Good God, this guy teaches at Harvard?

November 17th, 2011

In defending Obamacare’s mandate, cialis buy viagra Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge wrote:

But not only is there a precedent for this, buy cialis discount there is also clear support for it in the Constitution. For decades, online Americans have been subject to a mandate to buy a health insurance plan — Medicare. Check your paystub, and you will see where your contributions have been deducted, whether or not you wanted Medicare health insurance.

Uhhhh, no. Medicare is a government program supported by a TAX. If Obamacare was a new government program supported by a tax then this Harvard professor would be correct it would be like Medicare. But it’s not. And this jackass either understands that and is attempting to deceive his readers or he does not and isn’t smart enough to teach law at Harvard or anywhere else.

Entry Filed under: Observations

12 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  November 17th, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    First, calling the healthcare reform act “Obamacare” makes me not even want to dignify this with a response, but I’ll put that aside and go ahead and do so anyway.

    If it is acceptable to “tax” somebody to support a government program, then what part of the health care act policies is unconstitutional?

    The “mandate” portion? You don’t have to purchase health insurance if you want. You’ll simply see your taxes increased if you opt not to.

    But hey, if the mandate is unconstitutional I’m all for taking it completely out of the picture and simply leaving the rest of the bill intact. I have no problems dropping health care insurance until I potentially face a million dollar surgery, then going and getting insurance just to cover said operation and dropping it shortly after.

    Or perhaps you were thinking of something besides the individual mandate?

  • 2. John Foust  |  November 17th, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    You see, Debunked, if they forced you to buy a product like health insurance or government health care, it would be completely different then taxing you to pay for a war you didn’t support.

    I mean, we can’t ask people to pay for something they don’t want, right? That would be unethical, immoral, Obamalicious, socialototalitarian, and downright Marxist, if not Kenyan Muslimific.

  • 3. TerryN  |  November 19th, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Hey, if you don’t want your income supporting national interests become one of the 47% who don’t have any skin in the game. It’s even easier to do these days under Obama than it was under Bush.

    And we all know that once big brother forces you to purchase something they deem good for you, the sky’s the limit.

    Also, if I were proud of some legislation I rammed down the throats of an unwilling population, I would *want* my name on it.

  • 4. Debunked  |  November 19th, 2011 at 10:45 pm

    Hey, if you don’t want your income supporting national interests become one of the 47% who don’t have any skin in the game.

    Except Foust and I aren’t the ones complaining about taxes existing, unlike so many conservatives and/or libertarians who feel “taxes are theft.” So it seems to me your argument goes for all those who complain about paying income taxes which go to unemployment, medicaid, and other “welfare” programs far more than it goes towards being used as a rebuttal toward Foust’s (quite obvious) sardastic response.

    But I will give you credit. At least you somewhat hinted that “47% of Americans” don’t pay income taxes rather than claiming they don’t pay any taxes which is a blatant conservative misdirection and completely fallacious. (Of course, conservatives still like to ignore the fact that 47% of Americans control about a whopping 2% of all income in the United States, so even taxing that bracket at a 100% rate would barely increase revenue at all – but you know, conservatives like to ignore that little statistic).

  • 5. John Foust  |  November 20th, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Exactly, TerryN. If you define something as a “national interest”, then the sky’s the limit. A trillion for wars makes perfect sense once you frame it as a national interest, especially when it benefits you and a great number of your lobbyist friends.

    Redefine the poor as lazy, and next thing you know, you have Perry running ads ridiculing Obama by quoting him out of context calling America “lazy”, at the same time you have conservatives suggesting that the only reason the poor are poor is that they’re lazy and all they need to do is find a job.

    Look at the immense chunk of the national budget that goes to defense. Oh, you get a little shiver saying “all taxes are theft, all taxes are taken at the point of a gun” when it comes to giving a hungry person some free cheese or minimal health care, but the average TEA partier is a little less pro-active when it comes to ending the subsidy to the farmer to making the cheese, and even less so when it comes to ending the gravy train to the military-industrial complex that made the gun that’s forcing the extraction of taxes.

    The government cradle that dominates a military man’s life from enlistment to death is a source of national pride when it comes to the military. Spare no expense! Housing subsidies, clothing, food, air-conditioned tents, hired cooks, chaplains, heath-care, golden pension, even a grave – but heaven forbid anything like that ever be extended to the ordinary citizen or even the least wealthy and least powerful among us. That would be godless Communosocialism, and that’s what we’re fighting against! Death panels killing Grandma! No Twinkies in schools! CFL light bulbs!

    Orwell would be proud.

    (And I will grammar-nazi myself for mistakenly typing “then” when I meant “than”.)

  • 6. TerryN  |  November 20th, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    No John, your extremist views are defining your opinion of me, and conservatives in general. Are you saying the USA has no national interest in eradicating the Taliban? I have no, “lobbyist friends”. Please stop projecting your views as somehow valid.

    Extremism is the problem no matter which side it is applied to. You choose to highlight the extremism found on the right to somehow connect me to it.

    How about refuting anything I wrote above instead of trying to paint me with your extremist viewpoint of conservative Americans.

    Yes I hinted 47% of Americans don’t pay income taxes. I do not try to misrepresent, I am not an extremist. I stated a fact.

    I would much rather someone who is down on their luck find a charity to help them get through their problem, than have to rely on our corrupt government for a handout.

    Than/then. I usually mess up its/it’s…

  • 7. John Foust  |  November 21st, 2011 at 11:53 am

    TerryN, I hope it was clear that I was using the general third-person “you” in that context. I have no idea if you have lobbyist friends, but when Bush & Co. created his wars, they were certainly cozy with the M-I complex.

    I’m glad to hear you are opposed to gross generalizations about those who don’t believe what you believe. How do you put this into practice, and how do you correct those who do believe what you do, when you see them generalize about the people who don’t believe what you do?

    I think Debunked did a pretty good job, but when I typed “47% pay no income tax” into Google, it automatically suggested the next word was “myth”, and the first dozen hits provided a deeper explanation. Here’s one example.

  • 8. TerryN  |  November 21st, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    “Exactly, TerryN. If you define something”

    I took that as me in the first person. I can see that you could be referring to me in the third.

    I got that 47% number directly from the IRS after researching the talking point over a year ago. Turns out there is more to the story as there usually is in politics. The 47% should only be referred to with the words federal and income and 2009 in the same sentence. In other years it is less than 47%

    The federal government is on an unsustainable financial path and yet they continue to add more liability on Americans by raising taxes and inflating the dollar.

  • 9. John Foust  |  November 22nd, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    Of course there’s more to most stories. Don’t get fooled by the Fox News / GOP talking points. They’re not telling you the whole story for a reason.

    So which category of government spending is the largest, over the last decade? Think we should attack that first?

  • 10. TerryN  |  November 27th, 2011 at 12:38 am

    “Don’t get fooled by the Fox News / GOP talking points”

    Are you referring to Alan Colmes? Do you really believe Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow, Keith Olberloser are telling the truth?

    I could say the same thing about most of the media in America today, but I’m not fooled by either side. I am not an extremist…

  • 11. Debunked  |  November 28th, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    I am not an extremist…

    You keep saying this. And yet, you’ve also said the following:

    Hey, if you don’t want your income supporting national interests become one of the 47% who don’t have any skin in the game.

    Which I already said that, while the way you worded it is technically correct the way it comes across is extremely misleading as my link above makes mention of.

    You’ve also said:
    …some legislation I rammed down the throats of an unwilling population…

    Which is just blatantly not true. A non-extremist would recognize the health care debate was in the works for nearly an entire year AND the version passed by Congress was an extremely watered down version due to many Republican complaints during the process (e.g. removal of public option).

    Further, a non-extremist would recognize many surveys that have illustrated the general population is in-favor of many of the aspects of the health care reform law and are just uninformed about what it largely contains within (they’re just upset about the “insurance industry handout” via what this thread began with as the “mandate” portion of said bill).

    Non-extremists look at the reality of the situation and disagree with it without making blanket statements that are at best misleading or, at worst, just blatantly untrue.

    This doesn’t mean you’re not partisan. But you shouldn’t simply spout partisan rhetoric.

    Or maybe I am simply confusing partisan with extremists. After all, there are differing levels of extremism.

    And I’m still waiting for Elliot’s response to my original response for this topic.

  • 12. John Foust  |  November 28th, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Alan Colmes? Hasn’t his show been off the air for about three years, and he’s still your boogeyman? Are you trying to make my point or refute it? What’s next, the Clenis?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta