[ExI] health care again, was: RE: Why Cities Keep Growing, Corporations and People Always Die, and Life Gets Faster

spike spike66 at att.net
Mon Jun 13 19:01:47 UTC 2011

>... On Behalf Of Damien Sullivan

>...Why should this be more of an issue here than it is with income tax and
means-tested programs in general?...

It is a critical issue here because the fed has no way of determining how
much you own.  They don't have means tests for this purpose.  The fed only
taxes based on what you make.  States can tax based on what you own, but the
fed cannot.  This is a critical and intentional distinction, because if the
fed decides it wants to tax based on what you own, it would require an
overhaul of the tax structure, which could have enormous unintended
consequences, such as capital fleeing abroad and into non-productive assets.

Note how often the term "rich" is used to mean someone with high income.
But I contend that $ and d$/dt are two related but different things.  If
your d$/dt is high enough for long enough, you will become rich.  But there
is a critically important difference between the two: the fed can only tax
on d$/dt.  States can (and do) tax on $, but the federal return only knows
about d$/dt.

If there is a broad notion of medical subsidies based on means testing, that
converts the medical system into a welfare system, which again relies on the
establishment clause in the constitution for legality, and brings on a whole
new set of legal problems.  A way around it is to start over, rewrite the
health care act to be legal under the establishment clause, and insert
severability.  A severability clause (intentionally missing in this version)
would allow part of the law to be struck down without striking the whole
2000 pages.  

Right now, I predict that the SCOTUS will find the individual mandate
illegal, and the result is the whole thing goes out the window.

When they start over, I recommend they restrict these acts to about fifty
pages of text, so at least some of the congress members will actually read
it, between sexting sessions.

>...As the Supreme Court has applied interstate commerce to the home
production of wheat...

Agreed the wheat business was a weird case.

>... and marijuana for personal consumption, I figure "specifically not
interstate" is a dead letter or else a completely arbitrary judicial

On the contrary.  Having marijuana declared a controlled substance was a
legal maneuver specifically derived ad hoc to avoid having the fed
restricted in its ability to restrict that particular substance.  I still
don't know what to do with the wheat case however.  That still seems to me
to be an illegal ruling.

>... being forced to pay into a health care system you will take advantage
of as needed seems perfectly fair, and a hell less damaging to anyone. -xx-
Damien X-

In principle I agree it is fair and reasonable to require people to buy
insurance, but the fed can't require that.  My argument is that the fed
doesn't have the authority to mandate it, for it is not among the enumerated
powers granted to it by the constitution.  States do have that authority,
the fed does not.  Arguing that it is fair and right and just still doesn't
put it in the constitution and doesn't make it legal.  If the supreme court
decides the fed does have the authority, they can immediately end
homelessness by requiring everyone to buy a house.  If the individual
mandate is found legal, it represents an astonishing expansion of government
authority, and demotes the constitution.  Watch and wait.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list