Dante: Substantive Due Process, Roe V Wade vs Health Insurance mandates

[Peach]

Substantive Due Process is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Scalia refers to the concept as an "oxymoron". Used to strike down minimum wage laws, (Lochner) and in Griswold, the concept is flexible, to phrase it mildly. Penumbral rights is a more cohesive description. The Court used the term penumbral in Griswold, if I remember correctly.

Hi [MENTION=17668]Peach[/MENTION]
thanks for that clarification and term which I will look up as well!
would you say people are showing political bias
in which cases/sides they start enforcing or applying this
(whether it is called due process, substantive due process, or Penumbral rights)

1. gun rights people argue they want to keep their rights as law abiding citizens
and not lose their liberty just because of "other people's" criminal abuses
they are not directly responsible for. others say that as long as people are too lax with laws, indirectly we share responsible for those criminal abuses, so collectively we must act to do something. but the laws they suggest set off the gun rights people who don't want their rights reduced "without due process" but want to hold wrongdoers respnosible.

would it help to agree on interpretation
that the second amendment "people" means "law abiding citizens"
and it does not apply to "people with criminal intent"
so the problem remains how do we determine and regulate
just the ones wth criminal intent so the laws passed do not infringe
on citizens who are law abiding?

that's one example

2. for this health care business
isn't the point to make sure people do not impose costs in a way the taxpayers
don't agree to pay for

a. if one group prefers to pay by free market, and values freedom of choice over taking away liberties by making everyone buy insurance
b. but another group prefers to give up some freedom to cut costs they prefer to cover through govt at the expense of freedom

why can't we write the law where it says this

so neither group feels their freedom to exercise their beliefs
is infringed upon by the other group with different beliefs

In general Peach,
if more people can see it is relative
* that with abortion one group feels it is more important to defend life over choice
* with health care one group feels it is more important to defend health care through govt over free choice
with gun rights, reparative choice of therapy, etc.
one group wants an outright ban, and the other defends free choice for
those who are not involved in crimes fraud or abuse,

I think we would approach these conflicts with greater understanding
and respect for the opposing beliefs. so I think it would change our
abiity to resolve conflicts if we can promote equal respect and inclusion DESPITE the differences that we pretty much know will not change.

I would like to see the difference it would make in policies
if we recognized these biases are going on, and instead of blaming
each other's groups for them, we work with whatever biases people
have because of their inherent beliefs that are causing them to not see each other's.

Thank you Peach
if your terminology helps to solve some of this
I will go back and give you rep on that post.

we need to have terms to describe what is
going on if we are going to facilitate the democratic process
past these bumps and clashes that are keeping groups in deadlocks Thanks!

ustice Cardozo's use of the penumbra metaphor in opinions written between 1934 and 1941 was similar to Holmes's application, but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific.

Douglas's most famous use of penumbra is in the Griswold decision. In the Griswold case, appellants Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School and director of the league's office in New Haven, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which made it unlawful to use any drug or medicinal article for the purpose of preventing conception, on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it was a violation of a person's right to privacy. In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.

Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.

I found this ^ online.
I still find it disturbing that courts have power to rule when this term or rules on privacy do or do not apply
I think we need better terminology and respect for different thresholds for people's beliefs and applications
of what they believe is protected free choice and private decisions
otherwise the arbitrary nature by which courts can rule one way in one case, and another elsewhere
does not seem to protect petitioners equally
i would rather support a process that resolves these conflicts as they arise
to prevent the risk of imposing by arbitrary belief of the presiding judge(s) and which viewpoint they happen to favor

this still is not equally protective enough to me
to meet standards of "Equal Justice Under Law" or "Equal Protections of the Laws"

Your comments are thought provoking, obviously:

1. I do not seek to imply bias in use of the term "substantive" due process, I am only noting it is not easily defined.
2. Firearm rights, by necessity, will include the obtaining of same by those that later commit crimes. Liberty has its downsides.
3. On the toughest issue, the conflict between those who belief life begins when the sperm & ovum unite to form the zygote,(which divides to form the blastocyst; thereafter impantation in the endometrium continues the process) and those who define life beginning with fetal viability, as you have written, respect for each individual's beliefs is the sole manner in which we as a society can function. Yet, as fetal viability begins earler and ealier, and religious & personal beliefs may not be infringed, I obviously have no "answer". The mediation process will be continual in that regard, to prevent violence, and it is to be hoped, minimize, or possibly obviate the need for birth control that destroys life/potential life.

I am "pro choice" but will not lie & say abortion, and some forms of birth control, do not destroy life. No easy answer from me.

4. I remain in favor of pre suit mediation, and current Florida law which requires mediation in almost all civil cases. No, mediation rarely erases differences, the mediation process allows parties to litigation to ACCEPT their differences, and end litigation in enough cases we cannot forego the attempts.

