"We Will Not Comply": Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

[pnewton]

So if taxes were raised sufficiently to pay for the program, it would cease to be unjust? Its injustice lies solely in the incurring of national debt, in your view?

Perhaps. You only asked for a reason, not every reason, and excluded contraception as something to be laid aside. If you are not asking if a hypothetical healthcare bill could be written, I believe the bishops have already said that is a “yes”. Therefore, even one disagrees with one’s bishop on this, there is no way to make national healthcare intrinsically immoral from a Catholic perspective.

We might find if we raised taxes to pay for this bill, across the board, then support would evaporate. Too long Americans have selfishly dismisses the past ideal of making the country better for their children. Now we want it all now and are willing leave the bill to our posterity.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

The original GI Bill after WW-II for returning veterans (called the “Veterans’ Readjustment Act of 1944,”) was about 6 paragraphs.

But, not to worry, the regulations put in place to enforce the act amount to quite a few volumes. And those volumes are added to by the issuance of operating manuals, periodically revised, for VA employees.

And of course, vets couldn’t readjust just once, so nearly every year, the act is modified and enacted again at greater length and with more provisions.

Sorry to go off topic! But it’s all similar.

I think what you might be referring to is the document that authorized Congress to write the legislation that came to be known as the G.I. Bill. I’m sure the full bill that was signed by the President might have been a bit longer than 6 paragraphs…may be as many as 12 or 13!!!

 

[brumano]

He needs to learn what “socialist” actually means.

The law needs repair, but it is not socialist.

You know I agree it’s not really socialistic, it’s Marxist Communism and there really is a huge difference between the two. This law needs repeal not repair.

 

[tabycat]

Go brush up on history. The US SC has upheld such savory things as slavery, segregation and abortion.

But, the US SC changed its mind on slavery and segregation; hopefully it will do that again on abortion and ObamaCare. :tiphat::angel1:

 

[sedonaman]

One loophole is that since insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, a person could wait until they have been diagnosed with a major illness and THEN get coverage. Thus, getting something for nothing. In fact it would be stupid to pay into an insurance fund when you don’t have to. Why not wait until something serious comes along and then just take the payment?

That doesn’t exactly address my question, but it has been another issue I’ve asked about several times in this forum, and the answer has always been that the tax is to prevent someone from doing just what you described. So, I agree that [the rhetorical] you could pay the tax, which is less than insurance, wait until you have a need, then buy the insurance, and cancel after you are well.

So, how about my question?

---

“Nø, they can’t.”

 

[sedonaman]

Socialism is government ownership of the “means of production.”

When the majority of businesses, factories, land, etc., are owned by the government, then we can start talking about whether it’s socialism. That might not even be socialism, but at least you would have a reasonable case at that point.

A much better case could be made for Obama’s takeover of GM as socialist.

The discussion about socialism does need to be updated, I think, in an economy focused more on service industries than on material production. (That’s a concession to your argument.)

Whose private property is being denied?

Edwin

Were the rights of the owners of GM’s competitors denied?

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I am not sure if Catholic moral theology has addressed the problem of national debt. I don’t know. Maybe it has, but I haven’t seen any references to it lately.

In any case, it is simply not possible to raise taxes sufficiently to pay for all the federal programs and entitlement programs now in place. The federal government spends every single day over $4 billion more than it takes in, and that money is borrowed. No one has even proposed reducing the debt, only reducing its rate of increase.

With each passing month we come closer to monetary crisis. That, I am afraid, may ultimately be the moral problem which will dwarf all the rest. A bankrupt nation which cannot meet its promises will be more unjust than anything we have seen so far, and it is the poor who will suffer the most.

I tend to think it might be possible to pay for our entitlement programs with taxes. We have done it in the past with great success. I am thinking of the G.I. Bill. We don’t need to raise taxes. We just need to return to the tax base that we had in the past and close many corporate loopholes. We need to be a little smarter than we have been over the last 10 years or so.
I think part of the problem is that there is an anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric in this country now that is very destructive to our national conscience. Many people want to say that the poor are lazy or that entitlement programs make people grow dependent on the government. Although there may be a little truth to that, the percentages are very low. The vast majority of people who use government assistance don’t want to be do nothing lazy loafers. Most people want to contribute to the well-being of the nation. We need to spend more time thinking about how we can help people rather than worrying about the few to are problematic. The benefits of good entitlement programs far out weight the deficits.

Catholic social morality does not seem to address national debt directly. But, we can know the moral path forward based on Catholic social morality. There are five fundamental principles that can help guide us.

1. The common good
2. The universal destination of goods
3. Subsidiarity
4. Participation
5. Solidarity

A discription of these can be found in chapter four at the Vatican web page for the Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church. Again see chapter 4.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

We CAN do this.

 

[JimG]

I tend to think it might be possible to pay for our entitlement programs with taxes. We have done it in the past with great success. I am thinking of the G.I. Bill. We don’t need to raise taxes. We just need to return to the tax base that we had in the past and close many corporate loopholes. We need to be a little smarter than we have been over the last 10 years or so.
I think part of the problem is that there is an anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric in this country now that is very destructive to our national conscience. Many people want to say that the poor are lazy or that entitlement programs make people grow dependent on the government. Although there may be a little truth to that, the percentages are very low. The vast majority of people who use government assistance don’t want to be do nothing lazy loafers. Most people want to contribute to the well-being of the nation. We need to spend more time thinking about how we can help people rather than worrying about the few to are problematic. The benefits of good entitlement programs far out weight the deficits.

Catholic social morality does not seem to address national debt directly. But, we can know the moral path forward based on Catholic social morality. There are five fundamental principles that can help guide us.

1. The common good
2. The universal destination of goods
3. Subsidiarity
4. Participation
5. Solidarity

A discription of these can be found in chapter four at the Vatican web page for the Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church. Again see chapter 4.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

We CAN do this.

Whether or not we can do it remains to be seen. The problem with every entitlement program ever created is that it inevitably increases, both in cost and in coverage, as time goes on. That applied to Social Security, to Medicare, to Medicare Part D, and to other social benefit programs. They start small, they grow, they become unmanageable and expensive. If we can do it with taxes, then increase taxes each year sufficient to cover their cost, and there will be no borrowing. I think, though, that might lead to a tax revolt.

But I worry not so much about each year’s fiscal deficit, although those are bad enough. I worry more about the ever expanding total indebtedness, now approaching 16 trillion dollars. That debt, even if it does not drag us into a depression, will act as a huge drag on growth and on the economy for many decades to come, virtually ensuring that future generations will not enjoy the level of prosperity that we have enjoyed. To saddle future generations with this huge debt which will permanently saddle their ability to prosper seems to me quite unjust. I’m afraid we have already tossed those future generations under the bus.

 

[sedonaman]

…We CAN do this.

Nø, we can’t, and here is why
[click the link at the bottom of the article]:

“A CRISIS OF COMPETENCE”
By the National Association of Scholars

This paper is quite lengthy, but here is the Table of Contents:

Introduction 1

1. Why Is It Wrong to Use the University for Political Purposes? 4
   1.1 Moral and Legal Objections 4
   1.2 The Effect of Politicization on the Quality of Education and Research 5
2. University of California Rules That Prohibit Use of Its Facilities to Advance a Political Ideology 9
3. Common Defenses of Political Activism in Higher Education 12
4. The Evidence from the University of California’s Campuses 18
   4.1 The Political Orientation of the Faculty 18
   4.2 What Is Happening in the Classroom? 30
   4.3 Impoverished Education Through Politicized Curricular Choices and Omissions 45
   4.4 Required Programs, Core Courses, and General Reading Lists 49
   4.5 Campus Events 52
   4.6 Disrupted Lectures: Campus Hostility to the Free Expression of Ideas 55
   4.7 Administrative Passivity and Complicity 56
5. Educational and Social Consequences of a Corrupted Academy 60
   5.1 Evidence of a Sharply Inferior Higher Education 60
   5.2 Damage to High School Education 65
   5.3 Cancelling the Leveling Effect of Higher Education 67
   5.4 The Decline of Respect for Academic Research 69
   5.5 Decreasing Respect for Academia in American Society 71
   5.6 Damage to the Nation’s Cohesion and Sense of Itself 74
6. The Responsibility of the Regents 76
   The heart of the thesis is that when one side is eliminated from the academic debate, the other side suffers as well. It also notes that the problem is not limited to the University of California; it is nationwide. If you can’t get the establishment to change based on non-religious guidelines, how can you expect it to use religious ones, and Catholic at that?

