The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, what about a slight change of tactic.

Instead of saying, "You must buy insurance or you have to pay a penalty," what about, "We are changing tax law so that everyone owes X amount more in taxes [where X=the amount of the penalty], but you receive a tax credit if you have purchased insurance." That seems more within the government's power, yes? Of course, even if it ends up being functionally identical, the odds of Congress passing something that includes the words "raise taxes" are nil, so I guess it's a moot point.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Hmm, what about a slight change of tactic.

Instead of saying, "You must buy insurance or you have to pay a penalty," what about, "We are changing tax law so that everyone owes X amount more in taxes [where X=the amount of the penalty], but you receive a tax credit if you have purchased insurance." That seems more within the government's power, yes? Of course, even if it ends up being functionally identical, the odds of Congress passing something that includes the words "raise taxes" are nil, so I guess it's a moot point.

I think that would be more constitutional....but yeah, "raise taxes" isn't exactly a big seller these days so you're right about it probably being a moot point.

[Moonliner]

Hell I'd be happy if they would just open the process up so that I could buy insurance from anyone I want and not just vendors approved in my state.

[Alex]

Without a mandate it doesn't work at all. Since if insurer's can't reject for prior conditions, and there are price controls, then the lack of a mandate means the smart thing to do is just wait until you get sick and then go buy insurance.

Personally, I'd say the best way to handle this constitutional issue (if it remains one, a district court judge isn't going to be the final say by a long shot and undoing this law could be difficult without the court undoing a lot of settled law around the commerce clause) is:

Option A
You make buying health insurance optional with all the existing provisions for subsidy and whatnot. And you say "and hospitals will no longer receive any federal reimbursement for care provided to uninsured individuals. It is legal to let these people die in your parking lot since they chose to not get insurance."

Option B
If it is indeed constitutional for states to have a mandate (and is there any challenge still standing to the constitutionality of Massachusetts mandate)? Then the federal government sets up the framework and runs it through states where getting any piece of the federal healthcare pie requires the state to have local mandates. Then all those government who insisted they didn't want federal money anyway can put their money where their mouths are.

[Ghoulish Delight]

As detestable as I find the subject of Philip Ray Greaves' book, his arrest bothers me.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm unclear on the details. What are the charges? I don't think there is a criminal statute for detestable subject matter. Perhaps the theory is that the book aids and abets pedophilia? It's a stretch.

[Alex]

Obscenity

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's a stretch. He lives in Colorado I believe. The AG of Florida (who's an anti child porn crusader) ordered a copy of the book, interpreted that as giving him jurisdiction to prosecute him under Florida's rather broad obscenity laws. It's questionable whether the extradition will go through.

[Alex]

Eugene Volokh (a UCLA law professor who has written on the law around crime facilitating speech) posted on his blog about the case.

http://volokh.com/2010/12/20/pedophi...scenity-charge

[BarTopDancer]

Awww. It looks like some members of the GoP (namely those who decided to not work over the holiday break) are upset about the work Congress has been doing this week during it's "lame duck" session.

Guess they should have gone to work! I wonder what their constituents think about that.