Go Court!

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Go Court!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE70U6RY20110131?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews 

 

Well one Judge has a head on his shoulders. Obamacare was found unconstitutional today and no doubt is going to find itself on the fast track to the Supreme Court. Todays ruling certainly isn't going to be the last word. The real importance in todays ruling is that the government is going to push hard to get the case heard quickly in hopes it will be overturned. Had the judge ruled in favor of the government it would have been very possible that the case would not reach SCOTUS until most of the provisions of the bill go into force in 2014. 

 

I for one hope that SCOTUS keeps its senses and strikes down the bill. It is an absolute outrage that our government thinks it has the authority to force us to purchase a product from a private company. I hate health insurance companies even more than I hate banks. I will NEVER give another penny to a health insurance company as long as I live. If that means I am breaking the law, then I guess I will have to break it. But, for now at least, I will not have to. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"I'll believe it when I see

"I'll believe it when I see it", as one of my friends said about disbanding Obamacare...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ergh

ergh

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
....*and..... now the only

....*and..... now the only three guys who post on this messageboard who agree with this ruling have now posted in this thread....


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Lol, Rich. I dunno, I

Lol, Rich.

 

I dunno, I imagine the judge is probably right in that the Constitution doesn't technically allow something like this.  But, it doesn't technically allow tons of similar stuff and the Supreme Court has signed off on those, so I don't think they would be against this either.  I'm not sure the Supreme Court could make a ruling limited enough that it wouldn't 'rock the boat' so to speak, and one of the things the Supreme Court doesn't like to do is go against precedent.  We'll see.  Either way I'm curious to read the court opinions once it gets that far.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Ya I was going to say (I

Ya I was going to say (I thought alote of people were for it) but I'm just not knowledgable enough on American healthcare and Obamas exact plans for it.  What is it exactly about his plans you disagree with (not debating here I literally don't know enough about this US healthcare stuff to have an opigion).  Health cares not really an issue up here.   


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:Ya I

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Ya I was going to say (I thought alote of people were for it) but I'm just not knowledgable enough on American healthcare and Obamas exact plans for it.  What is it exactly about his plans you disagree with (not debating here I literally don't know enough about this US healthcare stuff to have an opigion).  Health cares not really an issue up here.   

Why, Crazy?  Why?  Sad

----------------------------------

Let me see if I can summarize from a position of neutrality, without any confusing details.

 

Emotional:

One side thinks it is wrong for the government to force citizens to do anything.

One side thinks it is OK as long as the government has a good reason.

This law forces citizens to purchase health care insurance, or pay a fine.  This means the two groups above are in disagreement.

This is an old debate that has been around a long time.

 

Legal:

Our Constitution prohibits the government from doing anything it wasn't specifically given the power to do.

One side thinks this means the government does not have the power to enforce laws like this.

One side thinks the government does have the power to enforce such laws, based on other cases our highest courts have ruled on.

This puts the legal sides in disagreement because this healthcare reform is not a power specifically granted to our government.  This is also an old debate that has been around for a long time.

 

 

Both sides will spend hours going over those same points in great detail and length.  It is horrid.  I'd advise you to stay out of it and enjoy the functional health-care system you've got, perhaps spending some time laughing at us Americans who have a talent for fucking it up no matter which side we're on.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:Ya I

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Ya I was going to say (I thought alote of people were for it) but I'm just not knowledgable enough on American healthcare and Obamas exact plans for it.  What is it exactly about his plans you disagree with (not debating here I literally don't know enough about this US healthcare stuff to have an opigion).  Health cares not really an issue up here.   

 

The issue that it was overturned on today is the requirement that every person purchase health insurance. If you don't purchase health insurance you are faced with fines. The government is trying to argue that it is a "tax" even though they argued when passing the bill that it was not a tax. And since the fine only applies if you don't purchase health insurance it is clearly a penalty. Some of the bills supporters also use the commerce clause of the Constitution to support this provision.

The Commerce Clause says

Quote:
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Our government has used this clause to justify regulation of pretty much any economic transaction and outlaw things like drugs. This is the first time congress has ever tried to use this power to force Americans to buy a particular product. The judge today ruled that choosing not to participate in commerce is not commerce and therefore cannot be regulated as such.

Legally, I don't see an argument to support this provision without simply saying screw the Constitution. If the government can force you to purchase a product from a private company, what limit is there on their power? Why even have a Constitution?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks guys.  This is a

Thanks guys.  This is a touchy subject I see, and so I won't get that much into it but just couple more questions.  Are the people against this forced healthcare against it solely because it is being forced, and that is "unconstitutional?"  And who is giving the healthcare, the governemnt or a private source?  

I'm no American so I'm not going to form any real opigions here about what best for Americas healthcare (not my business, don't know enough about it) but all I know is since I can remember I've been carrying around this little white card in my wallet. It costs me almost nothing (like $80 per year or something stupid) and that card gets me as much health care as I need.  If I cut off my finger at work (just show em the card), if I get into a car accident and break every bone in my body (just show em the card) that's it, no payment, no transactions, just show em that card.  It is pretty difficult for me to envision a place where this isn't the case (ofcourse I can, it is just difficult because it is so normal here).