I have witnessed parties leave mediation angrier and farther apart than when they entered the room, but within weeks or a few months, settle. Just the attempt at conflict resolution began the process of thinking about settlement versus trial.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The health care mandate is a tax break that you receive by having health insurance. Having health insurance lowers your tax liability.

It's like having a mortgage with interest. The government doesn't force you to borrow money to buy a house,

but they will give you a lower tax liability if you do.

Hi [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]

You don't see people yelling about laws
forcing people to buy house insurance, etc.
because choices of houses are not being regulated like choices of health care.

With buying a house I am not being mandated to buy insurance in advance of when I want to buy it, or under terms I don't agree to pay for.

With this health care mandate, even if I believe in investing money directly into charity teaching hospitals that provide education and services on a low cost sustainable basis,
that choice is not exempted but I am still required to pay an addition 1% fine of my income into funding the other system I DO NOT BELIEVE IN.

I DO NOT BELIEVE in govt forcing people to fund govt health care, when we can have the free and equal option to develop educational and charitable systems directly that respect free choice of participation, funding and programs offered.

So if I believe in spiritual healing to cut costs of health care to help more people
I can fund that myself without getting fined by govt or regulated over these choices.
but under govt mandated health care, a choice like spiritual healing could not be mandated.
This tells me that health care should remain as a free choice, and so should the funding of it.
If people CHOOSE to go through govt that should be an equal choice but not the only one
or it precludes other spiritual choices that aren't recognized under the narrow exemptions that regulate by very specific religion.

this is not the same thing as houses.

I think the equivalent would be like forcing all people to pay for house insurance in advance, under specific terms that have to cover certain things regardless of if they apply to you or not, and if you don't buy insurance you have to pay a fine that only funds govt housing under a tax supported system.

If you believe as I do that paying for insurance should remain a free choice,
that liberty is taken away even if you did not commit any crimes.

It is just for the convenience of govt under the belief that "all housing should be made universal through govt" that would impose this and take away people's individual freedoms.

so that is NOT happening with choice of housing as it is for health care.

You would have to create a whole other scenario to compare housing with health care under these mandates.

Is this close enough to show the difference?

I wasn't talking about insurance on your house I was talking about interest on your mortgage.

No. The government doesn't force you to buy health insurance. They give you a tax break for having it. It just looks like they're forcing you to buy it.

It's like saying the government is forcing you to have a child because your taxes will be several thousand dollars per year higher if you don't have one compared to the person who does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

@Dante

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause

I looked up the relationship between Roe V Wade and "due process"

The technical argument/term is "substantive due process"
which combines what YOU were saying about "right to privacy" (not expressly
in the Constitution, but neither is "right to health care," or "Consent of the Governed")
with what I was saying about "due process" (ie depriving people of liberty before proving any crime had been committed)

Now, my question is can this argument of "substantive due process" (used to defend free choice of "reproductive health")
be applied to argue, similarly, that the federal govt has no right to impose a penalty/fine
by taxation based on someone's BELIEF, CHOICE or DECISION about "health care"?

If this "substantive due process" argument can be used to rule that the
decision for women to have abortions is PRIVATE and not for govt regulation,
what about the decision to "pay for one's own health care other ways besides insurance"?

(NOTE: I can understand why the prolife opponents of ACA cannot make this argument if they do not recognize Roe V Wade. is THAT why this legal argument is not pursued???)

Dante if you were on the Supreme Court, and this case came to you, using Roe V Wade to strike down the federal mandates based on "substantive due process"
what would you argue to distinguish the two cases? Thanks!

Due process has noting to do with Obamacare. I could, however, make an argument that the regulatory structure of Obamacare violates the equal protection clause by deliberately excluding men form the "free benefits" given to women. I am sure that would cause a panic meltdown among the progressives though, so I won't open the can of worms that includes prostate exams, free access to Viagra and other drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, and all the other things that only men need. Why did HHS expressly ask for preventive benefits for women but ignore the ones that men need?

neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Birth control: it?s free!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The legal argument has NEVER been that there is a 'right' to healthcare.

Your "substantive due process" argument

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause -
Roe vs. Wade

Roe vs. Wade, 1973, utilized substantive due process to declare a Texas law banning abortions unconstitutional. The Court decided that there is a right to privacy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, referring to the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, not the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause, meaning that it was not fair for the government to tell a woman what she could or could not do regarding her own pregnancy.

Many people have criticized this decision as a huge judicial overreach. This ruling affected laws in 46 states that had various degrees of bans on abortion. Clearly, the majority of the population wanted the practice outlawed, but the Court overruled it.

Read more: Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause

"...meaning that it was not fair for the government to tell a woman what she could or could not do regarding her own pregnancy."

