choose to harm themselves for whatever reason - drugs, alcohol, sitting and watching T.V. eating nothing by Cheez-it's and Mountain Dew for weeks on end - and they are responsible for what they have brought on themselves, I just can't apply that reasoning to everyone.

Life isn't fair. It's not the government's job to reduce inequity. It's the government's job to provide basic services as defined in the Constitution and to apply the law (and taxation) equally to everyone without regard to their skin color, religion, or economic background. If I make a dollar as a physician, it should be taxed at the same rate as a dollar I would make selling real estate, or pumping gas. That is "fair".

Take eating: some people don't have the requisite knowledge to eat in a way that won't destroy themselves, some don't have the means. Some were simply brought up by their parents in a way that the fake stuff (like canned green beans vs fresh ones) just tastes better. It's a weird thing, but it happens sometimes. To put all the blame on to them ignores the fact that you are condemning someone based on the fact that they started off in a situation that was not equal to the ideal (usually to more affluent people). Part of their problem isn't their desire, or motivation, or effort, but merely the position in life they occupy.

2. This is the more important one: children. Are you going to say that a child of parents who are generally lazy and work hard enough for some food and shelter but don't have any money in reserve for the inevitable medical issue have to suffer because of that? Even if it is totally that parent's fault (that is, it would have been preventable if they worked harder or whatever) I have a difficult time punishing the child.

That's not to say that there aren't exceptions to these two, or that practical complications and limitation don't exist, but I don't think policy should be based on those things.

The children issue is always the guilt trip used by Liberals. Again, life isn't fair. Not all children are going to have rocket science parents. There is a lot of suffering in the world. It's the government's job to make sure there is an equal playing field, in that the law applies to everyone equally regardless of background. It is not the government's job to sort out inequities and give people special advantages because either they, or their parents are too stupid to function.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

Life isn't fair. It's not the government's job to reduce inequity. It's the government's job to provide basic services as defined in the Constitution and to apply the law (and taxation) equally to everyone without regard to their skin color, religion, or economic background. If I make a dollar as a physician, it should be taxed at the same rate as a dollar I would make selling real estate, or pumping gas. That is "fair".



The children issue is always the guilt trip used by Liberals. Again, life isn't fair. Not all children are going to have rocket science parents. There is a lot of suffering in the world. It's the government's job to make sure there is an equal playing field, in that the law applies to everyone equally regardless of background. It is not the government's job to sort out inequities and give people special advantages because either they, or their parents are too stupid to function.

It's one thing to say "Life isn't fair - there's a lot of suffering" but it's a completely different thing to say "Life isn't fair - there's a lot of suffering, and I'm not going to do anything about it because my family is protected from that suffering." The first is a statement of fact, the second is one of intent. Let's not confuse the two.

You, explicitly or implicitly, have agreed to live in a society made up of all of these people. And part of the fundamental make-up of that society is that those who "have-not" have a much greater chance to end up as "have-not's" than those who begin life as "have." It's a lovely sentiment that anybody can chart their own future, but it's just not true. Someone who must work at least full time to pay the bills to stay alive beginning in high school (or earlier) has a much smaller chance of ever "having" than someone who is able to focus on nothing but furthering their own career. Exceedingly bright children born in gang neighborhoods stand a really good chance to never discover the extent of what they can do.

Why should that matter to you? Because whether you like it or not, you're part of that system. I'm not suggesting you give them "special advantages" (and I would argue that what you're going to identify as doing just that are merely poorly implemented), I'm just suggesting you don't give yourself (or your children) "special advantages". Otherwise we're just setting up a more or less permanent lower-class - something that doesn't really seem all that "American".


As you said in the first paragraph there - life isn't fair. So why should you expect fair taxation?