President Barack Obama’s signature on the health insurance reform bill at the White House, March 23, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
After the recent Supreme Court validation for ObamaCare, Pravda.ru wrote “Millions of Poor Americans Will Be Without Health Care”.
“Millions of Americans will be poorer without the benefits of health reform after Republican states apply a paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court in order to escape administrative responsibilities. About 16 states ruled by Republicans threatened not to implement the clause providing for the expansion of the insurance bill proposed by President Barack Obama two years ago.
“Another seven states have criticized the White House program and also indicated that they do not support the statutes of the new health system. If the boycott case materializes, some 11 million people will be out of federal help.
“Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Indiana are among the states that have announced their opposition to the expansion. Also, Texas, where the law would benefit two million people, said no to the program claiming that its cost would be $27 billion in two years.”
Under ObamaCare, the states have the option of not fully implementing ObamaCare. According to Pravad.ru, at least 23 states—almost half the country—may exercise that option. The result will be about 11 million poor people in those 23 states who not have full access to “free” medical care.
My question is this: Will the poor, unable to get free medical care in some states emigrate to the other states that provide full ObamaCare benefits?
How ‘bout illegal aliens? Will they prefer to emigrate from Mexico into those states that provide full ObamaCare and avoid those states that do not?
If the poor and illegal aliens tend to emigrate from states that do not fully implement ObamaCare to states that do, will the states that fully implement ObamaCare be subjected to additional economic costs as their populations of poor and illegal aliens increase?
Will the states the refuse to fully implement ObamaCare find their economies stimulated by a loss of poor people, illegal aliens and the associated costs?
Will ObamaCare contribute to two classes of states in this country: one class of states that fully embrace socialism; another class that tends to reject the most extreme forms of socialism? If this two-class system develops, will the resulting comparison tend to show that socialism is good or bad?
Will the federal government permit that comparison? Or, will the feds seek to repeal the states’ right to refuse to fully implement ObamaCare?
Will states that implement ObamaCare suffer unexpected financial and political burdens caused by the emigration of poor people?
Will the states that refuse to implement ObamaCare see their economies unexpectedly strengthened?
Yartap
July 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM
Al, it’s possible, but I think most already on welfare will just sit in their heap piles and not notice any difference.
Question: Obamacare is called “a mandate,” does this mean that one has to go out and find a health care plan from a private insurer and/or does the government offer a plan(s) to the public?
The way I understand the constitution (if I’m allowed to use it) is that Congress has the “power to lay and collect taxes” from income and Congress has to “PROVIDE” the health care plans. All I have to do is make the payment, and nothing more. Am I right?
Adask
July 6, 2012 at 6:29 AM
I’m waiting for the dust to settle before I start to comment on ObamaCare. I don’t know for sure what the “mandate” refers to.
Congress has “the power to lay and collect taxes,” alright–but it doesn’t have that power universally. Can Congress “lay and collect taxes” in Uganda? How ’bout Brazil or China?
Like Congress, I also have the “power to lay and collect taxes”–but only in the home where Iive.
My point is that Congress absolutely has the power to lay and collect taxes in some venues, but not in others. Our liability to paying income taxes depends at least as much on the venue we occupy as Title 26 of the US Code.
So where do you live and work? What your venue? If you are in a TERRITORY you are absolutely subject to income taxes because Congress was given exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the TERRITORIES as per Article 4.3.2 of the federal Constitution. On the other hand, if you live and work within a State of the Union, Congress may not have constitutional power to “lay and collect” income taxes in that venue.
Similarly, Article 4.3.2 also gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the PROPERTY of the United States. I can’t prove it and I could be wrong, but I suspect that the entity signified by an all-upper-case name like “ALFRED N ADASK” might be property of the United States. (The living man signified by the capitalized name “Alfred Adask” is clearly not “property of the United States”.) If that distinction is valid, it may be that the entity “ADASK” (being property of the United States) is absolutely subject to being taxed by the Congress no matter what venue that entity occupied. On the other hand, the man named “Adask” might only be subject to income taxes while he was living or working in a TERRITORY of the United States.
The income tax laws passed by Congress are not only absolutely legal, they are absolutely constitutional–in relation to particular venues and properties. However, the APPLICATION of those laws might not be legal or constitution when applied to certain people or in certain venues.
Thus, the fundamental questions about income tax laws may not be about the laws, themselves, but rather about the nature and venue of the alleged “taxpayer”.
Depending on who/what you are, and where you are, you may or may not be subject to income taxes.
Yartap
July 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Oh, I totally agree. My question was for those who lived in the territory. I believe, that if the government was “mandating” for one in the territory to purchase a private health insurance plan, that would be unconstitutional, because Congress must “provide” the insurance plan. I do not believe Congress has the power to make anyone “buy” a private insurance plan. Maybe, Congress has set it up for both, one can buy their own plan or one can let Congress provide a plan. But, I do know that employers with over 50 employees will have to start, soon, collecting and paying for the health care plan before it officially starts. I guess, we will have to wait and hear more about how it is going to work.