Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

South Carolina Bill Would Nullify ‘Obamacare’
The Times Examiner ^ | Wednesday, 21 November 2012 | Bob Dill

Posted on 12/04/2012 5:51:13 AM PST by Resettozero

South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act Declares ‘Obamacare’ Unconstitutional and invalid in South Carolina

A proposed bill sponsored by Rep. William Chumley of Spartanburg County, and designed to block ‘Obamacare’ in South Carolina, will be pre-filed in Columbia before the end of the year.

The South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act declares the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” passed by a “lame duck’ Democrat Congress and signed into law by President Obama, to be “unconstitutional,” “invalid” and “shall be considered null and void in this state.”

The description of the act reads as follows:

An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.

Rep. Chumley discussed the proposed new law at the November meeting of RINO Hunt. During the discussion, it was noted that there are examples of “Nullification” being used by various states going back for more than a century. The most recent are states legalizing marijuana and homosexual marriage prohibited by federal law. Sanctuary Cities for illegal aliens is another example.

Rep. Chumley said he plans to pre-file the bill before the end of the year. He is currently seeking co-sponsors of the bill. The bill is also being introduced in the Senate.

(Excerpt) Read more at timesexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-144 last
To: Tublecane

It might help to know that in my #13, I was quoting #3, but forgot to put it in italics.


101 posted on 12/04/2012 9:54:09 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

“The Pleasure case was grounded in contemporary ‘racial science’”

Even if it wad, and I’m not agreeing, so what? SCOTUS still decided differently then compared to Brown. That was the point. The only way I could see to salvage your SCOTUS infallibility argument was to make it a “living Constitution.”

“I’ve been trying to figure out what the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality is, if not the Supreme Court”

Ask yourself why the Constitution starts “We the people,” aside from a bask to hide the constitutional convention being a coup led by a small cabal of spites. We believe, or pretend to believe, in popular sovereignty. It is the people who are the final arbiters, either trough the federal government, through the states, or through themselves.

“I’ve realized that it’s you, some other Freepers and South Carolina”

Crazy system, this popular sovereignty, and workable. But that’s how it is. Possibly saner than ultimate sovereignty lying within the central government itself, specifically nine lifetermers.


102 posted on 12/04/2012 9:57:55 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Sadly, your comparison example really holds no water.

They have already instituted “cellphone possession is a basic right”.

Coming in January is “medical care is a basic right”.

How far down the road do you think “vehicle possession is a basic right” is?

Oh, I forgot they HATE the independence that vehicle possession represents, so they’ll classify “mass transit free pass is a basic right” instead, right after they take over the auto industry for good and restrict sales to only those in positions of power.

(eg How many regular people had cars in the old USSR???)


103 posted on 12/04/2012 9:58:23 AM PST by CanuckYank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

“this legal theory was tested...and lost. We then had an internal war over it and the people fighting for thus idea lost.”

That hardly settles it, Mr. Might Makes Right.

By the way, what are these non-war tests of which you speak? Did SCOTUS ever declare popular sovereignty null? Or was it more like various sections threatened secession, then nothing came of it. Or Jackson threatened South Carolina, and it flinched, so nothing came of it.

I always thought it was significant the feds never prosecuted anyone for secession. You’d think the conquering heroes would want to justify themselves in court. It never, ever was officially declared illegal, was it?


104 posted on 12/04/2012 10:04:33 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

“this legal theory was tested...and lost. We then had an internal war over it and the people fighting for thus idea lost.”

That hardly settles it, Mr. Might Makes Right.

By the way, what are these non-war tests of which you speak? Did SCOTUS ever declare popular sovereignty null? Or was it more like various sections threatened secession, then nothing came of it. Or Jackson threatened South Carolina, and it flinched, so nothing came of it.

I always thought it was significant the feds never prosecuted anyone for secession. You’d think the conquering heroes would want to justify themselves in court. It never, ever was officially declared illegal, was it?


105 posted on 12/04/2012 10:04:33 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
yet you continue with such dishonest lines of reasoning in spite of the testimony against your positions.

I'm saying that the SCOTUS ruled the law constitutional. How is it dishonest to cite objective reality?

Curious though what your motivation is for posting all this on FR.