Now I'm also not down the any government forcing anything on anyone, but this to me doesn't seem like forcing in a bad way, it just seems like something that makes sense.  Although I don't like the fee thing if you choose not to pay, that's were it seems to cross the line for me,  here you are allowed not to pay, and not to have healthcare if you so choose (your just screwing yourself), but that would be silly because it's so cheap, and it works so well it's like what is the point of not buying such a perfect product.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Thanks guys.  This is a touchy subject I see, and so I won't get that much into it but just couple more questions.  Are the people against this forced healthcare against it solely because it is being forced, and that is "unconstitutional?"  And who is giving the healthcare, the governemnt or a private source?  

I'm no American so I'm not going to form any real opigions here about what best for Americas healthcare (not my business, don't know enough about it) but all I know is since I can remember I've been carrying around this little white card in my wallet. It costs me almost nothing (like $80 per year or something stupid) and that card gets me as much health care as I need.  If I cut off my finger at work (just show em the card), if I get into a car accident and break every bone in my body (just show em the card) that's it, no payment, no transactions, just show em that card.  It is pretty difficult for me to envision a place where this isn't the case (ofcourse I can, it is just difficult because it is so normal here).

Now I'm also not down the any government forcing anything on anyone, but this to me doesn't seem like forcing in a bad way, it just seems like something that makes sense.  Although I don't like the fee thing if you choose not to pay, that's were it seems to cross the line for me,  here you are allowed not to pay, and not to have healthcare if you so choose (your just screwing yourself), but that would be silly because it's so cheap, and it works so well it's like what is the point of not buying such a perfect product.

Personally, I am against this plan as well as any kind other kind of attempt at universal health care, most people are not as radical as I am. You might not be personally paying a lot for your healthcare, but someone is paying for it. I have a moral problem with the government taking from one person to give to another.

 

But, as far as the current court challenge is concerned I do not think a clone of Canada's healthcare system would face the legal problems Obamacare does. Obamacare does not set up a government organization to pay for medical costs. While such a program is unconstitutional in strict terms, the Supreme Court has found other similar types of programs Constitutional so it is likely they would rule in favor of some kind of overall government healthcare system.

 

Obamacare does move some more people onto medicare then forces the states to pay for it without providing financing which is another more complex legal question that will need to be answered. But most people will be forced to purchase insurance from private companies. That is the easiest provision to challenge Constitutionally because the government has never tried to do anything similar before. The bill forces you to purchase health insurance from a private company or pay a fine. The fines go up to $695 per person and $2085 per household per year. Enforcement will be up to the IRS and it is not clear if the IRS will be able to use the same enforcement tactics it uses to recover unpaid taxes such as wage garnishment or property liens. If it was simply a tax that went to a government program that covered all healthcare costs I don't think the court challenges would stand a chance with the current court. But I have a hard time seeing SCOTUS uphold a law that gives government the power to force individuals to purchase a product from a private corporation.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Personally, I am against this plan as well as any kind other kind of attempt at universal health care, most people are not as radical as I am. You might not be personally paying a lot for your healthcare, but someone is paying for it. I have a moral problem with the government taking from one person to give to another.

 

But, as far as the current court challenge is concerned I do not think a clone of Canada's healthcare system would face the legal problems Obamacare does. Obamacare does not set up a government organization to pay for medical costs. While such a program is unconstitutional in strict terms, the Supreme Court has found other similar types of programs Constitutional so it is likely they would rule in favor of some kind of overall government healthcare system.

 

Obamacare does move some more people onto medicare then forces the states to pay for it without providing financing which is another more complex legal question that will need to be answered. But most people will be forced to purchase insurance from private companies. That is the easiest provision to challenge Constitutionally because the government has never tried to do anything similar before. The bill forces you to purchase health insurance from a private company or pay a fine. The fines go up to $695 per person and $2085 per household per year. Enforcement will be up to the IRS and it is not clear if the IRS will be able to use the same enforcement tactics it uses to recover unpaid taxes such as wage garnishment or property liens. If it was simply a tax that went to a government program that covered all healthcare costs I don't think the court challenges would stand a chance with the current court. But I have a hard time seeing SCOTUS uphold a law that gives government the power to force individuals to purchase a product from a private corporation.

Hmm, so would you be for this plan if it was a tax that went to a government run healthcare system like in canada (forgetting that that it is unconstitutional)?  Is it impossible in America to turn around something in the constitution like this?  I understand you have to draw a line somewhere just like with laws, and if you allow one thing that is unconstitutional you have problem not allowing others, but shouldn't a solution to something that perhaps isnt working (or if you have found a better way) be allowed to have a voice.  Shouldn't change be atleast possible in light of good reasoning.  I'm not saying this way of healthcare is the right way, or that the constituion is this or that (ofcourse not) I'm just saying if something is broke, and the mojority wants a certain fix that may be unconstitutional, shouldn't it be possible to somewhat change the constitution in light of better evidence, reasoning, or whatever, just like morality.  Please don't get all Americano on my ass, I love what the founding fathers were going for, some really reasonable stuff.  But can nothing like this ever be changed???  What about in 500 years, will the constitution still be upheld like this in 500 years, what about 1000, just wondering? 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Personally, I am against this plan as well as any kind other kind of attempt at universal health care, most people are not as radical as I am. You might not be personally paying a lot for your healthcare, but someone is paying for it. I have a moral problem with the government taking from one person to give to another.

 

But, as far as the current court challenge is concerned I do not think a clone of Canada's healthcare system would face the legal problems Obamacare does. Obamacare does not set up a government organization to pay for medical costs. While such a program is unconstitutional in strict terms, the Supreme Court has found other similar types of programs Constitutional so it is likely they would rule in favor of some kind of overall government healthcare system.

 

Obamacare does move some more people onto medicare then forces the states to pay for it without providing financing which is another more complex legal question that will need to be answered. But most people will be forced to purchase insurance from private companies. That is the easiest provision to challenge Constitutionally because the government has never tried to do anything similar before. The bill forces you to purchase health insurance from a private company or pay a fine. The fines go up to $695 per person and $2085 per household per year. Enforcement will be up to the IRS and it is not clear if the IRS will be able to use the same enforcement tactics it uses to recover unpaid taxes such as wage garnishment or property liens. If it was simply a tax that went to a government program that covered all healthcare costs I don't think the court challenges would stand a chance with the current court. But I have a hard time seeing SCOTUS uphold a law that gives government the power to force individuals to purchase a product from a private corporation.

Hmm, so would you be for this plan if it was a tax that went to a government run healthcare system like in canada (forgetting that that it is unconstitutional)?  Is it impossible in America to turn around something in the constitution like this?  I understand you have to draw a line somewhere just like with laws, and if you allow one thing that is unconstitutional you have problem not allowing others, but shouldn't a solution to something that perhaps isnt working (or if you have found a better way) be allowed to have a voice.  Shouldn't change be atleast possible in light of good reasoning.  I'm not saying this way of healthcare is the right way, or that the constituion is this or that (ofcourse not) I'm just saying if something is broke, and the mojority wants a certain fix that may be unconstitutional, shouldn't it be possible to somewhat change the constitution in light of better evidence, reasoning, or whatever, just like morality.  Please don't get all Americano on my ass, I love what the founding fathers were going for, some really reasonable stuff.  But can nothing like this ever be changed???  What about in 500 years, will the constitution still be upheld like this in 500 years, what about 1000, just wondering? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE70U6RY20110131?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews 

 

Well one Judge has a head on his shoulders. Obamacare was found unconstitutional today and no doubt is going to find itself on the fast track to the Supreme Court. Todays ruling certainly isn't going to be the last word. The real importance in todays ruling is that the government is going to push hard to get the case heard quickly in hopes it will be overturned. Had the judge ruled in favor of the government it would have been very possible that the case would not reach SCOTUS until most of the provisions of the bill go into force in 2014. 

 

I for one hope that SCOTUS keeps its senses and strikes down the bill. It is an absolute outrage that our government thinks it has the authority to force us to purchase a product from a private company. I hate health insurance companies even more than I hate banks. I will NEVER give another penny to a health insurance company as long as I live. If that means I am breaking the law, then I guess I will have to break it. But, for now at least, I will not have to. 

Car insurance is mandatory and you can be fined or arrested for driving without it. You want a person with no insurance to hit and injure you?

I am forced to pay taxes that go to private contractors to build fighter jets and pay for wars I don't support.

Is it that you don't mind taking other people's money when it suits your needs or when it supports your political party?

Ok, then lets have no rules, no taxes and total anarchy. You want a robber baron society where only the wealthy have power.  Somalia is as close to "no rules" as you can get. It's great for those who have money there, but it sucks for most.

Put your money where your mouth is. Next time someone has the inability to pay for insurance and get hit buy a car or get cancer, lets just become money hungry greedy pigs and let them die, because they cant afford a basic human need.

All I am hearing you say is "money equals power and might makes right"  The Saudi Royal family isn't poor and I am sure they have great health care for themselves because they can pay too.

'LET THEM EAT CAKE!"

The funny part is you seem to be too focused on "ME ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE" to see that if private industry provided affordable health care we wouldn't be at this point. If private industry cared more about the patients instead of the profits, we wouldn't be using the emergency room or turning to government to protect us from corporate monopolies.

If anyone should be happy about this it should be you because the CEOs and share holders are going to make out like bandits for what Obama is handing them. If it is about private business getting what it wants you should be happy.

I don't like this bill either, not because it makes health care insurance mandatory like car insurance. I don't like it because it didn't do a damned thing to break up the corporate monopoly these insurance companies have. The United States government certainly is the best government money can buy.

I thought there were three classes in this country, but according to you, there is only one that counts.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
good ol' compulsory consumtion

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is an absolute outrage that our government thinks it has the authority to force us to purchase a product from a private company. I hate health insurance companies even more than I hate banks.

I couldn't agree more! And this is coming from someone who views health care as a right and not a privilege.

Brian37 wrote:
Ok, then lets have no rules, no taxes and total anarchy. You want a robber baron society where only the wealthy have power.

So, in the age of the Robber Barons in this country there was no government? And during the anarchist (C.N.T./F.A.I - anarcho-syndicalist unions) control of a third of Spain, robber baron's ruled? I'm sorry Brian, but you're wrong on this one. I'm all in favor of universal health coverage, but legally forcing all people to buy their coverage from the very same people who have fucked us for this long and caused this mess isn't the way. The answer of the global economic crisis we are facing (and will be for a long time to come) wasn't to give the job of fixing it to the people who caused the problems in the first place (giant financial houses, banks, compliant governments and the weathiest global elites) and the problem of our access to health care is the same. We need to take a radically different direction, one towards decentralized, horizontalist/non-hierarchical networked decision making, or these same problems of a very few elites fucking the world, and us, for their benefit will continue.

[Edit - Sorry about the double post, this one had spelling errors so I tried to stop it and post correct spellings. Obviously I didn't succeed in that. If a mod could delete this copy of the double post it would be much appreciated! And again, sorry about the annoying double post!]

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
good ol' compulsory consumtion

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is an absolute outrage that our government thinks it has the authority to force us to purchase a product from a private company. I hate health insurance companies even more than I hate banks.

I couldn't agree more! And this is coming from someone who views health care as a right and not a privilege.

Brian37 wrote:
Ok, then lets have no rules, no taxes and total anarchy. You want a robber baron society where only the wealthy have power.

So, in the age of the Robber Barons in this country there was no government? And during the anarchist (C.N.T./F.A.I - anarcho-syndicalist unions) control of a third of Spain, robber baron's ruled? I'm sorry Brian, but you're wrong on this one. I'm all in favor of universal health coverage, but legally forcing all people to buy their coverage from the very same people who have fucked us for this long and caused this mess isn't the way. The answer of the global economic crisis we are facing (and will be for a long time to come) wasn't to give the job of fixing it to the people who caused the problems in the first place (giant financial houses, banks, compliant governments and the wealthiest global elites) and the problem of our access to health care is the same. We need to take a radically different direction, one towards decentralized, horizontalist/non-hierarchical networked decision making, or these same problems of a very few elites fucking the world, and us, for their benefit will continue.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If we agree that those who

If we agree that those who have are screwing the rest of society, how do you fix that without becoming a closed society without the power shifting to one party rule. You might solve one problem, but you create another problem. All you end up with is a power shift. What you end up doing is screwing some other aspect of society.

It cannot be "either/ or." People are going to want different things. Some are going to want more than others. A multi class system in an open market is the only way you can benefit the most. My only problem with our current state is the pay gap, education inequity and wages not keeping up with this. I am not against private industry, in and of itself. Just against it's increasing lopsided influence on our politics.

One party rule, or one family rule, or one person rule, or one class rule, or one religious rule, are all forms of monopolies.

So how do you solve social inequality without implementing a Stalin society on one hand, or the corporate monopolies on the other hand?

 Basically what you are advocating, if I am understanding you are anti-trust ant-monopoly laws. I do too. So did Jefferson. But that doesn't mean taxes shouldnt exist, otherwise we couldnt have police or military or post office or state universities or colleges. And all of those institutions use private contractors that we pay to build the things they need.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Thanks guys.  This is a touchy subject I see, and so I won't get that much into it but just couple more questions.  Are the people against this forced healthcare against it solely because it is being forced, and that is "unconstitutional?"  And who is giving the healthcare, the governemnt or a private source?  

There are various reasons.  Some don't like the specifics of the plan, some don't like anything the government does, some have moral issues with the idea, some think it is illegal, etc.

 

The healthcare is given by private institutions in most cases.  Our version of your $80 card is buying an insurance plan on a monthly basis, just without the taxes and government subsidy.  We pay an insurance company to do that for us.

 

I'm not getting into my opinion because I'm tired of these threads.  If you have any more questions though, or want more specifics, I'd be glad to answer them in as neutral a way as I can manage.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The issue that it was overturned on today is the requirement that every person purchase health insurance. If you don't purchase health insurance you are faced with fines. The government is trying to argue that it is a "tax" even though they argued when passing the bill that it was not a tax. And since the fine only applies if you don't purchase health insurance it is clearly a penalty. Some of the bills supporters also use the commerce clause of the Constitution to support this provision.

 

This is the part I found hysterically funny.  The Republicans put this in the bill at the behest of the insurance companies.  Who did a lot of whining that taking away their ability to claim "prior condition - won't pay" was going to break them.  It stayed in because that was the only way the Democrats could get any kind of a health care bill through Congress.  So the Republicans went back home and some of their constituents were raising holy hell over this clause.  So now the Republicans are all against it.  GMAFB

NoMoreCrazyPeople - this is the only clause people are upset about.  They want more affordable insurance.  They don't want the insurance companies to deny care because of "prior conditions".  Most people want their almost adult children - up to age 26 if still in school - to be on their (the parents') health insurance.  Almost all the bill does not go into effect until 2014.

If Canada would have me, I'd be tempted to move.  Last time I looked, in my area, I can find health insurance for my husband and I for a little over $140 a month - with a $10,000 deductible and 40% co-pay.  The exact numbers may be different now, I haven't bothered to look.  There is no consistency from state to state - if I lived in a different state, my choices would be different.