The federal govt has the power to impose a penalty/fine by taxation on somebody's "choice" to NOT purchase health care. In the law it is called a "shared responsibility payment"


"what about the decision to 'pay for one's own health care other ways besides insurance?'" - We are a nation of laws. Congress wrote and passed a law. The SCOTUS ruled the law constitutional under the powers of the Congress. This has nothing to do with pro life.

I highly doubt the court would take a case based on using Roe V Wade to strike down the federal mandates based on "substantive due process" -- it's nonsensical @emilynghiem

Never?

Obama defends health-care law, calling health insurance ?a right? - The Washington Post

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks @emilynghiem

"If the govt cannot tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy
including ABORT A FETUS WHICH IS "POSSIBLY" FEELING THINGS AS A PERSON" -- A person needs a developed brain. It is a fetus inside the woman's body. End of story.


"why can federal mandates tell people "how to pay for health care"
which is NOT a crime and commits NO HARM to others if people
choose to (a) pay for their own health care freely with or without insurance
and (b) choose to provide free health care to others through spiritual healing, for example." - It is within the powers granted the Congress' to do so. That is why. (read what Chief Justice Roberts wrote)

We are not colonies. We have elected representation, which passes laws in our name. We have the choice to change government and that is how we can change laws we do not like.

Not liking a law and refusing to recognize it cannot hide behind a right to privacy. That was not an argument I saw made to the court.

(A). Thanks for a precise clarification.

Another person argued that the minute conception occurs, there is unique DNA so that is a unique individual, and believes in defending life at that point.

So how can Govt choose to enforce your definition of a person having a working brain,
vs. someone else's belief that each individual is unique upon conception?
Only by CONSENSUS could govt make a law since both people's beliefs should be equal.

I probably tend closer toward your interpretation of what constitutes a person legally;
however by the First and Fourteenth Amendments I am not going to impose MY standard through law AGAINST THE BELIEFS of other citizens I respect equally with other beliefs.

So even though I FAVOR your definition, I would still enforce CONSENSUS as the basis of law on such decisions since people's beliefs are involved and affected.

It does make sense to me that if a person has an impaired brain, or a baby is born with almost no brain function, that person does not count as a person of legal competence, but requires someone to make legal decisions on behalf of such a person.

But even when parents or guardians have legal jurisdiction over a person, they do not have the right to terminate their life at will; so that may be the reasoning people use who do not agree with aborting by gender, by "inability to pay costs" etc.

If legal guardians do not have the automatic right to terminate the life of a Down's Syndrome child or adult, then I can understand why people would argue the same for a fetus that is not able to communicate yet, and is under the legal control of the parent who can choose to abort based on not wanting to care for a child with mental retardation.

Thank you for clarifying this, Dante.
I can agree with points on both sides, using this criteria you offer, and still recommend a consensus on policy and not using govt/majority rule/court rulings to impose one interpretation of law or person over any other person's beliefs about this issue.

This is great, thank you! another rep for you!

Note: I've had a friend who felt their full consciousness while they were brain damaged in a coma. Just because someone cannot communicate due to impaired brain function, does not mean they don't have a will, just because it cannot be expressed and proven by law.

So this is where "faith based or spiritually based" relations come in, which govt does NOT have the right to legislate or regulate for people.

Because there are spiritual beliefs and/or connections with other people, then conflicts over the guardianship or decisions inherently involve spiritual/religious beliefs especially regarding life/death/termination. So that is where I argue that govt has the capacity to ENDORSE a consensus decision made by the people affected, but not the authority to IMPOSE a decision FOR people. The people must agree and cannot abuse govt to endorse "their beliefs" over other people's or it's not equal religious freedom/protection of the law.

If people DISAGREE with this standard on beliefs, that is ANOTHER level of "belief"
that bleeds into the area of "political beliefs" crossing the line between religion/govt.

I believe this should be addressed in resolving issues with ACA in (B) below:

(B). No, from what I understand the Court ruling was on the bill "argued as a tax."
But it was not passed as a tax. So this is not consistent. the interpretation was changed, so there is not a consensus on this law.
Had it been "argued as a tax" when presented through Congress, it would not have passed. (This can be proven: we can go back to the "same people" who voted before, and ask had this same bill been presented as interpreted by the Court as a tax, would your vote change, and recount the votes. Maybe that's what we need to do: call back the original Congress, and take the vote again)

Even as it was, the vote was split along party or "political beliefs" which I found was the key issue to address: The assessment of the conflict I agree best explains why it is not getting resolved is that this "right to health care argument" constitutes a "political belief."

If we don't address that, all other arguments will go in circles because of disagreements over the 'spirit of the law' -- while if we DO address "political beliefs" head on, then ALL other issues (abortion, gun laws, immigration, marriage laws) will ALSO be resolved by the same solutions. So it is financially and politically expedient to address "political beliefs."

Because "political beliefs" cross the line between religion and public state laws/govt,
this is not agreed upon how to handle conflicts over this level of beliefs
that seem inseparable from govt, unlike other forms of beliefs that can be separated.