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Whether or not we can do it remains to be seen. The problem with every entitlement program ever created is that it inevitably increases, both in cost and in coverage, as time goes on. That applied to Social Security, to Medicare, to Medicare Part D, and to other social benefit programs. They start small, they grow, they become unmanageable and expensive. If we can do it with taxes, then increase taxes each year sufficient to cover their cost, and there will be no borrowing. I think, though, that might lead to a tax revolt.

But I worry not so much about each year’s fiscal deficit, although those are bad enough. I worry more about the ever expanding total indebtedness, now approaching 16 trillion dollars. That debt, even if it does not drag us into a depression, will act as a huge drag on growth and on the economy for many decades to come, virtually ensuring that future generations will not enjoy the level of prosperity that we have enjoyed. To saddle future generations with this huge debt which will permanently saddle their ability to prosper seems to me quite unjust. I’m afraid we have already tossed those future generations under the bus.

Like I said, we need to be smarter. We need to find what programs work and make sure they are well funded and cut the parts of them that do not work.
At this point I think this debate in this country is led more my emotions than be statistics.
I agree with you, programs do tend to grow. On the other hand some times they shrink, like the G.I. Bill. Some start to be used for things they were never ment to be used for. Social Security is a good example of that.
I don’t think the problem with our deficite is all about entitlement programs. A huge part of the problem is also our military spending and the shrinking of our tax base over the last 10 years. We have an income problem too.
As Catholics, I think it might be helpful if we find ways to protect the vulnerable and poor and then make our national budget fit that. Not the other way around. I think Catholic social morality tells us to put people before things. That is part of the message of the five foundational principles found in chapter 4 of the Compendium of the social teachings of the Church.

 

[ACCT]

I am not sure if Catholic moral theology has addressed the problem of national debt. I don’t know. Maybe it has, but I haven’t seen any references to it lately.

In any case, it is simply not possible to raise taxes sufficiently to pay for all the federal programs and entitlement programs now in place. The federal government spends every single day over $4 billion more than it takes in, and that money is borrowed. No one has even proposed reducing the debt, only reducing its rate of increase.

With each passing month we come closer to monetary crisis. That, I am afraid, may ultimately be the moral problem which will dwarf all the rest. A bankrupt nation which cannot meet its promises will be more unjust than anything we have seen so far, and it is the poor who will suffer the most.

 

[JimG]

Like I said, we need to be smarter. We need to find what programs work and make sure they are well funded and cut the parts of them that do not work.
At this point I think this debate in this country is led more my emotions than be statistics.
I agree with you, programs do tend to grow. On the other hand some times they shrink, like the G.I. Bill. Some start to be used for things they were never ment to be used for. Social Security is a good example of that.
I don’t think the problem with our deficite is all about entitlement programs. A huge part of the problem is also our military spending and the shrinking of our tax base over the last 10 years. We have an income problem too.
As Catholics, I think it might be helpful if we find ways to protect the vulnerable and poor and then make our national budget fit that. Not the other way around. I think Catholic social morality tells us to put people before things. That is part of the message of the five foundational principles found in chapter 4 of the Compendium of the social teachings of the Church.

As to the part that I have bolded, consider that no one would apply such a maxim to an individual family. Even at the state level it could not be applied. If the family first looked around and decided what it would need to spend on itself, and what it would need to help the poor and needy closest to them, and only then designed a budget to ‘fit’ that, they would likely be borrowing every single year. As their family spending continued to outpace their income, bankruptcy would become inevitable. That’s the situation the federal government finds itself in today. It’s rather similar to the situation in many European countries.

States and cities cannot create money, so they must live within their means, or declare bankrupcty (as some cities are doing now.)

The Federal government can create money and can continually borrow to refinance the debt, so it seems to believe that it can spend without ceasing. But it is wrong. Eventually the debt bubble implodes. I am not the only one who worries about this.