Beyond Saving, my husband had a stroke a few months ago.  Because we had no insurance and no income, the state hospital wrote off the entire cost of his four day stay and all the tests.  If we had paid for that insurance, we would most likely still have been liable for most to all of that cost.  Want to bet the insurance would have found some "prior condition" to get them off the hook for paying for it?  That means, a (very) little bit of the federal taxes you pay and that are forwarded on to this hospital went to the cost of caring for my husband.  Thank you.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
I would have to disagree

Brian37 wrote:
A multi class system in an open market is the only way you can benefit the most.

I would say that this is where many of our problems are coming from and not the solution. In no way does this mean that I'm looking for some kind of Stalinist dictatorship, since that just meant that the different classes are either sovereign or slave, instead of sovereign to sovereign/slave to slave. So to make sure this post won't take up pages and pages, I would say that the systems being used in the anarcho-syndicalist areas of Spain in the 30's would be the most preferable in my perspective. Read Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker (which was written because Emma Goldman asked him to describe what was going in Spain and is online for free) or the history of The I.W.W. (Industrial Workers of the World) or C.N.T. of Spain.

The major difference between my objections to the current administration and the other side of the one American political party coin is that the Rethuglicans are opposing him from a reactionary perspective and mine is revolutionary.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(@ no one in particular)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
About time we stopped those

About time we stopped those damn Commies


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:Hmm,

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Hmm, so would you be for this plan if it was a tax that went to a government run healthcare system like in canada (forgetting that that it is unconstitutional)?  Is it impossible in America to turn around something in the constitution like this?  I understand you have to draw a line somewhere just like with laws, and if you allow one thing that is unconstitutional you have problem not allowing others, but shouldn't a solution to something that perhaps isnt working (or if you have found a better way) be allowed to have a voice.  Shouldn't change be atleast possible in light of good reasoning.  I'm not saying this way of healthcare is the right way, or that the constituion is this or that (ofcourse not) I'm just saying if something is broke, and the mojority wants a certain fix that may be unconstitutional, shouldn't it be possible to somewhat change the constitution in light of better evidence, reasoning, or whatever, just like morality.  Please don't get all Americano on my ass, I love what the founding fathers were going for, some really reasonable stuff.  But can nothing like this ever be changed???  What about in 500 years, will the constitution still be upheld like this in 500 years, what about 1000, just wondering? 

I would still be against it and would encourage my representatives to vote against it. What I am saying is that the legal argument for my side would be substantially weaker and SCOTUS would probably approve the law.

 

Changing the Constitution is possible. We have had many amendments. The problem is that Constitutional Amendments require more than a simple majority. You have to have 2/3 of the House, Senate and 3/4 of state legislators all approve it. There is nowhere near that kind of support for the healthcare law. (Right now it is almost exactly 50/50) The reason our founders set it up that way was because they didn't want a simple majority rule government where the majority could do anything and the minority had no power. But if there is some problem with the Constitution, it can be changed by persuading a super majority of the citizens. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Car insurance

Brian37 wrote:

Car insurance is mandatory and you can be fined or arrested for driving without it. You want a person with no insurance to hit and injure you?

The gigantic difference being that I am not required to drive a car and only need the car insurance if I am going to drive on public roads and the car insurance only needs to cover damage caused to anyone I might injure. Health insurance is being required for everyone because they breathe and must cover them. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am forced to pay taxes that go to private contractors to build fighter jets and pay for wars I don't support.

Is it that you don't mind taking other people's money when it suits your needs or when it supports your political party?

Again, apples and oranges. There is a fundamental difference between taxing a population to provide a necessity like protection and forcing an individual to buy a particular product. But you should know by now that I am against almost all government spending regardless of the party in power. It isn't like I haven't bitched about it enough on this site.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Put your money where your mouth is. Next time someone has the inability to pay for insurance and get hit buy a car or get cancer, lets just become money hungry greedy pigs and let them die, because they cant afford a basic human need.

I do put my money where my mouth is. I pay for my own damn medical care with cash. No insurance, no government. I also donate substantially to a number of charity hospitals and funds that allow people without the resources to receive the best healthcare in the world for free. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If anyone should be happy about this it should be you because the CEOs and share holders are going to make out like bandits for what Obama is handing them. If it is about private business getting what it wants you should be happy.

I don't like this bill either, not because it makes health care insurance mandatory like car insurance. I don't like it because it didn't do a damned thing to break up the corporate monopoly these insurance companies have. The United States government certainly is the best government money can buy.

I thought there were three classes in this country, but according to you, there is only one that counts.

 

That is why I don't understand your position. The bill obviously does more for corporate fat cats while doing nothing for the average joe. I have no issue with corporations until they use the government like they are here to extort money from us. The marriage of government and corporations is the most dangerous domestic political issue our country has ever faced. I don't understand how all of the Democrats who routinely (and often rightly so) criticize the Republicans for their close ties to business now turn around and do the same thing. Democrats should be as outraged as I am over the bill, although I understand they might come to the same conclusion for different reasons.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: This is the part

cj wrote:

 This is the part I found hysterically funny.  The Republicans put this in the bill at the behest of the insurance companies.  Who did a lot of whining that taking away their ability to claim "prior condition - won't pay" was going to break them.  It stayed in because that was the only way the Democrats could get any kind of a health care bill through Congress.  So the Republicans went back home and some of their constituents were raising holy hell over this clause.  So now the Republicans are all against it.  GMAFB

That is a good point cj. Actually, I suspect that had the same bill been proposed by GW as a "private solution" to universal healthcare the republicans would be supporting it and the democrats would be throwing the fit and bringing it to court. That is the sad state of American politics. Few people know why they support or don't support a particular bill and far less than 1% of the population has actually read the bill (including the people who voted on it).  

 

cj wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople - this is the only clause people are upset about. 

Well I am upset about a lot more of it and I am person (I think). This clause has simply become the politicized one because it is the easiest one to make a legal argument against. Although, the medicare requirements being placed on the States also will have a strong Constitutional challenge because it will literally bankrupt states that are already having financial issues and run massive deficits in those that are financially stable. The unfunded mandate practices of the Federal government have not received a true challenge in SCOTUS so that issue might make its way up the ladder if this current case fails.  

 

cj wrote:

Beyond Saving, my husband had a stroke a few months ago.  Because we had no insurance and no income, the state hospital wrote off the entire cost of his four day stay and all the tests.  If we had paid for that insurance, we would most likely still have been liable for most to all of that cost.  Want to bet the insurance would have found some "prior condition" to get them off the hook for paying for it?  That means, a (very) little bit of the federal taxes you pay and that are forwarded on to this hospital went to the cost of caring for my husband.  Thank you.

 

Your welcome. I'm glad my money is being put to some good use. I'll try to pretend that my money went to help your husband rather than to pad the pocket of some asshole in the banking industry. Although, if we skipped the filter of the government I could have donated a lot more through a direct donation. Despite what Brian seems to think, I do have a heart and am hardly greedy. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:That is

Beyond Saving wrote:
That is why I don't understand your position.

His position doesn't seem all that hard to understand to me; it amounts to kneejerk (neo)liberalism plus a hefty amount of tar-brushing people he doesn't agree with and intermittent SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS.

I'm not much of a saint when it comes to political discussion, though I rarely bother that much with trying to pick a fight with someone over ideology.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Beyond Saving

cj wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The issue that it was overturned on today is the requirement that every person purchase health insurance. If you don't purchase health insurance you are faced with fines. The government is trying to argue that it is a "tax" even though they argued when passing the bill that it was not a tax. And since the fine only applies if you don't purchase health insurance it is clearly a penalty. Some of the bills supporters also use the commerce clause of the Constitution to support this provision.

 

This is the part I found hysterically funny.  The Republicans put this in the bill at the behest of the insurance companies.  Who did a lot of whining that taking away their ability to claim "prior condition - won't pay" was going to break them.  It stayed in because that was the only way the Democrats could get any kind of a health care bill through Congress.  So the Republicans went back home and some of their constituents were raising holy hell over this clause.  So now the Republicans are all against it.  GMAFB

NoMoreCrazyPeople - this is the only clause people are upset about.  They want more affordable insurance.  They don't want the insurance companies to deny care because of "prior conditions".  Most people want their almost adult children - up to age 26 if still in school - to be on their (the parents') health insurance.  Almost all the bill does not go into effect until 2014.

If Canada would have me, I'd be tempted to move.  Last time I looked, in my area, I can find health insurance for my husband and I for a little over $140 a month - with a $10,000 deductible and 40% co-pay.  The exact numbers may be different now, I haven't bothered to look.  There is no consistency from state to state - if I lived in a different state, my choices would be different.

Beyond Saving, my husband had a stroke a few months ago.  Because we had no insurance and no income, the state hospital wrote off the entire cost of his four day stay and all the tests.  If we had paid for that insurance, we would most likely still have been liable for most to all of that cost.  Want to bet the insurance would have found some "prior condition" to get them off the hook for paying for it?  That means, a (very) little bit of the federal taxes you pay and that are forwarded on to this hospital went to the cost of caring for my husband.  Thank you.

 

I cant aford 140 a month, much less a 10k deductible. One of my co-workers is originally from France and she says that their universal health care IS NOT bankrupting the country like the Republicans would have you believe. I have another co-worker who's husband is from Italy, and he too cant stand Americans bad mouthing their health care system.

Having the most expensive health care doesn't make it the best system, and most certainly isn't a system that favors the profits over the patients.

It really sickens me the attitude SOME, not all but some have. Beyond Saving does seem to want to solve the problem as badly as you and I do.  But I think he is misguided.

I think the ONLY solution is a long term change in the social climate on HOW we do business. The right has constantly pushed "No rules" as the solution to every problem, where those very same people abuse the system to squeeze every dollar they can out of the government in the form of tax breaks and subsidies, and with the other hand squeeze every dollar they can out of the consumer. Then they complain that the middle and poor are using too much medicade, medicare and the emergency room.

They never stop to think that maybe if it was about the patients and the costs were not so damned high, people would pay for it on their own.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cj

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople - this is the only clause people are upset about. 

