Health Care Reform

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:08 am

Not as far as I know, or at least not generally. Federal crimes are found in section 18 of the United States Code. I imagine some others may be found in other acts, but I'm not sure.

Post by **Holbytla** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:56 am

Assassinating the president is covered by federal law, but by and large violent crimes become federal crimes if committed on federal property. The 50 states are supposed to be sovereign and cover crimes not committed against the "country".

Or something like that.

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:09 am

The Federal government has the powers that the states granted to it. They did not give it specific powers to make laws with respect to criminal offences, although it can obviously make something a crime if it relates to an area in which it has jurisdiction.

Post by **yovargas** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:09 am

Wow, this is all very interesting to me. I was browsing through some of that section 18 stuff and found this:

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills
a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 2 years, or both.

Emphasis mine!?!? Partial-birth abortion got in under the freakin' commerce clause?????

Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:13 am

Murdering (or attempting to murder) a federal worker is a federal crime. Thus Loughner is charged by the federal government for killing Judge Role and the congressional aide who died, as well for attempting to assasinate Rep. Giffords, whereas he is charged by Arizona for the rest of the deaths and injuries. Kidnapping is a federal offense. Mail fraud, tax evasion, crimes on federal property.

Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:41 pm

Meanwhile, the Senate Republicans managed to force a vote on repeal by attaching an amendment to the FAA authorization bill (just the kind of manuevering that they constantly decry the Democrats for doing). The vote failed, of course, on a straight party line vote. The Senate did vote to remove a tax reporting requirement that small businesses had found irksome, and which President Obama had indicated he was supportive of removing.

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida has indicated that he intends to introduce a bill that would request the Supreme Court bypass the Court of Appeals and decide the constitutionality of the bill sooner rather than later.

Senate Votes Down Health-Care Repeal

Post by **Cenedril_Gildinaur** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:49 pm

If the tax reporting provision for small transactions is so bad that both parties in the Senate and the House and also the President support repeal, how did it get passed in the first place?

(And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of elected officials.)

Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:14 pm

Says the elected official.

ETA: I often say similar things about lawyers, so I sympathize.

Post by **vison** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:26 pm

I'm not so cynical. I think many people run for office because they believe they can serve their city, or state, or nation. But politics is, above all, the art of the possible. And that's when reality sets in.

Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:45 pm

Yup. And if something gets done that turns out not to have been a good idea, and it is able to be changed, that is a Good Thing.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:18 pm

I'm glad to see that point change. I don't spend $600 with any one vendor unless I need furniture or a computer, but a whole new set of tax forms to file was not happy news for this very very small business owner.

Post by **axordil** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:36 pm

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:If the tax reporting provision for small transactions is so bad that both parties in the Senate and the House and also the President support repeal, how did it get passed in the first place?

The same way my little software unit has been purchased twice, along with another associated unit, by companies who didn't know we existed. Not fly-by-night outfits either: the Royal Bank of Canada and IBM. Deadlines + complicated deals = surprises.

Post by **BrianIsSmilingAtYou** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:27 am

Primula Baggins wrote:I'm glad to see that point change. I don't spend $600 with any one vendor unless I need furniture or a computer, but a whole new set of tax forms to file was not happy news for this very very small business owner.

It was $600 per vendor for the year, not per purchase; so it was not just for large-ticket items furniture and computers.

Some small business firms might spend $600 dollars over the year with something like an Office Supply firm. $20 for computer paper here. $10 for CDs there, $30 for toner. Staples, paper clips, postage, stationary etc. You would need to keep track of all of that in case it goes over $600.

If a small company has meetings every week and spends $12 a week on donuts and coffee (not hard to do), that would be $12 *52 or $624 over the year (assuming you got it all from the local bakery). There are a lot of easy ways to get over this limit.

BrianIs

AtYou

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:40 am

True, Brian, although in my own case that would not have been a problem. I'm in an extremely low-overhead business and, these days, use almost no physical supplies.

Post by **vison** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:05 am

Your tax rules for small businesses seem very, very, very complicated and costly. I do believe ours are much simpler. We also pay lower corporate taxes, which encourages enterprise.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:18 am

Mine are pretty simple, but I have no employees.

Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:20 am

Me too!

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:22 am

This current thread of conversation makes me wonder if we aren't better off dealing with these types of issues on a state by state basis, rather than on a national level.

Our country is large on an actual size scale and on a population scale, and it seems to me that tossing out a national health care plan or any other type of national all encompassing program has to be a logistical nightmare that is less effective than if done on a state by state basis.

I hate to see a noble endeavor fall victim to bureaucracy and a system that has many cracks to fall into. I also look at the latest presidential elections and the hot button issues and see that the country is pretty well evenly divided.
I wonder if we are best served by a blanket approach rather than a state by state approach that serves individuals rather than the country as a whole.

We allow for state autonomy with regards to laws that best serve the people of each state. Why is this so different and wouldn't it not be more effective to the general population if it were presented as a piecemeal objective?

Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:46 am

The only way that a state by state approach in health care would work would be if there is some kind of overarching national policy guaranteeing universal coverage, like they have in Canada. Otherwise, the system would break down. But, as Prim (I think) suggested earlier in the thread, there is already some movement in that direction.

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:03 am

I'm not convinced of that either way. I don't think there is enough of a sample to be honest. Massachusetts seems to be working on the surface at least, but we have far different circumstances, population, immigrants, and philosophies than say Idaho. I really can't see any practical way of determining anything at this point based on hard numbers. And I really don't think it is fair to try and throw a blanket over a society that is very diverse and has different wants and needs. Not to mention the mind boggling logistics for xxx million people.

Seriously if it a choice between foisting ideals, politics and unimaginable numbers aren't we better off to evolve towards a "global" health care system than shove a piece of susceptible legislation down the throat of a semi-unwilling public?