You mention that government programs sometimes shrink; you mentioned the GI bill in particular. I worked for one part of that agency–the one involved in home loans. Note the original title of the Act: “Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944.” Did the program expire once the returning WW-II servicemen had readjusted? Not a chance. It continued to expaned. And every year it is rewritten to provide expanded benefits–in the way of hospital benefits, home loan benefits, education benefits, compensation benefits, income assistance benefits. The “readjustment” will never end.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

As to the part that I have bolded, consider that no one would apply such a maxim to an individual family. Even at the state level it could not be applied. If the family first looked around and decided what it would need to spend on itself, and what it would need to help the poor and needy closest to them, and only then designed a budget to ‘fit’ that, they would likely be borrowing every single year. As their family spending continued to outpace their income, bankruptcy would become inevitable. That’s the situation the federal government finds itself in today. It’s rather similar to the situation in many European countries.

States and cities cannot create money, so they must live within their means, or declare bankrupcty (as some cities are doing now.)

The Federal government can create money and can continually borrow to refinance the debt, so it seems to believe that it can spend without ceasing. But it is wrong. Eventually the debt bubble implodes. I am not the only one who worries about this.

You mention that government programs sometimes shrink; you mentioned the GI bill in particular. I worked for one part of that agency–the one involved in home loans. Note the original title of the Act: “Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944.” Did the program expire once the returning WW-II servicemen had readjusted? Not a chance. It continued to expaned. And every year it is rewritten to provide expanded benefits–in the way of hospital benefits, home loan benefits, education benefits, compensation benefits, income assistance benefits. The “readjustment” will never end.

The G.I. Bill, as it was known in the 40’s and 50’s ended in 1956. However it has continued up to today in a greatly modified and reduced form.

I am not advocating “making money.” I am advocating restoring our tax base to what it was in the past. We can increase our income by closing corporate tax loopholes. That is real money and not inflationary spending or deficit raising.

A family can chose to buy a small house or a big house. If they want a big house they can chose to have mom go out and work to gain more income.

The government is a bit different in that it has many more options of how to raise income than does a family. Your analogy limps.

For example, we can close corporate loopholes and we can cut military spending. There are lots of things we can do.

We really can do this. Taxes are a good thing and so is government.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

As to the part that I have bolded, consider that no one would apply such a maxim to an individual family. Even at the state level it could not be applied. If the family first looked around and decided what it would need to spend on itself, and what it would need to help the poor and needy closest to them, and only then designed a budget to ‘fit’ that, they would likely be borrowing every single year. As their family spending continued to outpace their income, bankruptcy would become inevitable. That’s the situation the federal government finds itself in today. It’s rather similar to the situation in many European countries.

States and cities cannot create money, so they must live within their means, or declare bankrupcty (as some cities are doing now.)

The Federal government can create money and can continually borrow to refinance the debt, so it seems to believe that it can spend without ceasing. But it is wrong. Eventually the debt bubble implodes. I am not the only one who worries about this.

You mention that government programs sometimes shrink; you mentioned the GI bill in particular. I worked for one part of that agency–the one involved in home loans. Note the original title of the Act: “Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944.” Did the program expire once the returning WW-II servicemen had readjusted? Not a chance. It continued to expaned. And every year it is rewritten to provide expanded benefits–in the way of hospital benefits, home loan benefits, education benefits, compensation benefits, income assistance benefits. The “readjustment” will never end.

Here is a history of the G.I. Bill right from the VA’s web site.

gibill.va.gov/benefits/history_timeline/index.html

 

[Rhuarc]

He needs to learn what “socialist” actually means.

The law needs repair, but it is not socialist.

“How do you tell a communist, well he’s someone who read Marx and Lenin. How do you tell an anticommunist, he is someone who UNDERSTANDS Marx and Lenin.”- Ronald Reagan

Tell me, do you understand Marx and Lenin? This law is just one more brick in the road to us becoming a socialistic welfare state.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

As to the part that I have bolded, consider that no one would apply such a maxim to an individual family. Even at the state level it could not be applied. If the family first looked around and decided what it would need to spend on itself, and what it would need to help the poor and needy closest to them, and only then designed a budget to ‘fit’ that, they would likely be borrowing every single year. As their family spending continued to outpace their income, bankruptcy would become inevitable. That’s the situation the federal government finds itself in today. It’s rather similar to the situation in many European countries.

States and cities cannot create money, so they must live within their means, or declare bankrupcty (as some cities are doing now.)

The Federal government can create money and can continually borrow to refinance the debt, so it seems to believe that it can spend without ceasing. But it is wrong. Eventually the debt bubble implodes. I am not the only one who worries about this.

You mention that government programs sometimes shrink; you mentioned the GI bill in particular. I worked for one part of that agency–the one involved in home loans. Note the original title of the Act: “Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944.” Did the program expire once the returning WW-II servicemen had readjusted? Not a chance. It continued to expaned. And every year it is rewritten to provide expanded benefits–in the way of hospital benefits, home loan benefits, education benefits, compensation benefits, income assistance benefits. The “readjustment” will never end.

I did say that we should consider the NEEDS of the poor. I did not say that we should fund any crazy program that comes down the pike. Perhaps it might be helpful to consider the difference between NEEDS and WANTS?

I also did say that we have to be smart about how we do this.

It seems like some people say that because programs get out of hand…we should cut all entitlement programs.

We need to find out what are the needs of the vulnerable and poor and make sure they get the help that they need.

Cutting everything is not the answer.

 

[JimG]

Here is a history of the G.I. Bill right from the VA’s web site.

gibill.va.gov/benefits/history_timeline/index.html

Yes, here is the main website for the GI bill education benefits: gibill.va.gov/
and here is the site for all VA benefits.

va.gov/

A friend of mine complained that when he got out of the USMC the education benefits were not as generous as they were previously, and not as generous as they became later in a subsequent reauthorization of the bill. They change with each legislative session.

I don’t think that you will find the VA budget to have decreased since 1944. I haven’t looked, but I doubt that the budget of any federal agency has decreased. And of course, we keep creating new agencies: Dept. of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, just to name a few of the more recent ones. No federal agency considers itself to have a mandate to put itself out of business. They always find a way to find new clients for their services.

And even if, as you suppose, the government could find a way to live within it’s means by raising taxes, (raise taxes by $4 billion a day??), the existing unsustainable $16 trillion debt will continue to be an enormous drag on growth and prosperity for years to come.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Yes, here is the main website for the GI bill education benefits: gibill.va.gov/
and here is the site for all VA benefits.

va.gov/

A friend of mine complained that when he got out of the USMC the education benefits were not as generous as they were previously, and not as generous as they became later in a subsequent reauthorization of the bill. They change with each legislative session.

I don’t think that you will find the VA budget to have decreased since 1944. I haven’t looked, but I doubt that the budget of any federal agency has decreased. And of course, we keep creating new agencies: Dept. of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, just to name a few of the more recent ones. No federal agency considers itself to have a mandate to put itself out of business. They always find a way to find new clients for their services.

And even if, as you suppose, the government could find a way to live within it’s means by raising taxes, (raise taxes by $4 billion a day??), the existing unsustainable $16 trillion debt will continue to be an enormous drag on growth and prosperity for years to come.

I am not sure where the $4 billion a day comes from. It will take us a while to have the kind of balance in our budget that we need. However, I don’t think it is a good idea not to invest in our kids by cutting education in order pay of our debt.
We can do both.

The EPA and the DOT are not entitlement programs and their budgets are kinda small when put next to Defence.

We really can fix the healthcare problems and cut the debt. Cutting everything is not the answer. You have to spend money to make money and you have to make money to save money.

 

[ACCT]

.

Cutting everything is not the answer.

We are past the point of no return. Cutting everything will not be a choice. The American dollar will collapse. The economy will never improve. Look at what is happening in Europe.

 

[JimG]

I am not sure where the $4 billion a day comes from. It will take us a while to have the kind of balance in our budget that we need. However, I don’t think it is a good idea not to invest in our kids by cutting education in order pay of our debt.
We can do both.

The EPA and the DOT are not entitlement programs and their budgets are kinda small when put next to Defence.

We really can fix the healthcare problems and cut the debt. Cutting everything is not the answer. You have to spend money to make money and you have to make money to save money.

$4 billion per day is the amount we are spending right now more than we take in. That’s the amount taxes would have to be raised if we want to just quit borrowing. The national debt would continue to increase because of interest costs.

It would be great if we could continue every every program that benefits someone. But we have already unjustly made the next generation poorer. It would magnify the injustice to just keep doing it.