Well I am upset about a lot more of it and I am person (I think). This clause has simply become the politicized one because it is the easiest one to make a legal argument against. Although, the medicare requirements being placed on the States also will have a strong Constitutional challenge because it will literally bankrupt states that are already having financial issues and run massive deficits in those that are financially stable. The unfunded mandate practices of the Federal government have not received a true challenge in SCOTUS so that issue might make its way up the ladder if this current case fails.  

 

Okay, okay, make that "most people".  Last I saw, if you take out the mandatory part, most people are for the other provisions.  Including the medicare clause.  Actually, I have said before, I think we should have gone with "medicare for all" and just used the existing system.  Must less expensive to implement.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I cant aford

Brian37 wrote:

I cant aford 140 a month, much less a 10k deductible. One of my co-workers is originally from France and she says that their universal health care IS NOT bankrupting the country like the Republicans would have you believe. I have another co-worker who's husband is from Italy, and he too cant stand Americans bad mouthing their health care system.

Having the most expensive health care doesn't make it the best system, and most certainly isn't a system that favors the profits over the patients.

It really sickens me the attitude SOME, not all but some have. Beyond Saving does seem to want to solve the problem as badly as you and I do.  But I think he is misguided.

I think the ONLY solution is a long term change in the social climate on HOW we do business. The right has constantly pushed "No rules" as the solution to every problem, where those very same people abuse the system to squeeze every dollar they can out of the government in the form of tax breaks and subsidies, and with the other hand squeeze every dollar they can out of the consumer. Then they complain that the middle and poor are using too much medicade, medicare and the emergency room.

They never stop to think that maybe if it was about the patients and the costs were not so damned high, people would pay for it on their own.

 

I would much rather be able to pay for my own health care.  But unlike BS, I raised a family and --

http://comics.com/frank&ernest/2011-02-01/

For those who can't access the web site:

Big sign on the wall - Seminar today: Living an active retirement life style.

And Frank says to Ernest - "I can't afford to retire---for the last 40 years I've been blowing all my money on food, clothing and shelter."

People run businesses - with predictable results.  Think about it.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Thanks guys. This is a touchy subject I see, and so I won't get that much into it but just couple more questions. Are the people against this forced healthcare against it solely because it is being forced, and that is "unconstitutional?" And who is giving the healthcare, the governemnt or a private source?

 

I'm no American so I'm not going to form any real opigions here about what best for Americas healthcare (not my business, don't know enough about it)

 

OK, the actual situation is sort of as has already been described. However, what has already been posted is not really adequate to see how things work around here.

 

As it happens, I don't really have a great understanding of Westminster governments, so I might blow some detail here. If I do that, feel free to ask for clarification but let me say some stuff and see where it goes.

 

Even so, you need to know what it means to be a state. Sure, Virginia is a state and Connecticut is a state. So are France, Poland and Libya states. The key concept here is that state=nation. Province/territory/whatever=administrative subunit of the larger government.

 

We had 13 states at the end of the revolution and we took a few years to get around to setting up the federal government. The federal government is more like an empire with (currently) 50 client nations. Except that the federal government was planned out to be a much smaller thing than it has developed into.

 

Enter the commerce clause. It says that the federal government may regulate commerce between the states. However, the tenth amendment is quite clear that the federal government may not involve itself in matters that are reserved for the states. Basically, they can deal with a matter where New Jersey and New York wish to to business but neither will agree to the others terms. However, the feds specifically are barred from controlling business inside a single state.

 

There are a few notable exceptions to the general idea. One example is control over “navigable waterways”. Basically, since rivers do not respect political boundaries and were the super highways of the eighteenth century, the feds have dominion over them. However, it is a fact that the federal government does not have authority over business transactions that take place inside a single state.

 

Now insurance companies make money hand over fist by keeping the federal government locked out of the matter. They may be huge corporations that deal with business all over the country. However, they offer “product” on a state by state business. Thus, the federal government is, at least in theory, forbidden from becoming involved in such matters.

 

Hence the use of the commerce clause to disallow ObamaCare.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I am also hearing stories

I am also hearing stories that financial giants have been creating bubbles by over conflating prices by futures speculation on just about everything, which is why even food prices have been going up world wide. This is making me believe that I am on the right track, Those at the top don't care how much of an inequity they create in the cost of living. There now saying that this type of legalized gambling is what put Egypt where it is because of the high price of their top export wheat.

If the rich around the world don't start investing responsibly and stop the wild gambling without regulation, the revolutions we see there will spill over even into westernized governments.

Ultimately worldwide you cannot create social inequity to such a high degree. There has to be a PH balance between the top and bottom. Westernized governments who turn a blind eye to what amounts to a giant ponzie scheme are basically gambling through the funding of the tax payers at the cost of over pricing things and dumping the losses on the tax payers. This is not a consumer based competition, this is a rigged game.

I am all for an open market, but less regulation depends on market responsibility. It seems that other industries are doing what oil is doing. Pumping up the price, not because it really should cost that much, but because they are convincing investors is should cost that much and then making bets for and against that price speculation and then dumping the loss on the consumer.

It is making more and more sense to me know the price difference 5 short years ago compared to now. I have NEVER in my life seen such a rapid spike in cost of everything while wages remain the same. And we still have yet to stop this bubble problem that pops up every decade and seems to get worse and worse each time.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am also

Brian37 wrote:

I am also hearing stories that financial giants have been creating bubbles by over conflating prices by futures speculation on just about everything, which is why even food prices have been going up world wide. This is making me believe that I am on the right track, Those at the top don't care how much of an inequity they create in the cost of living. There now saying that this type of legalized gambling is what put Egypt where it is because of the high price of their top export wheat.

If the rich around the world don't start investing responsibly and stop the wild gambling without regulation, the revolutions we see there will spill over even into westernized governments.

Ultimately worldwide you cannot create social inequity to such a high degree. There has to be a PH balance between the top and bottom. Westernized governments who turn a blind eye to what amounts to a giant ponzie scheme are basically gambling through the funding of the tax payers at the cost of over pricing things and dumping the losses on the tax payers. This is not a consumer based competition, this is a rigged game.

I am all for an open market, but less regulation depends on market responsibility. It seems that other industries are doing what oil is doing. Pumping up the price, not because it really should cost that much, but because they are convincing investors is should cost that much and then making bets for and against that price speculation and then dumping the loss on the consumer.

It is making more and more sense to me know the price difference 5 short years ago compared to now. I have NEVER in my life seen such a rapid spike in cost of everything while wages remain the same. And we still have yet to stop this bubble problem that pops up every decade and seems to get worse and worse each time.

 

 

 

That is just ignorant bullshit propagated by dumb ass journalists and politicians. Although at least you are admitting that we are having an inflation problem which the government still denies and is causing on purpose. Remember QE1 and QE2? The PURPOSE of those programs was to weaken the dollar and cause inflation. When I posted on it a few months ago, everyone thought I was crazy. If you had listened to me at the time and invested in some commodity futures you would have made a nice profit by now (and could pay for your health insurance)

 

Inflation is happening, prices are going up, especially energy and food but other commodities as well. Perfectly predictable. And when something is perfectly predictable you can guarantee that the futures market is going to see it coming. You are right that this is probably one of the causes of the uprising in Egypt. But blaming the futures market when predictable results follow from federal policy is absurd. 

 

The futures market is crucial to farmers who rely heavily on it to sell virtually all of their production and help protect themselves from price fluctuations. A future is simply a contract agreeing to pay a certain price for a product on a certain date. For example, I might be interested in buying a bushel of corn which right now is $6.66. If I think the price of corn is going to rise before it is picked in the fall I might tell a farmer that I will buy it now at $6.66. If the farmer thinks that is a fair price he agrees, if he thinks it will go up more too he will hold on to it. That is a future.

 

The benefit to the farmer is that he can make sure all of his corn is already sold the day it is picked and processed. Otherwise, he would pick all his corn and might not be able to sell it. If the futures market over estimates what the demand will be, some schmuck in New York who has no need of 1000 bushels of corn will end up owning 1000 bushels of corn and will probably be fired. The farmer still gets paid. Although, in practice, most futures contracts end up being held by actual buyers in the weeks leading up to harvest. The speculators make or lose their money several months beforehand. If the speculators spike the price up higher than supply and demand call for the result is farmers making a ton of extra money and speculators losing money. Boohoo, Wall Street fat cats losing money. Cry me a river. 

 

It doesn't really affect the price that the grocery store is going to pay for it because in a theoretical price spike the speculators will not be able to sell all their futures in time and will become desperate and let it go at a lower price than they paid for the future. They would rather get 80% of their money on the investment than be stuck with corn that they don't have the facilities or ability to sell.

 

Also your comment that they somehow convince investors to pay more than a future is worth is also wrong. The futures market is very high risk, and those who invest in it are not your average 401k investor. They are seasoned and very intelligent investors. They make their investments with full knowledge of the risks. If they overpay for a future it is because they believe the price is going up not ignorance. It isn't like some of the people buying subprime mortgage investments that really were ignorant and taken advantage of by the banks. Your average futures trader is much more savvy.

 

The ironic thing is that our Federal Reserve knows it and has done research on the issue. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200929/200929abs.html Of course, you can't expect politicians to read economic research, it isn't as exciting as the latest episode of Dora the Explorer.

The futures market is predicting inflation because the course we are on now is leading to inflation. The wonderful thing about the futures market is that it can give us warnings about what is coming in the future so that we can prepare for it. Our government has time to change its policies if they would get their heads out of their asses. Don't blame the market because it is making predictions that are right. Look to the real source of the problem.

 

Probably the one market where futures are often higher than the real price is oil. That is for a very simple reason, OPEC has us by the balls. There are always those in the futures market that think this is the time that OPEC is going to exercise its power and jack up the prices. It hasn't happened yet, but one day they will probably be right unless we seriously reduce our dependence on OPEC. Another problem, like social security, that everyone knows we have but no one does shit to fix.  Again, don't blame the market. It is warning us of a potential catastrophic danger. Rather than take it out on the market, heed the warning and take steps to fix that problem so we don't find ourselves unable to purchase energy one day.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken