NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) It's quite funny because in the other thread, I pointed out how in 1792, George Washington signed a gun purchase mandate, and 2k5's response was "Imagine if something like that were proposed today". In 1792 that was done in part because the country was fearing a very large war. Not really the same. But in any case, did you see SS disagreeing with you on that one?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 11:14 AM) Which is exactly how they wrote the bill. They wrote the mandate as step 1; across the board $800 tax increase. Step 2; across the board $800 tax credit if you purchase health insurance meeting standards x, y, and z. Again, circular reasoning. Its a mandate to purchase a product, no matter how you futz around with it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 11:09 AM) Individual purchase mandates are clearly unconstitutional. Yes they are, in this case or the other. Although this is a state mandate, and I don't know the South Dakota Constitution. I'd have to think this would require an amendment though.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 10:20 AM) well, if you want it to work you need the mandate. More clearly, if you want THIS BILL to work the way it was designed, you need the mandate. You do not need the mandate to make health care better. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) Let me spell out the law in more detail here and why either the mandate itself is constitutional or Congress's ability to give tax advantages on anything is unconstitutional. The "Mandate" is set up as a tax increase on every taxpayer. That tax increase is then rebated to every taxpayer that purchases an insurance contract which meets certain standards. That is how the law is written, which is why it had to go through the House and Senate budget committees; it includes a tax increase. First step...is it Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill which raises taxes by $1000 on every taxpayer? I think the constitutionality here is clear. Secondly, is it constitutional for Congress to give targeted tax credits to specific groups of taxpayers? This is of course the basis for our tax structure where different groups pay different rates. If you proposed a bill which raised taxes on everyone by $100 and used that money to cut the tax rate paid by hedge fund managers to 1/3 the rate everyone else pays, that would be a targeted tax credit, and it'd be constitutional (side note; this is actually on the books right now). Hopefully I've established that it's constitutional for Congress to raise taxes by different groups. Also worth noting, its constitutional for Congress to do more than 1 constitutional thing in the same bill; bundling 3 constitutional actions together doesn't make them unconstitutional. Finally, the only remaining part is that the tax credit is only qualified for if you purchase a product from a private company. This is the part I'm focusing on in this thread, because Congress's ability to levy income taxes is clear. If you want to find the bill unconstitutional, this is the only part you can legitimately attack. I would argue that Congress does exactly this all the time. It gives tax credits for all kinds of purchases. It gives tax credits for purchasing of private mortgages, for purchasing shares in certain kinds of retirement accounts, for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles, for insulating your home, etc. If targeted tax rebates based on private sector purchases of health insurance are unconstitutional, then all of these other tax credits are equally unconstitutional. Hence, my focus on them. This part happens all the time. If you want to find the individual mandate unconstitutional, you have to find 1 of those 3 parts unconstitutional. These judges have played games with these parts, trying to say "Oh Harry Reid said it's not a tax, therefore it's not a tax" or things to that effect, but that's not how the law works, the text of the law doesn't care about what focus-group tested slogan you use to describe things in public. It's worth pointing out again that this description is actually how the mandate works; if you choose not to purchase health insurance, you are unable to claim that deduction, just as I am unable to claim the mortgage-interest deduction or the electric car deduction this year. With how the law is written, providing an $8000 tax credit for electric cars is effectively an "Electric car purchase mandate" based on how this language is being applied. The CBO in fact estimates that a non-zero percentage of Americans will choose this route once the bill is fully in force. In the Massachusetts example this is exactly what happened, some 98% of the population had insurance, but 2% or so chose to forego claiming that deduction and remained uninsured. I wonder how you'd see this method of accounting/booking if Goldman Sachs was doing it. You are making circles financially in order to make something into something its not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) I think he's just trying to justify his position by showing it in the same light as things you support. One can support incentives and public good without agreeing that the mandate was a good idea. I think all of us would agree that the health care system needs a lot of work... just not necessarily in the way this was handled.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) tex? Tex has his own party.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:14 AM) Free agent pitchers left according to MLB trade rumors... Jeremy Bonderman SP Doug Davis SP John Maine SP Pedro Martinez SP Kevin Millwood SP Brian Moehler RF / SP Jamie Moyer SP Andy Pettitte SP Jarrod Washburn SP If the Sox are looking for a stop gap, I think Lucas Harrell might be the guy. Maybe some early in the season major league experience will do him some good. I'd rather go with Humber or even Pena than Harrell.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:29 AM) IMO there's 10-15 liberal posters that post regularly and probably 4-5 conservatives, which includes moderates. So nearly ANY discussion in this thread (and others) turns into a liberal circle jerk, especially when the issue is controversial. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, I can't even think of 10-15 liberal posters who post with any regularity in the Buster. I can think of Balta, BigSqwert, StrangeSox, bmags and to lesser extents Rex, AHB, Soxbadger and jasonxcteruhueig. I can't even think of any other regular liberal posters, let alone ones in here. GOP regulars would be you, SS, kap, and to lesser extents CC, Y2HH, cknolls and mr genius. I'd consider lf, iamshack and myself moderates. Who am I missing that you consider regular posters?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:29 AM) You don't get to argue societal benefit here. You don't see the societal benefit of a functioning insurance market and not having uninsured? If you're giving "Societal benefit" as your standard, then you're giving up on the constitutionality on this case, because tons of things have societal benefit. Yes, there is a fundamental difference in speaking terms between incentive and mandate, but the law itself is not structured that way. The law itself is structured such that the individual mandate is a tax incentive for this purchase. If you choose not to pay it, that's fine, you just have to forego the incentive. Yes, it is. A mandate requires an action of everyone, an incentive does not. This is a clear, obvious line.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:04 AM) How is that not applicable? It is a higher tax rate paid by not purchasing a certain type of product. That's exactly what the individual mandate is; a $700 or so tax if you don't purchase a certain type of product. Are you defining the word "Mandate" in a different way here? If you choose not to purchase health insurance, you're required to pay a higher tax rate. There's no criminal penalties or anything, it's a tax for which you receive credit if you make a certain qualifying purchase. You really don't see the difference between tax INCENTIVES to purchase something (like a home), and a MANDATE requiring you buy a certain product? Paying higher tax rate because of a difference in deductions is NOT the same as a mandate. What gave you that idea?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 07:46 AM) A great example is mortgage interest. If a homeowner receives a tax credit for mortgage interest payments, then people who do not pay mortgage interest are paying a tax for not purchasing a mortgage. The mortgage interest tax deduction is just as much a tax on people who do not purchase a mortgage. It's considered to be a tax credit...which is exactly the same thing as having a tax which exists if I don't purchase a product like health insurance. No one calls it the "Non-homeownership-tax", but the letter of the law is the same. That's not a great example, because its not an example of what I asked. So again... name for me a tax that is a mandate to purchase a product.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 09:50 PM) I will agree with this that under these conditions the teams are in direct competition with each other. I still doubt that it would come into play as much for people who have lived in the Chicagoland area for quite some time, but for people who are transplants from other areas, it's probably a huge factor. Good point, I should have added a bullet for people moving into town, if they aren't already aligned with a team.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 07:37 AM) It is a tax, at least as far as the letter of the law is concerned, that's one of the reasons it is so long. It's a tax return item where you pay the "fee" if you haven't made the purchase, whereas you receive an equivalent credit if you have made the purchase. The only reason why people can legitimately say "It's not a tax!" is that they say crap like that for public consumption since taxes are bad and the finger thing means the taxes. If you've really paid attention to either of these rulings though...both of them have justified saying that it's not a tax because of public statements of the defenders, not because of anything actually written in the law. The law itself has the structure of a tax, they just didn't use that word for focus group reasons. That's one of the reasons why these decisions are getting ridiculed; you can't decide that something is unconstitutional based on people's statements about a law, you have to actually decide based on the letter of the law. I simply don't agree with your interperetation of this. Forcing people (all people) to buy a product is not the same as a tax. And this doesn't come from talking points or anything of the sort, its simply the way the Constitution and the law are laid out. Name for me a "tax" that is the mandatory purchase of an individual product.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 08:27 PM) The health insurance mandate has to be a tax. I definitely don't want to go down this bulls*** path of forcing people to buy f***ing corporate services. Then make it a tax, and call it what it actually is - the federal government electing to turn health care provision into a semi-government run interest. Don't make it a product purchase, as it stands now, which sets the table for it to be killed. The whole approach they took here was just stupid.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) It automatically takes whichever one is better. We really don't have anything else that makes it worthwhile to itemize. No childcare expenses, no chariable donations, no medical expenses, no business expenses, no interest from anything, etc... If you are putting in mortgage interest, you are itemizing. Therefore, If I were you, I'd check what else you could put in there, since from that point up, its all money for you. If you use a software or online tax program, go through each step in it, and you may be surprised what money you are leaving behind.

I appear to be in the 24-30 range on that map. Should be a fun one.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 08:01 PM) I'd pay to see the reaction if this were proposed today. Its also an irrelevant example because the military and drafting of military resources are specifically called for in the Constitution.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) I think you missed the intent of that comment. I mean that if the federal govt can some how say that health insurance is related to a privilege. I was using car insurance as an already accepted mandatory insurance, and saying that all the federal govt has to do is cloak the health insurance argument the same way, and they should win. The term "bogus" was mean to apply to the unknown reason the govt will use to tie health insurance to a privilege. I personally think there is no way to overturn the law without putting a lot of other federal laws at risk. Due to that, I am going to predict that the SC will uphold the law, even though on this issue they would be more inclined to overturn it. So i wasnt ignoring it at all, I was basically saying that the govt will come up with some reason to make it work. Just like they do with the commerce clause, or any other time they need the federal law to go further than it may have originally been intended. I didnt want to speculate on how they would argue its based on privilege but my guess is that they will say going to hospitals which are federally funded are a privilege and therefore in order to use the hospital system you must have insurance. How can they possibly make this related to a privilege, when its EVERYONE? Also, what others laws do you think it would endanger?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) I think pet friendly salt is typically more expensive. Unless its like 10 times more expensive, that doesn't bother me, if this is really a health hazard for pets.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) One type I just found via googling is an Amide/Glycol mixture. Lots of organic molecules dissolve in water but they won't produce the same reaction on skin as salts. The freezing point depression effect comes about solely through the number of molecules of something dissolving in the water, so the melting effect (to first order) doesn't care about which molecules you use, only that they're water soluble. OK. Well I learned something today - I didn't even know this was an issue. Next time I buy salt I'll look for pet-friendly stuff (what I have now may even be that, I don't know off hand).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) My dogs feet with crack and bleed all over and she'll then lick the wound and ingest the salt. Think of how painful it would ne if you stuck your foot in salt until it cracked and bled. Ouch. Makes sense, but, how is the pet-friendly salt any different? I read Steve's linked article, but it just talks about the dangers of de-icing salt.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 03:23 PM) I've got 2-3 W-2's and mortgage interest. That's about it. I just take the standard deduction every year. We don't spend enough on anything else. You have mortgage interest, but take the standard deduction? I think you're leaving some money on the table.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) Not sure how that ruling would work, unless they are going to argue that only the states have the right to enact such legislature (would be quite the bizarre result). Basically we already know that a state can require insurance as long as they can make up some bogus excuse that the insurance is related to a privilege (ie the mandatory auto insurance requirement is based on the fact that driving is a privilege.) Thus its clear that a state can require mandatory insurance if its enacted properly. I would assume that the federal govt can do the same thing, provided that the federal govt rests it on the similar grounds. If the US Supreme Court does get involved this is going to be a political nightmare decision, because if they take away the power for the fed, there are going to be other laws/rules that come under attack. I cant see the Supreme Court eroding the the federal power that much, but maybe. There is nothing bogus about it - it is a fundamental legal tenet. Driving is a privilege, and the insurance directly relates to internalizing the externalities of the risks a driver puts on those around them. Living is a right, as is citizenry when falling under 14A. By saying everyone has to buy insurance just to exist, and when health care is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as a cost born to its citizens, then you are taxing a right and its not Constitutionally valid from that point of view. Now, I think its more complicated than that... but for you to simply dismiss the difference between legal right and legal privilege, and to dismiss the important lack of justification of cost burden for product purchace in the text, is just choosing to ignore legal reality.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) Pet friendly salt I hope??? I'l admit ignorance here... what makes salt pet friendly? What is the negative impact of the stuff that isn't?

If the question is, will adult fans switch allegiance from the Cubs to the Sox, the answer is no. Just won't happen to any significant extent no matter how good or bad either team are. But... the Sox being better than the Cubs for a while, and the stadium going in opposite directions, will most certainly help the Sox draw more fans that might otherwise go to the Cubs. So they are competitors. Its just that they are competing in a couple specific areas: --People who are not die hard fans of either team, will flock more often to the team winning more and with a better stadium experience --Kids choose teams to follow, and getting more kids as fans will help attendence in the long run These are definite factors. And the Sox have done a much better job than the Cubs not only at winning, but at making the stadium a better experience for both adults and kids over the past decade or so. So yes, they are competitors, in a few specific areas.