What is up to the will of the people to decide:
Does the First and Fourteenth Amendment protect the public from discrimination on the basis of political beliefs (counting under
religious freedom or creed)

If not, then I will strongly urge that a Constitutional Amendment be added addressing laws that involve "political beliefs."

As is, Dante, people do not agree how to handle political beliefs, but keep trying to use majority rule, etc., and keep "running over each other's beliefs."

Sure Dante, if people agree to this method of "majority rule" to establish the side THEY believe in, we can keep using this method.

But Dante I DO NOT AGREE or BELIEVE in this method. I have documentation to show that mediation/consensus works and can be applied, in keeping with my beliefs about "consent of the governed" and "equal protection of the laws."

At this point, I will consult with various political and party constituents, and propose a Constitutional conference on addressing political beliefs, and if an Amendment is required.

Thank you, @Dante
Your answers are so objective, they help me to clarify BOTH sides, not just the side you defend which I favor equally if not more.
I tend to seek the more secular universal language for govt laws, so you help me with your finer ability to clarify point by point.
I hope that you will consider a larger role in consulting on Constitutional points and interpretations, as more groups organize to form conferences online.
I am not the only one supporting such a series or networks of conventions, and would highly recommend you and more people like you to be involved.
We need to stay objective, especially where emotional and personal reactions run high
in areas of religious and political beliefs that have been imposed on each other and not treated with equal respect.

A.) Strands of dna unique or not, do not a person make.

DNA is NOT an individual person. Without a brain stem and a developed brain there is NO person. A 'person' is a human being who is self aware.

Your "Another person" who argued about conception has an opinion based on religious beliefs and not science or facts.

-------

Government choose all the time. It's called 'how the world works.' Congress can make laws without consensus on definitions of words. Congress can define what it wants and then the courts get involved. It's how our system is supposed to work. All beliefs are NOT equal nor should government have any say in that. Read the US Constitution on that one.

You keep bringing government into regulating/enforcing religious beliefs.

A fetus versus a person

---

I believe we as a species will evolve enough one day, when the need arises and we will dump this religious belief bullshit

D

That is a moral and/or philosophical argument, not a legal one. Person s a legal concept, which is why the law considers corporations persons, even though no corporation that ever existed has a brain stem or a developed brain.

By the way, human beings are not considered to have fully developed brains until they reach the post adolescent stage. If we actually used your definitions in law it would be legal to kill teenagers because they aren't human.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The health care mandate is a tax break that you receive by having health insurance. Having health insurance lowers your tax liability.

It's like having a mortgage with interest. The government doesn't force you to borrow money to buy a house,

but they will give you a lower tax liability if you do.

Hi @NYcarbineer

You don't see people yelling about laws
forcing people to buy house insurance, etc.
because choices of houses are not being regulated like choices of health care.

With buying a house I am not being mandated to buy insurance in advance of when I want to buy it, or under terms I don't agree to pay for.

With this health care mandate, even if I believe in investing money directly into charity teaching hospitals that provide education and services on a low cost sustainable basis,
that choice is not exempted but I am still required to pay an addition 1% fine of my income into funding the other system I DO NOT BELIEVE IN.

I DO NOT BELIEVE in govt forcing people to fund govt health care, when we can have the free and equal option to develop educational and charitable systems directly that respect free choice of participation, funding and programs offered.

So if I believe in spiritual healing to cut costs of health care to help more people
I can fund that myself without getting fined by govt or regulated over these choices.
but under govt mandated health care, a choice like spiritual healing could not be mandated.
This tells me that health care should remain as a free choice, and so should the funding of it.
If people CHOOSE to go through govt that should be an equal choice but not the only one
or it precludes other spiritual choices that aren't recognized under the narrow exemptions that regulate by very specific religion.

this is not the same thing as houses.

I think the equivalent would be like forcing all people to pay for house insurance in advance, under specific terms that have to cover certain things regardless of if they apply to you or not, and if you don't buy insurance you have to pay a fine that only funds govt housing under a tax supported system.

If you believe as I do that paying for insurance should remain a free choice,
that liberty is taken away even if you did not commit any crimes.

It is just for the convenience of govt under the belief that "all housing should be made universal through govt" that would impose this and take away people's individual freedoms.

so that is NOT happening with choice of housing as it is for health care.

You would have to create a whole other scenario to compare housing with health care under these mandates.

Is this close enough to show the difference?

I wasn't talking about insurance on your house I was talking about interest on your mortgage.

No. The government doesn't force you to buy health insurance. They give you a tax break for having it. It just looks like they're forcing you to buy it.

It's like saying the government is forcing you to have a child because your taxes will be several thousand dollars per year higher if you don't have one compared to the person who does.

Keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. The substantial difference between Obamacare and every other example you give is that Obamacare imposes a penalty on you for not buying something, the other tax breaks are handed out after you buy something.

 

[emilynghiem]

I wasn't talking about insurance on your house I was talking about interest on your mortgage.

No. The government doesn't force you to buy health insurance. They give you a tax break for having it. It just looks like they're forcing you to buy it.

It's like saying the government is forcing you to have a child because your taxes will be several thousand dollars per year higher if you don't have one compared to the person who does.

1. And if taxpayers
a. did NOT agree to this "tax"
b. did NOT agree to the PROCEDURES by which the "tax" was implemented
either through Congress and Courts but argue this was unconstitutional bypass of process
c. have religious beliefs that are violated by govt regulations in the terms of the tax
then the TAX is being "forced on people"
who are thus being FORCED to buy health care AGAINST OUR BELIEFS
to avoid this FORCED tax.

2. [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]
Notice that BEFORE this "tax" was passed
a. people had freedom to buy insurance or not, so that freedom was lost.
liberty to choose was taken away, and now people are PENALIZED for not
choosing as the advocates believe who are pushing these mandates
b. people are discriminated against by religious belief and political creed

this "tax" is VERY selective where
* certain groups showing political favor like Unions and companies in Hollywood
being exempted for selective reasons that demonstrate conflict of interest
BASED ON BELIEFS - so if people support the President's agenda, they get breaks
* people who BELIEVE as you do that health care should be through govt,
are not going to be affected because you BELIEVE in this practice anyway;
whereas those who DO NOT BELIEVE govt has authority, are punished
for choosing other things besides this TAX ENFORCED MANDATE
that only allows THOSE choices and does not equally allow other choices to avoid fines.

NYC if you believe this tax is valid, we can start from your assumption:
do you ADMIT that the TERMS of the tax constitute
"govt regulating on the basis of religion" by exempting only
people/groups that either fit the political beliefs of the supporters
or just a few religious groups that do not threaten their beliefs
(but any beliefs such as believing in building charitable hospitals
and medical schools that would threaten the political beliefs
in govt control over health care, THOSE beliefs are excluded and discriminated against)

Do you acknowledge this "discrimination by creed"
is written into this "tax bill" by its design and purpose?

Can you at least admit the terms of taxation are unfair
and punish people by creed as a form of political discrimination?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's like saying the government is forcing you to have a child because your taxes will be several thousand dollars per year higher if you don't have one compared to the person who does.

^ Given this scenario ^
what is the equivalent of adding an Exemption
"for paying for your own health care directly,
and investing into charity teaching hospital programs and internships"
INSTEAD of either buying insurance under the regulations or paying into
govt exchanges and programs. What is the "equivalent" of adding OTHER
choices of how to pay for health care so these are not fined/taxed either but valid options so free market is respected
and health care is still covered?

What I am sayings is that people who do not believe in govt regulated or mandated
health care have equal right to pay for those same services and covering responsibilities
by investing DIRECTLY into services such as through schools or businesses and charities
INSTEAD of trying to manage all that through "federal govt and mandated exchanges" they don't BELIEVE have such authority except by consent.

So if this "having children lowering taxes" is the same thing,
can you tell me what is the equivalent of getting an EQUAL tax break
for choosing options for health care that DON'T violate beliefs about not going through govt

========================================

If you cannot think of the equivalent
here is my attempt, is this close enough

A. Group A says you should be able to choose to have and support children
without being REQUIRED to buy insurance or go through govt programs to cover the costs of children; but you can pay for your children using any legal means as your personal
business and choice, and can also keep freedom to help other people pay for their children. They believe this is more effective efficient responsible and natural, and do not believe it is lawful to force
this to be regulated through govt as it is people's personal freedom and decisions to make for themselves.

Because Group A believes it is unconstitutional govt infringement to regulate how people pay for their children, they do not believe in the mandates fines and penalties but oppose them based on their beliefs about limits on govt and the process to change such limits.

B. Group B says you must buy insurance under certain guidelines to pay
for supporting your children, or else pay a fine/tax to govt to support programs
to cover costs of children. So you are exempt from the fine/tax if you buy insurance or agree to go through the govt programs (neither of which Group A believes in by creed)

[MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION] [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]
is that a fair analogy?

Can either of you work backwards and take NYC analogy
about tax breaks for having children and tell me what the insurance terms or mandates
would look like if they were the equivalent of that tax difference?

is it this:
A. if the health care insurance was done as a similar deduction
then it wouldn't ADD any fine penalty for not buying it.
It would keep the tax laws as is and DEDUCT the cost
of people buying insurance. So it does not penalize people for not buying it whose taxes remain the same,
it only rewards those who do by deducting it. is that close to the same?
B. if the children reduced taxes was done like the ACA mandates
would it be fining people for NOT having children (ie adding an additional tax of 1% of income)
and not fining people if they do have children.

^ are either of those close to what NYC was saying in comparison with having children and tax deductions

how about this one:

C. if you don't have children but have businesses expenses you choose to support INSTEAD of children,
you can STILL deduct those "other options" from your taxes.
(ie you are NOT "disallowed to deduct for other things besides having children")

HOWEVER with the ACA mandates
you are ONLY allowed tax exemptions if you "buy insurance" as the ONLY choice (unless you are Amish
or only a few religious exemptions allows)
you are NOT allowed tax exemptions for
paying for your health care directly yourself or investing in charity hospitals or schools to help others.

So unlike the tax deductions for children, you AREN'T allowed deductions/exemption for other choices

Is that a fair clarification of the difference?
Can someone else help, Dante you're good at this, please review the above A B C

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hi @NYcarbineer

You don't see people yelling about laws
forcing people to buy house insurance, etc.
because choices of houses are not being regulated like choices of health care.

With buying a house I am not being mandated to buy insurance in advance of when I want to buy it, or under terms I don't agree to pay for.

With this health care mandate, even if I believe in investing money directly into charity teaching hospitals that provide education and services on a low cost sustainable basis,
that choice is not exempted but I am still required to pay an addition 1% fine of my income into funding the other system I DO NOT BELIEVE IN.

I DO NOT BELIEVE in govt forcing people to fund govt health care, when we can have the free and equal option to develop educational and charitable systems directly that respect free choice of participation, funding and programs offered.

So if I believe in spiritual healing to cut costs of health care to help more people
I can fund that myself without getting fined by govt or regulated over these choices.
but under govt mandated health care, a choice like spiritual healing could not be mandated.
This tells me that health care should remain as a free choice, and so should the funding of it.
If people CHOOSE to go through govt that should be an equal choice but not the only one
or it precludes other spiritual choices that aren't recognized under the narrow exemptions that regulate by very specific religion.

this is not the same thing as houses.

I think the equivalent would be like forcing all people to pay for house insurance in advance, under specific terms that have to cover certain things regardless of if they apply to you or not, and if you don't buy insurance you have to pay a fine that only funds govt housing under a tax supported system.

If you believe as I do that paying for insurance should remain a free choice,
that liberty is taken away even if you did not commit any crimes.

It is just for the convenience of govt under the belief that "all housing should be made universal through govt" that would impose this and take away people's individual freedoms.

so that is NOT happening with choice of housing as it is for health care.

You would have to create a whole other scenario to compare housing with health care under these mandates.

Is this close enough to show the difference?

I wasn't talking about insurance on your house I was talking about interest on your mortgage.

No. The government doesn't force you to buy health insurance. They give you a tax break for having it. It just looks like they're forcing you to buy it.

It's like saying the government is forcing you to have a child because your taxes will be several thousand dollars per year higher if you don't have one compared to the person who does.

Keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. The substantial difference between Obamacare and every other example you give is that Obamacare imposes a penalty on you for not buying something, the other tax breaks are handed out after you buy something.

The order in which they happen is irrelevant. The healthcare 'penalty' is part of your tax liability before you claim the deduction it affords if you have insurance. It's like the penalty for not giving to charity, or not buying energy conserving materials for your home.

 

[bendog]

With all respect Emily, post 17 is not entirely accurate. We're witnessing a failure to compromise on a host of issues that don't involve substantive due process. In short, that is the nexus of Boehner legal challenge to Obama. One can argue that Obama is inflexible, and he's certainly an elitist, but the 40 or so House members who hold Boehner's manhood hostage are at least as inflexible.

This is a nice thread, and I don't want any part in hijacking it. And that's why I'm posting. As Dante has well pointed out substantive due process involves something more, commonly referred to as fundamental rights. And that's different from procedural due process that applies to the govt's power to coerce us into doing, or not doing, something. I suspect this is most often of a financial nature, and perhaps that where the conflict comes from forcing the "Christian baker" to bake the cake ... or stop baking cakes for the general public.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wasn't talking about insurance on your house I was talking about interest on your mortgage.

No. The government doesn't force you to buy health insurance. They give you a tax break for having it. It just looks like they're forcing you to buy it.

It's like saying the government is forcing you to have a child because your taxes will be several thousand dollars per year higher if you don't have one compared to the person who does.

Keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. The substantial difference between Obamacare and every other example you give is that Obamacare imposes a penalty on you for not buying something, the other tax breaks are handed out after you buy something.

The order in which they happen is irrelevant. The healthcare 'penalty' is part of your tax liability before you claim the deduction it affords if you have insurance. It's like the penalty for not giving to charity, or not buying energy conserving materials for your home.

The order is only irrelevant to those that think the government is always right, to the rest of us the order is the essential thing.

 

[bendog]

Keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. The substantial difference between Obamacare and every other example you give is that Obamacare imposes a penalty on you for not buying something, the other tax breaks are handed out after you buy something.

The order in which they happen is irrelevant. The healthcare 'penalty' is part of your tax liability before you claim the deduction it affords if you have insurance. It's like the penalty for not giving to charity, or not buying energy conserving materials for your home.

The order is only irrelevant to those that think the government is always right, to the rest of us the order is the essential thing.

pfft. Imo the mandate is unwise policy and politically, and frankly so is much of the requirements of what policies contain, as is the entire scheme of the law to keep treatment costs from being transparent.

But it is a tax penalty. The difference between it and other deductions is simply that it is premised upon you buying (or otherwise getting) insurance rather than doing something like giving money to a charity. But consider the mortgage interest deduction. You only get that if you buy something, ie a house. The govt is essentially coercing you to do some economic activity. Frankly, the HC incentive is clearer for me. HC accounts for something like 20% of the economy. Crazy I know. But, if you don't have HC insurance, it's very likely the cost is passed onto the rest of us. I have less social objections to that penalty than someone who financially can't get approved for a mortgage being penalized compared to those who can.

 

[emilynghiem]

The order in which they happen is irrelevant. The healthcare 'penalty' is part of your tax liability before you claim the deduction it affords if you have insurance. It's like the penalty for not giving to charity, or not buying energy conserving materials for your home.

Hi [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]
Can you reply to the above comparisons?

A.

1. if the tax deductions for children were done this way:
that a 1% tax is ADDED to all people's burdens if they do not have children
and this ADDED tax is waived if they do

Would that be closer to what the insurance mandates are ADDING?

2. if the tax deductions for energy conservation were done this way:
that a 1% tax is ADDED to all people's burdens if they don't buy these materials
and this is ADDED tax is waived if they do

Do you see the difference where it isn't "keeping the taxes the same
but offering an additional deduction; it is raising the tax for all people
if they don't buy something and only waiving it if they do."

B. Another Important difference:
1. Even if you don't have kids and don't claim such deductions,
you can STILL claim OTHER deductions for OTHER options such as business deductions.

But the ACA mandates do NOT allow other options as equal exemptions!!!

So again, with children it would be like ADDING a tax of 1%
and only waiving it for people who have children as the ONLY CHOICE;
versus
if the govt ADDED a tax of 1% and allowed
EQUAL exemptions for waiving this tax by multiple choices:
* having children
* starting a school
* starting a business etc.
(not just one choice that many people disagree with religiously by creed)

2. With the charity example
the govt ADDS a 1% tax
and only waiving it for people who give to nonprofit charities
versus
if the govt ADDED a tax of 1% and allowed
EQUAL exemptions for waiving this tax by multiple choices:
* giving to nonprofit charities
* investing in a school or a business
* setting up a church run clinic, etc.
(not just one choice that many people disagree with religiously by creed)

The difference I am arguing about is
(a) NOT giving other options other than "buying insurance" which is a private choice
(b) limiting the options to things that are against people's beliefs
which is what is causing this to be so much more contentious than a normal tax issue

I will ask [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION] to help
if those examples are not clear enough to explain the difference here

 

[emilynghiem]

The order in which they happen is irrelevant. The healthcare 'penalty' is part of your tax liability before you claim the deduction it affords if you have insurance. It's like the penalty for not giving to charity, or not buying energy conserving materials for your home.

The order is only irrelevant to those that think the government is always right, to the rest of us the order is the essential thing.

HI [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION] and [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]
The order matters when you believe you HAD inherent rights as the default
and then the new policy or change infringed on them.

A. So people who believe that "right to govt health care" is the default
see the change from the HL case as "taking away" equal choice or access they had

B. people who believe that natural rights and freedoms are the default,
see the ACA mandates as restricting or regulating and penalizing those choices
and "taking away natural rights and liberties without due process"
and the HL case sought to restore SOME of the default by arguing one particular point

Similar with abortion rights
A. people who believe that right to life is the "natural default"
and abortion is not a natural choice, believe that establishing such a choice as legal
took away protections and failed to replace them with something adequate
B. people who believe that govt never has power to intrude on people's private
choices to that extent believe the change in laws restored "free choice as the default"

similar with gun rights
A. if you believe unrestricted gun rights are the default
then due process is needed FIRST before depriving a citizen of those liberties
(so if a law is passed that is unfair, removing it restores natural freedom as the default)
B. if you believe people's right to security is "taken away" by unchecked guns, and right to safety IS the default and depends on regulating guns by govt, you want people to be licensed, screened and prove first BEFORE qualifying for guns which is NOT a natural right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The order in which they happen is irrelevant. The healthcare 'penalty' is part of your tax liability before you claim the deduction it affords if you have insurance. It's like the penalty for not giving to charity, or not buying energy conserving materials for your home.

The order is only irrelevant to those that think the government is always right, to the rest of us the order is the essential thing.

pfft. Imo the mandate is unwise policy and politically, and frankly so is much of the requirements of what policies contain, as is the entire scheme of the law to keep treatment costs from being transparent.

But it is a tax penalty. The difference between it and other deductions is simply that it is premised upon you buying (or otherwise getting) insurance rather than doing something like giving money to a charity. But consider the mortgage interest deduction. You only get that if you buy something, ie a house. The govt is essentially coercing you to do some economic activity. Frankly, the HC incentive is clearer for me. HC accounts for something like 20% of the economy. Crazy I know. But, if you don't have HC insurance, it's very likely the cost is passed onto the rest of us. I have less social objections to that penalty than someone who financially can't get approved for a mortgage being penalized compared to those who can.

As you said, pfft.

There has never been a tax imposed on people for breathing anywhere in the world until now. That makes everything you said in an attempt to justify said tax ridiculous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The order in which they happen is irrelevant. The healthcare 'penalty' is part of your tax liability before you claim the deduction it affords if you have insurance. It's like the penalty for not giving to charity, or not buying energy conserving materials for your home.

Hi [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]
Can you reply to the above comparisons?

A.

1. if the tax deductions for children were done this way:
that a 1% tax is ADDED to all people's burdens if they do not have children
and this ADDED tax is waived if they do

Would that be closer to what the insurance mandates are ADDING?

Your tax without children is built into the marginal rates on your gross income.

Claiming children allows you to reduce the amount of your income that is taxable, through deductions,

or, reduce your total tax liability through credits.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's like saying the government is forcing you to have a child because your taxes will be several thousand dollars per year higher if you don't have one compared to the person who does.

^ Given this scenario ^
what is the equivalent of adding an Exemption
"for paying for your own health care directly,
and investing into charity teaching hospital programs and internships"
INSTEAD of either buying insurance under the regulations or paying into
govt exchanges and programs. What is the "equivalent" of adding OTHER
choices of how to pay for health care so these are not fined/taxed either but valid options so free market is respected
and health care is still covered?

What I am sayings is that people who do not believe in govt regulated or mandated
health care have equal right to pay for those same services and covering responsibilities
by investing DIRECTLY into services such as through schools or businesses and charities
INSTEAD of trying to manage all that through "federal govt and mandated exchanges" they don't BELIEVE have such authority except by consent.

So if this "having children lowering taxes" is the same thing,
can you tell me what is the equivalent of getting an EQUAL tax break
for choosing options for health care that DON'T violate beliefs about not going through govt

========================================

If you cannot think of the equivalent
here is my attempt, is this close enough

A. Group A says you should be able to choose to have and support children
without being REQUIRED to buy insurance or go through govt programs to cover the costs of children; but you can pay for your children using any legal means as your personal
business and choice, and can also keep freedom to help other people pay for their children. They believe this is more effective efficient responsible and natural, and do not believe it is lawful to force
this to be regulated through govt as it is people's personal freedom and decisions to make for themselves.

Because Group A believes it is unconstitutional govt infringement to regulate how people pay for their children, they do not believe in the mandates fines and penalties but oppose them based on their beliefs about limits on govt and the process to change such limits.

B. Group B says you must buy insurance under certain guidelines to pay
for supporting your children, or else pay a fine/tax to govt to support programs
to cover costs of children. So you are exempt from the fine/tax if you buy insurance or agree to go through the govt programs (neither of which Group A believes in by creed)

[MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION] [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]
is that a fair analogy?

Can either of you work backwards and take NYC analogy
about tax breaks for having children and tell me what the insurance terms or mandates
would look like if they were the equivalent of that tax difference?

is it this:
A. if the health care insurance was done as a similar deduction
then it wouldn't ADD any fine penalty for not buying it.
It would keep the tax laws as is and DEDUCT the cost
of people buying insurance. So it does not penalize people for not buying it whose taxes remain the same,
it only rewards those who do by deducting it. is that close to the same?
B. if the children reduced taxes was done like the ACA mandates
would it be fining people for NOT having children (ie adding an additional tax of 1% of income)
and not fining people if they do have children.

^ are either of those close to what NYC was saying in comparison with having children and tax deductions

how about this one:

C. if you don't have children but have businesses expenses you choose to support INSTEAD of children,
you can STILL deduct those "other options" from your taxes.
(ie you are NOT "disallowed to deduct for other things besides having children")

HOWEVER with the ACA mandates
you are ONLY allowed tax exemptions if you "buy insurance" as the ONLY choice (unless you are Amish
or only a few religious exemptions allows)
you are NOT allowed tax exemptions for
paying for your health care directly yourself or investing in charity hospitals or schools to help others.

So unlike the tax deductions for children, you AREN'T allowed deductions/exemption for other choices

Is that a fair clarification of the difference?
Can someone else help, Dante you're good at this, please review the above A B C

...

bump