I dunno, a dedication to keeping in touch with what is happening in the real world as opposed to some idealized hypothetical world? How about that? Have facts fallen that far out of favor?

106 posted on 12/04/2012 10:06:42 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I always thought it was significant the feds never prosecuted anyone for secession. You’d think the conquering heroes would want to justify themselves in court. It never, ever was officially declared illegal, was it?

So... the Confederacy didn't really lose kinda sorta because the Union didn't say "Simon Says" or something?

107 posted on 12/04/2012 10:10:40 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
I dunno, a dedication to keeping in touch with what is happening in the real world as opposed to some idealized hypothetical world? How about that? Have facts fallen that far out of favor?

Again I must call Stra...you know...to your unsatisfactory and self-pitying explanation. Real world? Hypothetical world? Facts out of favor? Really, why are you here at FR?
108 posted on 12/04/2012 10:13:22 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
So... the Confederacy didn't really lose kinda sorta because the Union didn't say "Simon Says" or something?

Well, I'll answer for you then. You are here on FR to distract us from tending this kettle of American conservatism until you can knock it over, oblivious to the fact you are there and we are here with eyes on the kettle and with more than your idea of "facts" in our armory and personal arsenals of knowledge and wisdom. You have shown yourself for who and what you are: insincere.
109 posted on 12/04/2012 10:25:57 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

“Wow, well you’d better call them up and tell them that, since they apparently forgot and ruled on the case anyway”

Your sarcasm reveals a profound ignorance. The very fact that the case got to them means someone had standing on other grounds. Once it’s there they rule, like I said, based on a presumption of constitutionality. Like in the NFL, where the call on the field stands unless incontrovertible evidence shows otherwise. Any old excuse will do. So long as it could be viewed as a tax—and Roberts’ language was that weak—it passes muster.

Which isn’t to say it was a legal tax. That issue wax deferred. All he said was that it could be seen as a tax, and left it at that. It remains for future complaintants to get them to rule on whether the mandate penalty/tax is proper.

“Just nobody bothered to cite the 10th amendment when making them”

They don’t have to. Like I said, it was superfluous in the first place. And the commerce clause arguments of the dissenting opinions were pure 10th amendment even if they didn’t say so. You have to understand that in addition to the Constitution and precedent, there is the way lawyers talk and judges hear. They just don’t talk about the 10th amendment much anymore. Which is not to say its logic doesn’t still inform arguments.

“So you win in Make Believe Supreme Court”

Look, I realize when SCOTUS rules people abide. It gets the say, and people treat it like the law. But does that mean I can’t talk about them being wrong, even? Anything but silent acceptance and moving on is utopian fantasy cloudcuckooland talk?

“conservativism applied to make-believe worlds”

Yeah, you’re all about the hardnised reality. Just the facts. Might makes right, so we better get back the might. Pointless comparing life to something outside the here and now, like how the Constitution is actually written, or my thoughts which don’t fit conventional opinion enough to win us the next election, or the past, or any kind of philosophy. Bunch of nambypamby pansyass thinking, is all that is. Give me facts, not thoughts.

You’re like a human adding machine. But you know what they say? Junk in, junk out.


110 posted on 12/04/2012 10:26:15 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Real world? Hypothetical world?

OK, let me type this really, really slowly.

In the real world, Obamacare was taken to the Supreme Court and found constitutional. We can argue about the stupidity of the ruling but it is what it is.

In the hypothetical world, the ruling doesn't matter or wouldn't have happened or Iron Man would have blown up Obama's secret base or whatever.

Real: Obamacare is the law of the land.

Hypothetical: torch-wielding mob storms Congress and overthrows the bastards.

I realize that hypothetical world is more fun, but if we want to be conservative activists and effect real change in where this country is headed, we have to do it in the real world.

111 posted on 12/04/2012 10:26:20 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

“Wow, well you’d better call them up and tell them that, since they apparently forgot and ruled on the case anyway”

Your sarcasm reveals a profound ignorance. The very fact that the case got to them means someone had standing on other grounds. Once it’s there they rule, like I said, based on a presumption of constitutionality. Like in the NFL, where the call on the field stands unless incontrovertible evidence shows otherwise. Any old excuse will do. So long as it could be viewed as a tax—and Roberts’ language was that weak—it passes muster.

Which isn’t to say it was a legal tax. That issue wax deferred. All he said was that it could be seen as a tax, and left it at that. It remains for future complaintants to get them to rule on whether the mandate penalty/tax is proper.

“Just nobody bothered to cite the 10th amendment when making them”

They don’t have to. Like I said, it was superfluous in the first place. And the commerce clause arguments of the dissenting opinions were pure 10th amendment even if they didn’t say so. You have to understand that in addition to the Constitution and precedent, there is the way lawyers talk and judges hear. They just don’t talk about the 10th amendment much anymore. Which is not to say its logic doesn’t still inform arguments.

“So you win in Make Believe Supreme Court”

Look, I realize when SCOTUS rules people abide. It gets the say, and people treat it like the law. But does that mean I can’t talk about them being wrong, even? Anything but silent acceptance and moving on is utopian fantasy cloudcuckooland talk?

“conservativism applied to make-believe worlds”

Yeah, you’re all about the hardnised reality. Just the facts. Might makes right, so we better get back the might. Pointless comparing life to something outside the here and now, like how the Constitution is actually written, or my thoughts which don’t fit conventional opinion enough to win us the next election, or the past, or any kind of philosophy. Bunch of nambypamby pansyass thinking, is all that is. Give me facts, not thoughts.

You’re like a human adding machine. But you know what they say? Junk in, junk out.


112 posted on 12/04/2012 10:26:33 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

“Wow, well you’d better call them up and tell them that, since they apparently forgot and ruled on the case anyway”

Your sarcasm reveals a profound ignorance. The very fact that the case got to them means someone had standing on other grounds. Once it’s there they rule, like I said, based on a presumption of constitutionality. Like in the NFL, where the call on the field stands unless incontrovertible evidence shows otherwise. Any old excuse will do. So long as it could be viewed as a tax—and Roberts’ language was that weak—it passes muster.

Which isn’t to say it was a legal tax. That issue wax deferred. All he said was that it could be seen as a tax, and left it at that. It remains for future complaintants to get them to rule on whether the mandate penalty/tax is proper.

“Just nobody bothered to cite the 10th amendment when making them”

They don’t have to. Like I said, it was superfluous in the first place. And the commerce clause arguments of the dissenting opinions were pure 10th amendment even if they didn’t say so. You have to understand that in addition to the Constitution and precedent, there is the way lawyers talk and judges hear. They just don’t talk about the 10th amendment much anymore. Which is not to say its logic doesn’t still inform arguments.

“So you win in Make Believe Supreme Court”

Look, I realize when SCOTUS rules people abide. It gets the say, and people treat it like the law. But does that mean I can’t talk about them being wrong, even? Anything but silent acceptance and moving on is utopian fantasy cloudcuckooland talk?

“conservativism applied to make-believe worlds”

Yeah, you’re all about the hardnosed reality. Just the facts. Might makes right, so we better get back the might. Pointless comparing life to something outside the here and now, like how the Constitution is actually written, or my thoughts which don’t fit conventional opinion enough to win us the next election, or the past, or any kind of philosophy. Bunch of nambypamby pansyass thinking, is all that is. Give me facts, not thoughts.

You’re like a human adding machine. But you know what they say? Junk in, junk out.


113 posted on 12/04/2012 10:26:40 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
You have shown yourself for who and what you are: insincere.

I'm sincere, all right.

Let me explain why you are on FR: to shake your fist at reality until it gets off your lawn.

Good luck with that. Really.

114 posted on 12/04/2012 10:29:15 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

“the Confederacy didn’t really lose kinda sorta because the Union didn’t say ‘Simon Says’ or something?”

Something. The Union won in bullets and shells and so forth. But did it win in court, was the question. I realize you think Might Makes Right and can’t be bothered with fantastical alternatives to history. Just saying so far as I know there were plans to try Jeff Davis and possibly others as traitors based on secession as illegal. They never went through with it. Why, on earth, if the issue was settled?


115 posted on 12/04/2012 10:34:39 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
But does that mean I can’t talk about them being wrong, even?

Of course we can. And you're right that we should.

My only point is this: to what end? As far as I can tell, these legal assaults on the Obamacare tax are not in the offing because that is, for now, a legal dead end.

When it comes to nullification, who is going to rule on that? Unless there's another Supreme Court that I haven't read about, then nullification is not going to fly. If the SC law passes, is Nikki Haley going to stand in the doorway of insurance agencies and prevent people from buying insurance or something? How is this going to work?

In understand the value of protest actions -- I really do, but what are we going to do in substance? What about my suggestion that we* formulate a market-based alternative and use that to get an Obamacare exemption? If we did that, there would be no conflict with the law. We would use Obamacare's own provisions to render it irrelevant.

* By "we" I mean those among us with the chops to formulate health care policy.

116 posted on 12/04/2012 10:37:26 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

In the real world Obama is president, Obamacare is law, SCOTUS has never been overturned on Wickard, Kelo, Helvering, Penn Central, the Gold Clause Cases, Home Building and Loan, Carolene Products, the Shreveport Rate Cases, Miller, Korematsu, Bakke, much of McConnell, etc. The draft is not involuntary servitude, we fight endless wars around the globe for...something, the national debt is more than GDP, not only will we not reform entitlement programs but we keep adding them, everyone including me is a hopeless egalitarian, we have if not pure socialism at the very least used to be called fascism before Hitler warped its meaning to most ears, the sector that pays all the taxes is accused of not paying its fair share and people believe it, healthcare, “food justice,” free cell phones, free contraception, free college education, free healthcare, and countless other things are becoming inalienable rights.

The real world sucks. We need to compare it to something outside itself to understand it.


117 posted on 12/04/2012 10:48:58 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Oh my. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
The real world sucks. We need to compare it to something outside itself to understand it.

I see a lot of comparing and not a whole lot of understanding. I would give this intellectual exercise a great deal more credit if it produced results. My fear is that we're going to spend the rest of the century cursing the status quo and saying, "Remember 2010? That was awesome!"

118 posted on 12/04/2012 10:55:04 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

We’ve already gone over this. You think nullification is stupid and a dead end. I agree it may be a dead end, but think lost causes are worth fighting. No one, I think, is saying there is nothing else to do, and I doubt very much time at all has been spent in the country at large on nullification or challenges in grounds of the mandate being an illegal tax, etc.

I like arguing for practicality’s sake. But why do you need to go so far down hardnose lane? If there’s no practical hope of convincing the public at large that SCOTUS doesn’t have final say, do we have to pretend that they do by right, too? Do we have to pretend SCOTUS is infallible because nullification won’t work? Does it all have to be it’s over, it’s over, they ruled and that’s that?

Even if I went all the way with you, scorning Make Believe and anything that wasn’t designed to appeal to people who had never read word one of the Constitution, yours is a wild overcorrection. It’s enough to say nullification is a beautiful dream made vain by civil war. You don’t have to also say SCOTUS is by definition right and that anything else us unrealistic and idle fantasy.


119 posted on 12/04/2012 11:00:29 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
I see a lot of comparing and not a whole lot of understanding. I would give this intellectual exercise a great deal more credit if it produced results. My fear is that we're going to spend the rest of the century cursing the status quo and saying, "Remember 2010? That was awesome!"

To produce results satisfactory to you, and to aleviate your fear, you suggest that FReepers and other conservatives instead of taking such actions as this, ought to do...what?

This time, please offer a response that encapsules your sincerity. Thanks.
120 posted on 12/04/2012 11:07:37 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
But why do you need to go so far down hardnose lane?

Honestly? I think I'm a little bitter over recent events. Thank you for your patient attempts to inspire me out of my cynicism. You make some excellent points.

121 posted on 12/04/2012 11:25:16 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
Honestly? I think I'm a little bitter over recent events. Thank you for your patient attempts to inspire me out of my cynicism. You make some excellent points.

So it comes out; you are on this FR thread for therapeutic reasons. That's understandable and explains much.
122 posted on 12/04/2012 11:29:32 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
To produce results satisfactory to you, and to aleviate your fear, you suggest that FReepers and other conservatives instead of taking such actions as this, ought to do...what?

I made a concrete suggestion. Twice. Still no responses to that.

I have some other suggestions. Should I bother to type them in?

123 posted on 12/04/2012 11:33:19 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
I made a concrete suggestion. Twice. Still no responses to that.

Your concrete suggestion got lost somewhere along the line. Twice. Unfortunate for me that I didn't catch it because I'm not reviewing this thread.

I have some other suggestions. Should I bother to type them in?

Sure, as long as each demonstrates your sincerity on this thread, which I still call into question, not only because of your screen name but because of your flippancy in dealing with FR posters today.
124 posted on 12/04/2012 11:49:44 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
, and it is painfully obvious the mandate, the exchange, etc. will be a stepping stone toward an inevitable single payer system and the complete nationalization of healthcare. Why do we play along? Because we’re still the stupid party.

I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are: Americans are stubborn, we're going to do things her own way, and I don't think the system we have in 25 years will be "socialized"; I can't see a majority of US voters putting up with something nearly as centralized as the English healthcare system, and there are too many practical advantages to systems based on "managed competition".

Also, we really do have a substantial role for the states embedded in our political DNA, and I expect healthcare regulation and provision in the US will likely always have a substantial policy input on the regional if not the state level.

And if I had to make a guess, I would expect that the system as it evolves in the US will most likely become something that has many of the characteristics of the Dutch and German systems with some of the decentralization of the Canadian system:

"Single payer" via federal taxation, substantial policy input and control at the state or regional level, with care provided by five to seven major players, perhaps entirely privately owned, or perhaps a mix of for-profit and NFP providers.

And I'm pretty sure that the program will be both very popular and fairly efficient, and for most citizens it will probably be a more desirable arrangement than the current patch up because of continuity and portability; for example these two factors are one of the major reasons that small business is 2 to 3 times the percentage of GNP in parts of Western Europe than it is here, and why such businesses are more stable (less prone to failure, and especially to high initial attrition rates) than in the US.

Meanwhile, IMO the Republican Party's (not necessarily the same thing as "the conservative movement") decision to walk away from the table instead of fighting for plan characteristics that would likely do a better job of optimizing the system than some of the Democrat alternatives was an unwise gamble: too much downside compared to the likely upsides, and as a result it will be that much harder to rationalize the ACA.

125 posted on 12/04/2012 11:53:30 AM PST by M. Dodge Thomas (million)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Sure, as long as each demonstrates your sincerity on this thread, which I still call into question, not only because of your screen name but because of your flippancy in dealing with FR posters today.

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse ME.

The screen name was supposed to be a Bullwinkle reference -- which nobody ever gets. I would create a new one, but then I get people questioning me for being a recent sign-up. It's a real pickle.

126 posted on 12/04/2012 11:56:28 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
The screen name was supposed to be a Bullwinkle reference -- which nobody ever gets. I would create a new one, but then I get people questioning me for being a recent sign-up. It's a real pickle.

I see. And I can still hear Bullwinkle saying "Mr. Know-It-All" to Rocky, without my having to reference YouTube. Good screen name; beats mine for punch and swagger.
127 posted on 12/04/2012 12:06:49 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

“I can’t see a majority of US voters putting up with something as nearly centralized as the English healthcare system”

Why not? The early steps are the hardest. We got this far with 60%+ opposition. Momentum’s on the other side.

What about all the other nationalized industries? We’ve gone longer now with a central bank than we went without, and that was a damn long time compared to other civilizations. Whatever they don’t outright control now they dominate through regulation and fiscal and monetary policy, or simply haven’t gotten to. Look what they can do to student loans and energy through executive fiat. The so-called Reagan “revolution” barely slowed it down, let alone cut back.

Yeah, I’m pessimistic.


128 posted on 12/04/2012 12:12:14 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

This might not help you but it does work every time for me: My daughter sometimes will say, “Think on the good things Daddy.”


129 posted on 12/04/2012 12:18:06 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Good point. I am with you on this one.


130 posted on 12/04/2012 12:30:18 PM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

> but nowhere there can be a successful outcome for me or my progeny

Actually, there may be some substantial up-sides for your progeny in whatever evolves out of the ACA. For example as I’ve noted in this thread and elsewhere the exchanges are going to provide the first real opportunity for many individuals who want to start a business to access to health insurance for their families at anything approaching parity with people employed by organizations large enough to bargain for coverage.

That’s *huge* for people who want to start their own businesses, not only because it makes it easier to start a business, but it makes it far easier to *succeed* in a small business if you encounter significant health problems.

It this regard I was just reading an interesting article in today’s Financial Times about the realization in France that you have to allow repeated attempts by individuals who fail at starting a first business if you want subsequent businesses to succeed.

So French policymakers are wising up to the fact that the experience of failing in one business substantially *increases* your chance of success in the second attempt (compared to someone with business experience), and it’s wise policy to structure affairs such you make repeated attempts easier rather than more difficult!

At the same time in this country we been moving in the opposite direction in some ways.

For example the recent revisions to the bankruptcy laws make it more difficult to discharge credit-card debt is now thought to be substantially retarding new small business foundation, because the way that a lot of people fund the startup of a small business is with the only “business” credit they have available: their personal charge cards.

And while it seems only “fair” to make it more difficult to evade such debt, the flip-side of that is that it makes it far more difficult for the same individuals to start a subsequent business to earn enough income to pay the debts incurred in the previous attempt!

In a sense, makeing it easier to discharge such debt in bankruptcy is a “tax” on everyone else, however it now increasingly appears to be the case that the increased economic activity resulting from making such debts easier to discharge may be a net gain for the economy.

And... guess what. Some Western European countries are starting to think about “reforming” their relatively strict personal bankruptcy laws - the opposite of our own recent changes.

In the same way you can think of the ACA has a sort of “tax” on the insured and employed on behalf of the uninsured and the un-employeind (including those attempting to start a business, or recover from the failure of the previous attempt).

It somewhat reduces my “freedom” to pay such a a tax, but it also increases other peoples’ “freedom” to become self-employed and economically self-sufficient - so the result may be a net gain in the “freedom” experienced by society as a whole.

(The arguments easier to take seriously if you think of it taken to extremes: you can imagine a society where most people live in a state of virtual economic serfdom to a very small minority of kleptocratic elites - and in fact there places in the world where such societies exist.

The people at the top of the heap have almost unlimited personal freedom, and for the most part believe they deserve at.

OTOH, most observers elsewhere regard such societies as highly “unfree”, based on the actual political and economic options of the majority of their citizens.)

If you work backwards from such extremes, you start to realize that as regards “freedom” societies exist on a continuum where if you attempt to assert absolute individual rights as a primary social good you can only do so by reducing the practical “freedom” of someone else - and that many kinds of political and social arrangements (such as bankruptcy laws or access to health care) can operate in counter-intuitive ways to increase or decrease freedom for one group or another - my “freedom” may be reduced by arrangements which supply the necessary preconditions of “freedom” to someone else.

And if on the average the “freedom” increases to my benefit (for example, by living in a more affluent society, which can better afford to fund medical research which increases the productive lifetime of people like myself - as Steve Jobs discovered “All your money can’t another minute buy”) I untimely come out ahead.

Or, for example, should you attempt to start a business without health care for your family, and one of your children experience an illness that would otherwise bankrupted you, I profit from the fact that you can continue to attempt to make your business a success, growing the economy and eventually reducing my tax burden relative to the benefits I receive.

It all seems kind of theoretical, and sort of like rhetorical sleight of hand, but freedom is a complicated thing to understand without thinking about the social conditions in nurture it, so here is one more example to ponder:

In several of the “less-free” societies of Western Europe, small business is a much larger proportion of the economy than here, primarily because of various social policies that make it easier for small businesses to succeed.

The rewards for the most successful entrepreneurs are somewhat lower than here, but there are many more “reasonably successful” small business people (relative to population.

So, is the freedom to profit from individual effort smaller (lower rewards at the very top), or greater (more people are their own bosses - think of them as the modern equivalent of the civilly virtuous yeoman framers beloved of some of the Framers)... or just “different”?


131 posted on 12/04/2012 12:41:38 PM PST by M. Dodge Thomas (million)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

“a more desirable arrangement than the current patch up”

What really gets me is that people forget what a Frankenstein is the current system, and it gets characterized as the free market when opposed to the newer, speaker, more rational system. That always happens. Government screws it up, tgen we need nore government to fix the purported Wild West, laissez faire anarchy.

No, not Frankenstein. That implies deliberation. It is like the pile of Frankenstein pieces before they were sewn together.

“too much downside”

Easy to say now, but think what it took. Not just the summer of yelling old people, but a Republican senator in Ted Kennedy’s seat, reconciliation, deeming it to have passed, the Amazing Flopping Roberts, the taxalty argument out of nowhere, and it’s STILL not over.

Plus, the exchanges, preexisting coverage, and the mandate were at one time “conservative” ideas. Somehow we always come up with the worst ideas. Cap and Trade is ours, as a sensible “free market” alternative to, J don’t know what. Banning fossil fuels altogether? But who’d gi along with that, if we didn’t pave the ground for them.

Your feel for the US voter is accurate insofar as there’s some resistance left. But it’s a gradual thing, as I’ve said. If the president comes on tv and says that’s it, healthcare is an inalienable right. We’re taking over the hospitals. Welcome to the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. People would revolt.

His it happens, though, is they plan for these exchanges to be set up, to solve problems spawned of each individual state’s individually wacko rubric. And they’re demagogued about the poor uninsured, who are dying in the streets as well as bankrupting us in the ER. Then there’s the tragedy of preexisting conditions, which we can’t see as the child of the idiocy of having our employers cover us. So we destroy forever the concept of insurance by forcing coverage for the cancer you already have, sorta like buying fire insurance for your inflamed house. Alone this would bankrupt the industry, but we like individual responsibility so we throw on the mandate, which forces us to be responsible on threat of paying a fine that might be cheaper than being responsible.

Good as thus sounds, it is wildly unpopular, admittedly for some because it’s not socialist enough. It passes, just barely, and we missed an opportunity standing with our consciences. It could’ve had more of these great conservative ideas, like tort reform. Which knowing us would be ordering everyone to pay lawyer retainer fees for doctors, plus welfare called “illness justice” to cover those left unavenged in malpractice suits amounting somehow to more than we’re paying for court fees and settlements now. We’d find a way.


132 posted on 12/04/2012 12:42:20 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

You know what else benefits the economy as a whole besides forgiving debt? Saving. Remember that? Remember when people actually invested money that gad been earned and set aside? Remember when capital formation used to be based on something other than credit or redistribution, or both at the same time?


133 posted on 12/04/2012 12:49:17 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
he early steps are the hardest. We got this far with 60%+ opposition. Momentum’s on the other side.

But... most places that could have emulated the NHS didn't, and don't want to. France is probably closest, but Germany and the Netherlands (for example) chose "manged competition" by private insurers, and show no interest in further centralization or direct provision.

And the country that has moved in the most "Libertarian" direction in recent years (New Zeeland) opted to provide government insurance for catastrophic expense only.

So something ,like the NHS is *far* from inevitable, even in societies far more receptive to "Big Government" than our own.

In fact, most of these health care systems evolved out of preexisting arrangements and in accordance with "national temperament", and the US system is going to be the same - so IMO it's *far* more likely to look like the Dutch system than the English or even the French.

134 posted on 12/04/2012 12:58:09 PM PST by M. Dodge Thomas (million)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

*sniff*sniff*

U haz a smell.


135 posted on 12/04/2012 1:00:06 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

Your “freedom” is of the positive kind Obama’s so fond of contrasting with the negative freedom of our sordid past. The negative freedoms are actually freedoms, your freedoms something else. Dependence, really. Also a sort of theft.

You have it right to view Obamacare as one giant tax, as in ot will be a big drain on the economy. The result will be ever more poor saps who need to be carried and ever less paying for it, as usual.

Your parenthetical extremity simply makes no sense. It is the fever dream of all debt smashers. But it only works under other economic systems, and then under violence, which makes your elite the government. Doesn’t work in capitalism, unless backed up by the government. Then you’re in the same place, relying on implicit violence.

You strike me as a Gingrich type, as I described him earlier: a “frugal socialist.” You take the welfare state for granted, and seek for ways to grow it better, with a dash of individual responsibility and a pinch of prudence. But grow it does. It’s difficult to tell now or a century ago, even, what is the market and what is interference. You make it all the cloudier, and throw out morality in favor of efficiency as well. Because who cares what’s right or wrong if maybe perserverence in the right could lead to a net loss to the economy.

Who even thinks about pulling back? Going in the other direction ever. No, not for us. We have to think up more insane schemes because the worse guys (we’re the bad guys ; they’re worse) can’t get there first. Let em wait their turn.


136 posted on 12/04/2012 1:05:17 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

“opted to provide government insurance for catastrophic expense only”

That is insane to me, since it is exactly the sort of thing insurance (as an actual purchase) is good for.

“National temperament” is a funny thing. We are only a wobbly toddler socialisticly speaking. Germany may be one way now, but I bet they had nationalized healthcare in the 30s, didn’t they? We never had that, but we’ve been rushing downhill headlong since 08, and I’ve seen ni significant turnaround overall since the New Deal.


137 posted on 12/04/2012 1:11:45 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
You know what else benefits the economy as a whole besides forgiving debt? Saving. Remember that?

Oh. I remember it *very* well.

Would it be unfair to point out that, above the level of very-small business, Capitalism operates by routinely avoiding personal responsibility and readily discharging discharging bad debt?

Both corporate officers and their stockholders are exempt from personal financial responsibility for the debt incurred by a failing business - in this sense the people attempting so start a business at personable financial risk - however virtuous this may be in abstract- are rubes at the county fair.

I say this as someone who (successfully) started his first two business on a self-financed basis at high personal financial risk, and survived the experience both times - before I finally realized I was the rube in the game, and started playing on the same basis as the smart boys.

138 posted on 12/04/2012 1:18:13 PM PST by M. Dodge Thomas (million)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

By the way, when I say inevitable nationalized healthcare, I don’t necessarily mean the NHS. There’s more than one way to skin an economy. We have a central bank, you know, which controls our money supply and effectively runs the banking industry. Do most people even realize? Certainly it wasn’t sold that way, and how many fell for its subtle dodges of fake privateness and dissolution. Listening to the evening news I’d think they were all wildcats on some frontier.

Healthcare will be managed nationally, as is transportation, finance, and energy now, only moreso. It needn’t all be located in one big building marked in recognizable letters.

But perhaps I’m abusing the term “nationalize.” What do you call the desultory public-private monstrosity known as the US economy now? I’d say fascism, if it didn’t have misleading connotations. That’s nationalistic enough.


139 posted on 12/04/2012 1:20:54 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

“Would it be unfair to point out that...Capitalism /operates by routinely avoiding personal responsibility and readily discharging bad debt?”

Yes, because I don’t know what you mean by “Capitalism,” so I would be at a loss as to whether I should argue or nod my head. I’m at that point, truly, where I sometimes have no idea what common words are supposed to mean.


140 posted on 12/04/2012 1:24:57 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

“I was the rube in the game”

Pretty soon or maybe now anyone who ever pays their own way will be a tube. Savershave long been victimized. Look at people who bought insurance, especially on their own, and laud in for decades. Suckers! Think of people who don’t take money when unemployed. Losers. Think of those who paid their mortgages or credit card bills or student loans. Idiots.


141 posted on 12/04/2012 1:30:16 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas
Actually, there may be some substantial up-sides for your progeny in whatever evolves out of the ACA.

It's clear that you have an understanding of the subject on a fairly elevated level. I read your post carefully and hoped, for an instance, that you were seeing the future accurately. Thanks for the thought-through response to my comment about not seeing the future upside to this, which I view as a tremendous tyrannical intrusion into our lives and not at all what many of us wish to happen.

I leave the lecture hall a doubter that all of this will end as you predict; that is, with all of us S. C. conservatives starting happy new businesses that give us so much more healthcare opportunities and blessings than we had before ACA.
142 posted on 12/04/2012 1:31:52 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
"What if we put all of this time and energy into coming up with a better free-market system for our states? What if we won with better ideas instead of sore-loser lawsuits and state-level bills?"

Serious query, with no hidden sarcasm et cetera: What would we do, how would we proceed, where would we start? Your hypothesis sounds daunting to me, but then it's far afield from my knowledge and experience. Also, it would seem that some entrepreneurs (and they still exist) would already be proceeding to do just what you suggest. Don't mistake my query for opposition or criticism. Your idea is intriguing but daunting.

By the way, after reading this thread, I see a mix of idealism and pragmatism crossing figurative swords here and there. Am sympathetic to both isms, being alternately afflicted with both, sometimes at the same time. Being afflicted by both isms sometimes seems worse than tending towards just one. :-(

143 posted on 12/04/2012 8:44:27 PM PST by Resolute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

A large chunk of change for Medicare is being shifted to the states as well.


144 posted on 12/07/2012 9:14:32 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-144 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson