3-22-2010 (Monday)

man·date
   /ˈmændeɪt/ Show Spelled [man-deyt] Show IPA noun, verb,-dat·ed, -dat·ing.
–noun
1.
a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.
2.
a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
3.
an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.
4.
(in the League of Nations) a commission given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former Turkish territory or German colony.
5.
a mandated territory or colony.
6.
Roman Catholic Church. an order issued by the pope, esp. one commanding the preferment of a certain person to a benefice.
7.
Roman and Civil Law. a contract by which one engages gratuitously to perform services for another.
8.
(in modern civil law) any contract by which a person undertakes to perform services for another.
9.
Roman Law. an order or decree by the emperor, esp. to governors of provinces.

"Mandate." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 22 Mar. 2010. .

There was a rather large event this weekend. One that generated a lot of heat on both sides of the political aisle. That issue was the reformation of health care. Now I am waiting to see what this all means in the long term. It seems that for the majority of those against it this heralds the beginning of "Socialism" in America and the end of our great nation. Those who are in favor of this seem to feel that this is evidence that "change" can happen and that America will finally have the health care system that they should.

I am not here to debate either of those points. Though if my readers want to, please feel free to do so in the comments section. What I would like to talk about is the word "Mandate". As I listened to and read and watched things pertaining to the Health Care debate of the last year. It seemed that one of the biggest objections for those opposed to it was that health insurance would be mandated. Now I live in Oregon and in Oregon car insurance is mandated.

"Oregon's mandatory insurance law ORS 806.010 requires every driver to insure their vehicle. The minimum liability insurance a driver must have is:

Type Amount
Bodily injury and property damage liability

$25,000 per person;
$50,000 per crash for bodily injury to others; and
$20,000 per crash for damage to the property of others

State law also requires every motor vehicle liability policy to provide:

Type Amount
Personal Injury Protection (for reasonable and necessary medical, dental and other expenses one year after a crash)

$15,000 per person
Uninsured Motorist Coverage

$25,000 per person;
$50,000 per crash for bodily injury

You must certify that you have this insurance each time you register a motor vehicle, or when you buy a light vehicle trip permit. You must also certify that you will comply with Oregon's motor vehicle insurance requirements as long as a vehicle is registered in your name, or for the duration of the permit.

Some motor vehicles are exempt from financial responsibility requirements. Those exemptions can be found in ORS 806.020."

Also in Oregon if you drive a motorcycle you must wear a helmet another mandatory law. Now one of the core ways that both of these laws were put into practice was the idea that uninsured motorists and helmetless drivers raise the cost for the rest of us if we mandate these things then the cost will eventually be kept lower. Now I was not around for the debate on those and I am not sure if that has been the case or not. But I wonder if the fight for mandating car insurance was a heated as the fight has been for health care. Now I know that in the case of car insurance the federal government has left it up to each state to decide the laws on car insurance. I believe that car insurance is mandated in each state. So I wonder what makes health insurance different then car insurance in this case. Is it strictly because cars are a machine and there isn't the emotional connect?

I know several states are already moving to file cases against a federal mandate for health insurance. I do not have a problem with that. I think states should have the ability to make their own laws. If New York wants to ban the use of table salt and they vote it through okay. That is how it works. Sometimes things will get voted on that we do not like but ideally then they can be revisited and changed. I did not mean to get sidetracked on that.

My main question is this one. What is the difference between mandating car insurance vs mandating health insurance? Are both equally bad? Would it be okay if each state was doing it on it's own? Is the problem that the Fed has mandated it and that goes against the Constitution? I really want to know what is the difference?

The Ringing Silence of the Crickets!

*chirp, chirp* Can you hear that folks? It is the sound of nothing. That is right no response at all. I did not think I asked that hard of a question. I thought it was a pretty simple one actually. But, I understand people are busy and have a lot going on with the holidays and their daily lives. So I will forgive them this one time. But, if I am transgressed upon just one more time then the forgiveness will not be forthcoming. Now, as for Joel and Sherry, or Sherry and Joel because we all know ladies come first, I give them each a gold star and move them to the front of the class. I hope the rest of you realize what an honor this is for both of them and will strive to achieve the same. As for the others well "Your revolution is over! Condolences. The bums lost."

But back to the 2% tax idea. It is interesting to me to note that Sherry doesn't like the idea because she thinks:

"it's reasonable to ask those that make more to pay a higher percentage"

She also raised a good question about the absence of deductions and what that would mean for people with children as well as would it apply to corporations or just the workers. Both of these are valuable questions and ones that I do not have the answer to. I am in agreement with her on it being reasonable to ask people who make more to pay more. But, I think that the way the tax code is and the presence of deductions makes it so those that make more can often afford the lawyers they need to use the deductions to pay less then those who make less. One benefit I see of the flat-tax model is that with out deductions the wiggle room gets taken out. 2% is 2% and no amount of dancing is going to change that. So while it might be hard for some to pay that amount. I would think that for others we might actually be collecting more then they currently pay.

Now Joel coming at this from a more conservative position then Sherry states that:

"I would only support a flat tax if it replaced the system already in place. I cannot support more taxation, I can support a different type of tax, just not more."

That is a valid point Joel makes. He does not have a problem with taxes in general, he has a problem with the poor use or in some cases criminal use of these funds. I am in agreement with Joel on this, I feel that there are provisions in the Constitution that allow for the support of the populace and that the way this happens is by taxation. The differences for most of us come in to play when we start talking about the specific things that the money goes for.

When I think about the way we are taxed in the great state of Oregon I feel that if we were to drop the personal income tax and replace it with some form of a VAT or a Sales Tax we might just be better off in the long term. Now, that is just a hunch and I have not done extensive research on the issue but I would be willing to be educated so please feel free to let me know how I wrong I am please do so.

That is it for today. I hope everyone where ever you are has a good day and please feel free to join the conversation.

The Tea Has Steeped!!

So, the Tea Parties are over. What is next? Has everyone gotten it out of their system and now they will go back to burying their head in the sand and pretending that it is all ok? What happens if somehow against all expectations Obama is right and the economy stabilizes?

I really believe that Obama was elected as a response to the policy's of Bush. I also believe that unless something really changes there will be a new president in four years as a response to Obama and his policys. With the way that the system is their appears to be no other choice but to vote out the old and bring in the new. The problem rises when the new is really just a slight variant of the old and as long as we have a two party system this will never change. But, I do not need to rant again about the problems of the two party system.

My question for the people that are on fire about the Tea Party is what is next? Are you wanting to run your own candidates like the Green Party and some of the others? Are you wanting to start another political party that has as it's core fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits? What is next?