I can’t sleep. It’s now 4:30 in the morning. Seems like the perfect time for a rant, eh?
Strangely enough, I don’t talk politics all the time. That’s how I manage to actually have conservative friends, including the best man at my wedding, who is to the right of Genghis Kahn. I normally, don’t see any reason to bore or tick off non-political people. If they bring it up first though, all bets are off. During a recent discussion with one of these conservative friends, he challenged me to put my own positions up on my blog so he could tell me where I was horribly wrong. I’m not sure I’m anywhere near at the top of my intellect at the moment, but I thought I’d take him on the challenge over the next few days. Today’s issue: health care. (I’m too brain-dead to cite sources tonight. I’ll go fill them in later. In the meantime, the numbers come from http://www.pnhp.org or the books Bleeding the Patient and Healthcare Meltdown)
43 million Americans lack health insurance. Say that number again. 43 million Americans. That’s nearly as many people as voted for Bush in 2000. These aren’t people who won’t work. More often than not, these are people who work hard for a company that isn’t large enough to provide health insurance. 50% are employed. 26% are children. Others lack coverage because of a preexisting illness. 50% of bankruptcies occur at least in part because of illness.
Take my mother-in-law for example. Her husband worked for 30 years for GE. She got uterine cancer and had to undergo surgery and radiation. Even now, years later, she is still suffering the effects of the treatments. They were lucky, they had insurance. The problem is their insurance has a lifetime maximum. It will only pay $500,000 in their lifetime. She has already used $400,000 of that maximum. She’s only in her early 50’s. What happens when she uses the rest? What happens if he loses his job? No insurance will ever cover her again.
This is morally wrong. No one should work and not be able to go to the hospital. No one should be denied coverage BECAUSE they are sick. Can we think of a more evil practice? There aren’t many.
But then again, I’m a bleeding heart liberal. This is just the way it has to be. Right? Hardly. Let’s look at the numbers. We are pretty much the only industrialized country in the world that doesn’t provide universal health-care. We also spend more than any other country on it. Per capita spending in the US on healthcare is $4270. That’s almost double the next highest spending country Germany at $2400.
But we get better care for our money, right? Wrong. We have worse rates of infant mortality, life expectancy, and a host of other measurements than these countries.
Not only is our system providing worse care, but it’s inefficient as well. We all know the lack of choices being forced on patients and health care providers. Dealing with such a hodge-podge system of insurance coverage is inherently wasteful. Not surprisingly, the number of health care administrators has increased 2348% since 1970. The old argument that “government creates wasteful bureaucracy” is moot here. The current system creates wasteful bureaucracy. Government run systems spend only a fraction on overhead that private systems do. The current system raises costs and risks lives in countless other perverse ways as well. For example, if I have Diabetes and no insurance and cut my foot, I likely won’t go to the doctor. I can’t afford it. Eventually, the cut will worsen to the extent that I am forced to go to the emergency room. I can’t pay, so the hospital and consumers pick up the tab anyways. The tab is now much larger, however, because of the higher cost of emergency care, not to mention any surgeries (I think I might need it amputated), etc. that my lack of care created.
What’s the solution? I’m open to many ideas. My personal favorite is a single-payer health insurance system. Such a system would provide coverage to everyone, replace our inefficient hodge-podge with one plan and one series of paperwork, and give patients choice of their health care provider. I think I should try to sleep again. There are still 2 hours left in the night. If you are interested in more, check out http://www.pnhp.org.
"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.--Wendell Berry
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

43 comments:
Why do you think it is morally ok to steal from me (in the form of taxes) to pay for someone else's health care?
Or converserly, why is it ok for me to steal from someone else to pay for my own health care?
Under which article of the US Constitution do you justify the US Government imposing a universal health care sytem?
And on a policy note, Health Savings Accounts would be a far superior method to universal health insurance.
Why do you think it is morally ok to steal from me (in the form of taxes) to pay for someone else's health care?
Refund to me my share of the Iraq War, and we can discuss that. I didn't want it. I was smart enough to look down the line and know that the WMD allegations weren't going to hold water. I also knew this was going to be a ridiculously destabilizing force in the world.
So refund me my money. I'll take a check on it.
While we're at it, I don't think I should have to pay for the red meat Republicans are tossing the bigoted part of their base, so I'll take my percentage of the Mexican Wall off of my next tax bill. Let the RNC kick in my share.
You know, WTL and I were having drinks a few weeks ago, and a young woman came over and sat down next to us. It was getting pretty late in the evening, and I was in no mood for political debate (This misconception exists that every time we get together, we're prepared to drop our beer and discuss policy at the drop of a hat). Yet there she was, giving us all these trite right wing talking points, and asking us why we weren't Republicans.
I could have found a nicer way to say it, but I just had no interest by that point. I looked at her and said "Because once you strip all the bullshit away from any Republican talking point, you find a "me me me selfish prick" ideology at its core."
The idea that I'm supposed to pay for an unnecessary war, the wall on the Mexican border, and the president's travel expenses as he campaigns for his party in the midterms, yet healing the sick is somehow "stealing" from you is yet another reminder that your ideology is destined to disappear up its own ass within your lifetime. And it can't happen soon enough for my taste.
Insurance as is requires healthy people to subsidize other people's healthcare. That's true if it's private health insurance or government provided. That's not called stealing, it's called insurance. It's sharing risk.
As far as health savings accounts, they do nothing to affect catastrophic medical conditions like cancer which are what insurance is most important for because almost nobody can save enough to counteract that.
I dunno sgtlarry, let's put it into a more "me-centric" perspective for you - you will be paying LESS in taxes than you are currently paying in health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs! How does that sound to you, you selfish prick?
Dear Sgt Larry if you work for a living then you have to pay taxes it's up to you to determine how much you want to pay? It sounds like you don't think you should pay at all? but is that not how you get paid! if your really a sgt.? I don't think you were paying attention in civics that day but try to follow along. A single payer healthcare plan like the one proposed by Dennis Kucinich when he ran for president had many great features to many to go into on this blog but it would end up saving
your thousands in premiums and co pays alone. much better than a savings account that’s based on how much you can afford to put in because rich people don't have to worry about how to pay for an operation. Last but not least the
there is no constitutional article or amendment calling for a national heathcare system but maybe there should be there is one to provide for the Health, education and welfare of others so shouldn't this count. what's up with that?
Dear Sgt Larry if you work for a living then you have to pay taxes it's up to you to determine how much you want to pay? It sounds like you don't think you should pay at all? but is that not how you get paid! if your really a sgt.? I don't think you were paying attention in civics that day but try to follow along. A single payer healthcare plan like the one proposed by Dennis Kucinich when he ran for president had many great features to many to go into on this blog but it would end up saving
your thousands in premiums and co pays alone. much better than a savings account that’s based on how much you can afford to put in because rich people don't have to worry about how to pay for an operation. Last but not least the
there is no constitutional article or amendment calling for a national heathcare system but maybe there should be there is one to provide for the Health, education and welfare of others so shouldn't this count. what's up with that?
OK, maybe I should clarify. DuPont plants are heavily guarded, as are ALL nuke plants. Some CBS-generated, fear mongering story won't change my mind. After working in numerous varieties of both plants, they are as secure as the White House. All nuke plants are designed to withstand the impact of a fully-loaded Boeing 747. Short of building a giant roof over everything, nothing will prevent an air attack. But good luck trying to destroy a nuke.
Ohhhhh, you called me a prick and hurt my feelings! lol ... So much for the pinkos not being mean-spirited.
Universal health care is supposed to save money and reduce taxes ... Didn't I hear that same song and dance with TennCare? How did that work out? Oh yea, we raised taxes and a DEMOCRAT governor threw thousands off.
I'm sure you pinkos think it just wasn't done correctly.
I have nothing against VOLUNTARY insurance. I do oppose mandating that I become part of a government run program ... and when it fails, you'll probably do like Canada tried to do and outlaw private medical care (until the Canadian Supreme Court struck a blow for Liberty by ruling such the law unconstitutional).
HSA uses insurance for castastrophe insurance with a high deduct (for example, open heart surgery). The rest is put into a tax free account to be used by the consumer as needed. And in the end, anything left becomes part of the estate and passed to the heirs. So the common user makes the profit rather than the big, bad insurance companies.
If the user got a statement every quarter, then perhaps it would finally dawn on some of them to stop calling the TennCare Taxi (ambulance) for a ride to the ermergency room for a minor illness. Don't think it happens? It happens on a regular basis.
Oh, can't forget about the drug dealers who show up in the emergency room with more than a few thousand dollars in their pocket and a TennCare card.
BTW, I'm not a republocrat. When it comes to social spending, republicans are just democrats-lite.
National defense (which, IMO, includes border control) is constitutional function of the federal government.
There is no constitutional authority for socialized medicine. If you want to change the Constitution to authorize it, then offer the amendment. Let it go through the process.
As for taxes, the income tax is probably the most evil of all taxes. It authorizes the government to pry into your personal affairs (without a warrant) just to figure out your income.
The Fairtax isn't perfect but it's better than the income tax.
BTW ... I'm an Army vet. And yes, I was a Sgt.
It's not "stealing". It's providing for the common good. It's promoting the general welfare. It's creating a society where people don't go to the emergency room for every little problem and conversely don't wait to go to the doctor until it's too late to do anything else except go to the emergency room.
It's improving health education and preventive care to the point where as a society we have more healthy people, fewer sick people, fewer sick children, fewer dead babies.
And this is not a myth. This is in effect in every other industrialized nation, to varying degrees of effectiveness. But in all of them, people are paying less in taxes than we are paying in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
And doctors are dealing with less hassle in terms of getting procedures approved and paying for even more medical billing services to jump through hoops of every insurance provider plus the government for Medicare/Medicaid.
And companies are dealing with less hassle of having to decide which health plan to offer, and for paying their share of employee premiums, and all of the hassle involved with that.
It just makes sense.
HSAs, however, do not make sense. They are for people who a) have a reasonably good job, b) are not already living paycheck-to-paycheck, and c) do not already have any type of medical expenses. In other words - healthy middle-class people. This, in turn, pushes anyone with medical expenses into traditional insurance (who can afford it) as they know they will be using the services, thus it is a good idea to have a plan with a deductible they can manage and with more affordable co-pays, since the amount they would be putting into an account would probably be eaten up very quickly.
So the insurance company starts seeing more and more of their customers are using their benefits more often, and thus, prices go up for those remaining on the plans. Do you see how this works? Do you see why HSAs may be good for some people, but not for the people who really need help? A high-deductible/HSA plan was offered here for the first time this year. We don't have that many health expenses as a family, but I still looked at the difference of a lower premium vs. the higher deductible, and funneling the difference in the premium into the HSA so that my payroll deduction didn't change just wasn't worth the increase in deductible if we did have any problems, not to mention the double price for co-pays for the few times a year that we go to the doctor for check-ups or the occasional bug. And we are the target market for this plan.
Single-payer national health care is more efficient, more cost effective for all concerned, and the right thing to do for the society as a whole. But no matter what argument we give, every time it is brought up, my conservative family or friends will fire back with, "Why should I pay for some freak's sex change?" It never matters how many lives can be saved, just those odd outliers - sex change, abortion, welfare queen/drug dealers.
What a sad world.
sgtlarry - thank you for your service to our country. My apologies for the selfish prick remark (and apologies to Freedonian for swiping it), but this topic gets me very agitated and it was a rough morning at work. I've known several people who have worked hard all their lives only to get screwed over by the insurance companies. Many more than the white-trash-welfare-entitlement "emergency room for a scratch on my finger" crowd. People who have had to sell their homes to pay their medical bills. People who have had to get divorced to qualify for Medicare to pay for their nursing home costs, so their spouse wouldn't have to liquidate everything they owned to pay for six more months of care before they both ended up homeless. Enough rambling. I will never change your mind on the subject.
I left the Republican party because of their hypocrisy; they think they have the moral high ground, but when it comes to their treatment of others, it is clear that they think Jesus was just full of it when he said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me." In their minds there are only two things that Christians ought to do--hate gays and outlaw all abortions. They do not care about anybody else's life, and they think that everybody ought to be able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. There is no for compassion for the sick or the poor. They believe people are that way because they are lazy or bad people. That is the mentality of our current Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn. Why else would she have voted for cuts to our community emergency services (fire fighters, police), education, medicare, veteran's benefits. She's for building that wall to keep illegal aliens out, but she encourages illegal immigration by not standing up for the enforcement of fines on her buddies that hire illegal aliens, so that they can make the profits. What an immoral person! I will be glad to be rid of her this fall.
The Shelby County demoratic party on Thursday night voted to support the lawsuit of the four democrats,and also voted to give $500 towards there legal fees. But Matt Kuhn chairman of the party contacted attorney Javier Bailey on yesterday to tell him that he didn't want the party to be part of the suit. It's now a known fact that local democrats to not support other democrats.
The promotion and celebration of sin should both sadden and alarm every resident of our county - particularly encouraging children to attend, and having adults give them the impression that the advancement of this lifestyle is healthy and normal, is disturbing.
The promotion of purity, decency and wholesomeness should be celebrated before our children. Elevating and trying to dignify what the Bible teaches is a perversion is shameful.
I would hope that our community would extend an attitude of grace for those caught in the deception of sin, but also use this occasion to teach their children that this sexual life style is not God's desire for them.
What the Hell was that last comment about?
...stop calling the TennCare Taxi (ambulance) for a ride to the ermergency room for a minor illness. Don't think it happens? It happens on a regular basis...
...drug dealers who show up in the emergency room with more than a few thousand dollars in their pocket and a TennCare card...
Typical right wing ploy. Whether it has any grounding in reality or not (See Reagan's fictional "welfare queen" for example) and pretend that it's not only rooted in reality, but the norm. If you want to be taken seriously in adult conversation, you'd do well to avoid such drivel in the future.
There is no constitutional authority for socialized medicine.
Are you new to this country? No, even people that are new to this country seem to understand this better than the typical right winger that shows up braying about constitutional authority...
Please try and follow this. I'm not up to explaining it to you multiple times.
Thw Constitution allows Congress to pass statutes, and for the president to sign them. Not every law becomes part of the Constitution. The vast majority go into the US Code. Congress passes laws every day; The Constitution hasn't been amended since 1992. The burden of proof on those using the Constitutional argument is to prove that a given portion of the US Code would be a violation of the Constitution.
So now that we're beyond the civics lesson that most people glean from, you know, elementary school, feel free to point out the portion of the Constitution that would be violated by national health care.
And of course, you follow this up by proposing a national sales tax. Yeah, that's pure genius--- If it's your desire to bring the national economy to a screeching halt. The people at the lower end of the socieoeconomic scale stop spending once you've shaved an additional 15% or so off of their purchasing power with a consumption tax. They outnumber the wealthy people that would actually benefit from a consumption tax pretty badly.
Well actually there is a section of the U.S. Constitution that is on point. Article I, Section 8 states:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
You may want to go to the Supreme Court saying that paying for health care is not part of the "general welfare of the United States" but I don't think you'd get very far.
As far as HSAs go... well, I'm pretty sure it doesn't really work. Think about it. First of all your telling people that can't afford insurance that instead of getting insurance you should save that money that you don't have so you can pay for your own health care? Much like most Republican policies it works in their little world where everyone you know makes a great living and can afford such things, sadly a lot of Americans can't afford it. The second problem has been discussed. You are actually maximizing the risk by doing HSA instead of minimizing it. It kinda runs against the whole idea of insurance. Of course if I could save enough money to pay for my healthcare that would be great. The problem is I can't. It does nothing to fix the problem.
Anyway, I thought you might like an answer to your constitutional question. It's not stealing, and since you decided to call me a pinko you sir are a prick.
Timewalker,
Stealing is theft which is the taking of the property or services of another without consent. I don't consent to the government taking a portion of my income. That meets the definition of theft. If you don't believe it's theft, then try not paying. They will come with guns and use force to take your property.
Here are a few of the problems of the current tax code:
# Vertical Inequality
# Horizontal Inequality
# Complexity
# Instability of Tax Law
# Lack of Financial Privacy
# Denial of Due Process
# Shifting of the Burden of Proof
# No Trial by Jury in Tax Court
# Unreasonable Search and Seizure
# Forced Self-Incrimination
You're so willing to spend my money to help others.
Milton Friedman put it something like this:
When I spend my money on me, I care about how much is spent and how it is spent.
When I spend my money on someone else, I care about how much I spend but not so much on how it is spent.
When I spend someone else's money on me, I care little about how much is spent but am concerned about how it is spent.
And when I spend someone else's money on someone else, I care little about how much is spent and about how it is spent.
So, if you make people's health care dollars theirs, they will be concerned about how it is spent. As it is now, those on government health plans such as TennCare don't care how the money is spent. They go to the emergency room for a running nose because it is more convenient for them and they can get a TennCare Taxi to take them.
You try to convince me that government health insurance will save money but the empirical evidence isn't there to support it.
Europe and Canada control costs by rationing. In 1997 the mean waiting time for an MRI of the head was FIVE MONTHS in Canada, compared to THREE DAYS in the U.S. Is that what you want, to be put on a waiting list for surgery and hope you don't die before your turn comes around? And it is getting worse as the population ages.
My father and his fellow union workers at Firestone traded a raise for lifetime health insurance. Many years later, the government forced my parents onto Medicare which is headed down the road to bankruptcy.
My mother is worried that the government will force her onto a Medicare Drug Prescription Plan.
HSAs permit employees to keep their own money, rolling over any unspent funds in their HSAs at the end of the year and investing the money for future medical expenses or saving it for retirement; the money can be passed on to heirs. Since it’s a real asset, people have an incentive to manage it frugally unlike now when they believe they're spending someone else's money.
HSAs are portable. For those worried about the instability of linking health insurance with steady employment, people who lose their jobs can withdraw funds from their HSAs to continue their families’ health insurance coverage.
And, even tho I believe that programs like Medicad/TennCare are not constitutional, it would be cheaper overall for the government to pay into an HSA account and have castastrophe insurance for those eligible for medicad.
Yes, there are alway people who fall through the cracks of any program. That's where charities come in. Americans are more generous givers per capita than any other nation. But don't impose a failed system on us for the exceptions.
Well, timewalker, the problem is that emographics largely define us. This is one of the few parts of the country where we are close to being equal inpopulation and we whites are not used to being in a minority. This has caused us headaches in the past but I would like to see them turned around to be the advantage and blessing that they can be.
SgtLarry,
Income taxes (which aren't high enough on the wealthy, we need to eliminate the high-end loopholes) are what pay for the GI Bill and the healthcare through VA that you earned with your service to your country. I don't begrudge a bit of it.
I was raised with the idea that taxes are the dues you pay for living in a free country. The more money you make, the more responsibilty you assume to keep this all going.
It is not now, not ever THEFT. To say this undermines the collective bond we share as a nation and the collective works that we have done together, such as your service to your nation.
If you believe it's theft, then go buy your own island like Raymond Burr where you are responsible for everything and you need not worry about taxes being assessed. you can pae your own roads then.
Good luck on having a doctor, though.
Alrighty. This joke's not funny anymore. Let's get this summer bullshit out of the way. This mess where I can just stand out on the carport and watch the sweat bead out of the pores on my arm just won't do. I am over it. Seriously, I've worked hard to put those liquids and fats into my body, and I can't afford for some overworked climate condition to let me sweat Crisco all over the carport. Would I have been a better person if I had an abortion? Well, my problems just started. I'm having a baby, the father won't look at me and my parents won't help me unless I sign papers for them to adopt the baby.
Did that last post come from an alternate universe or what?
I think what that last anonymous was saying is that Repubs focus a lot on saving the lives of the unborn, but they do not care about the lives of the born. In other words, if you are a good Republican, "life ends at birth". Who cares how you take care of the baby as long as you have it. In other words, you have the kid, we'll cut the programs that help you raise the kid. (sorta like Marsha voted to cut WIC) Bad Marsha!
Oh, and to sgtlarry....I am proud to pay my taxes. It is my patriotic duty and the cost of membership in this great community we call America. Don't you appreciate the wonderful way we take care of our veterans when they come home? Wait a minute, I forgot, Repubs cut taxes and veterans benefits! And, yes, I can talk...my father served in WWII under Gen. Douglas MacArthur; my husband was in the US Army during Vietnam, and my son now proudly serves in the US Navy.
Sgtlarry, did I hear you say PINKOS? I really don't think you should talk about pinkos. Our great nation lost 58,000 men in a war to stop the spread of communism, and yet today the Bushies are in bed with Communist China, one of our biggest trading partners. One can hardly find anything that's not "Made in China". They've bought up a bunch of our debt too, they and IRAN. If you want to call somebody a pinko, call the White House.
Cracker,
"I was raised with the idea that taxes are the dues you pay for living in a free country." ... Then I would suggest you had a poor upbringing. This country was founded on what was then considered excessive taxation.
So are you saying before 03 Feb 1913, when the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified, the amendment that ushered in the income tax, Americans didn't have any type of unity (collective bond); that we couldn't fund our National Defense and government courts; that we didn't build roads; that we didn't build canals; we weren't a "civilized" society without an income tax???
The analogy that taxes are dues is pure hogwash. It's the rich who pay the lion's share of the taxes. If taxes are dues, then maybe they should join a different club.
To repubnomore,
I'm not oppose to anyone VOLUNTARILY contributing to government funding. If you feel patriotic for paying income taxes, then pay more! Do you take any tax deductions??? If you feel it is your patriotic duty to pay income taxes, then you shouldn't take any deductions.
Maybe your father and my father knew each other. My father was an Army private and combat infantryman in the Philippines. His brother, my uncle, retired from the Army. My brother was an infantry sgt in the Marine Corps at both Hue City and Khe Sahn during peak tourist season in Vietnam (Tet, 1968) ... he retired an E9 from the Corps. My cousin flew combat missions for the Air Force over Vietnam. I don't hear my brother or cousin talk about taxes as dues. They try to reduce their "patriotic duty to pay taxes" as much as possible.
To Anon.
In case you missed it earlier, I'm not a republocrat. Both major parties are failures. They both grow government and they both take away more and more liberties.
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to take offense at the word pinko. Commies are reds and socialists are just a lighter shade of red ... pink. Ironically, the Russians and Chinese are now better capitalists than we are ... and the Chinese now have private property and rich citizens. They're moving away from failed socialist policies as we are moving towards them.
Wow, what an incoherent mess this whole conversation is...
Someone who is ex-military and anti-tax...
Calling Bredesen a Democrat... that's like calling Lieberman a Democrat... this guy should do stand up...
Discounting modern medical technology and the rights of Americans to be healthy because there wasn't an amendment written 200 years ago mentioning HMOs and organ transplants....
Thaddeus trying to use words and yet again not getting the concpet of how talking works...
Random vague religious rhetoric...
We were talking about universal healthcare right? I really want to contribute somethign constructive but, like, what in the Sam Hill is going on in here?
sgtlarry,
The Russians and the Chinese learned to take advantage of our free trade policies, which reward the big corporations at the expense of the working classes. The Chinese hire child labor and pay a mere pittance. Nobody gets rich and powerful but the government and the American corporations that outsourced our jobs. That's why I don't shop at Wal-Mart--the biggest offender of importing cheap goods from China and poor labor standards, and why I proudly wear the union label.
To Sgtlarry,
You have some strange ideas--I guess it's from drinking Repugnican Kool-Aid. Yeh,yeh,yeh, you're not a "republocrat". No, you're not. You sound like a neo-conservative Bushie.
Yes, I pay my taxes and take deductions. SO? I abide by the laws--something this administrtaion always try to get around when it is to their advantage to do so. Or, have you noticed?
Now--go away--I'm through with you!
Sgt. Larry,
This is why the Constitution is so great. You can sit here and claim things are unconstitutional even after I show the section of the Constitution the authority clearly comes from. The Constitution gives you the freedom to say that, and yet it also makes your opinion worthless because it sets up this thing called the Supreme Court. I doubt any Justice would be willing to say that it is not within Congress's power to create a national health care system. If it did it would also be unconstitutional to have Social Security. I'm sure you believe that is unconstitutinal too. You would be wrong, but you're allowed to think that here in America.
Also, I believe the definition of theft involves an unlawful taking of another's property. Since, as we have discussed, the income tax is legal it is not an unlawful taking and therefore not theft.
Evil,
According to James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, the Federal government is authorized to only carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8 ... and elsewhere in the Constitution.
James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”
If by the “general welfare”, the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social programs Congress wanted to create, it would have been unnecessary to list the specific powers of Congress as it did.
The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power.
Aside from all that, do not confuse "general welfare" with "social welfare" as we know it today, or public charity. The two are distinctly different.
Again, I refer to the Father of the Constitution, James Madison: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794.
Or to President Grover Cleveland (1887): "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
I'm amused by your argument that since an income tax is legal, it isn't theft. Did slavery being legal make it moral? Does making an income legal morally justify you stealing my money?
Sgt. Larry,
Theft is a legal term with a definition. I said nothing about it being morally correct. As a matter of fact I never mentioned morals at all.
As far as morals go, Jesus taught me to care for the sick. Seems pretty moral. He also said to pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's, so call Jesus a pinko if you want.
This has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with you not wanting to pay taxes. That is fine, but don't try to cover it up with some moral argument.
You also didn't answer my question... do you think Social Security is unconstitutional? I can only assume you do although the Supreme Court, again, does not agree with you. (See Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue 301 u.s. 548 (1937), see also Helvering v. Davis 301 u.s. 619 (1937))
Another thing the Court has said about the general welfare clause, as I'm sure you know through all of your research is, “The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
So, you, yet again, are wrong. But let's entertain your interpretation of the Constituion.
If you'll notice, there is no mention of creating an air force. I assume you think that funding the air force is unconstitutional as well?
It also doesn't metion interstate system. Unconstitional?
I see no mention of funds for air traffic controllers either or airport security.
If the founding fathers had intended these things they would have put them in the Constitution, no?
Evil,
"As far as morals go, Jesus taught me to care for the sick. Seems pretty moral."
It's moral. And noble. But it's your responsibility to expend your resources as you please, and not your right to expend mine as you please.
Regarding your opinions about the constitutionality of social welfare programs, I suggest you google "the switch in time that saved nine", and spend a little time reading about the blackmail scheme FDR was using to get his unconstitutional bills to stand up to the myriad lawsuits challenging them, and the SCOTUS striking them down one by one. The West Coast Hotel decision was the snowflake that caused the avalanche of unconstitutional legislation to stand up under SCOTUS "scrutiny", and it continues to this day, with decisions like Kelo v. New London and Hudson v. Michigan. The Constitution is not even considered anymore when the Congress is considering passing a law, or when the Supreme Court is interpreting a law.
-TB
Freedonian,
"And of course, you follow this up by proposing a national sales tax. Yeah, that's pure genius--- If it's your desire to bring the national economy to a screeching halt. The people at the lower end of the socieoeconomic scale stop spending once you've shaved an additional 15% or so off of their purchasing power with a consumption tax. They outnumber the wealthy people that would actually benefit from a consumption tax pretty badly."
You didn't even read about it. If you had, you would have observed that included in the FairTax legislation is a "prebate" ( a portmanteau of pre and rebate) that is paid to everyone with a social security card. The money is paid up front every month (hence the "pre") to cover the sales tax paid on the essentials of life. The prebate is calculated by multiplying the tax rate by the federal poverty rate. If you had read it, you might also have realized that the "prebate" can result in a negative effective taxation rate to those at the very bottom of the socioeconomic scale, if they spend frugally. This is a table of the "prebate" values.
How does it look now? A bit more progressive? To me, it looks simple and transparent, and it makes the exorbitant costs of government painfully clear to anyone who buys anything.
First of all, it's not me taking your money. It's our government, as in "we the people." Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it isn't moral. Caring for sick people is moral, and having everyone chip in to do makes more sense than people doing it individually. Do you consider insurance immoral. Afterall, if you don't ever get sick, then your money is being used by that company to pay for someone who does get sick. It's kinda the whole point. It spreads the risk out over a larger pool of people.
As far as your Constitutional analysis goes, well I'm sorry that is the way our system works. You can say something is unconstitutional or I can say something is, but at the end of the day the Supreme Court settles it.
And wouldn't it have been "activist" for the Court to say Social Security wasn't Constitutional? I mean don't all conservatives want Congress to make laws not the Courts? The people of the United States of America elected their Representatives (by pretty large margins and for a very long period of time by the way) and they passed the New Deal. You may not agree with it, but it is how you claim you want the system to work. To do otherwise would be relying on the dreaded "activist judges."
I don't agree with a lot of Supreme Court decisions, but at the end of the day their opinion matters a lot more than mine. I don't call for their heads like conservatives. I don't blame them for everything like consertives. I respect the role they play in the system that was created by our Constitution. And I believe that a precedent that has stood for seventy years is probably pretty safe to use.
Evil,
"Do you consider insurance immoral."
Insurance policy premiums and social insurance taxes are apples and oranges. One is voluntary, and the other is not. Another difference might be that the insurance policy guarantees you payment in the event of catastrophe, whereas the SCOTUS has held that SS and Medicare don't actually owe you anything, regardless of how long or how much one has paid into the system.
"And wouldn't it have been "activist" for the Court to say Social Security wasn't Constitutional? I mean don't all conservatives want Congress to make laws not the Courts?"
No, it's not activist. The purpose of the SCOTUS is to invalidate laws for which the Congress has no constitutional authority to pass. That's the whole point of judicial review. There is no such explicit authority for much, not all, of the New Deal legislation that Congress passed.
Conservatives (presumably, I'm not one) do want the respective parts of government to do their part (and only their part). The SCOTUS has never drafted legislation. They only interpret the law, which is their job.
"And I believe that a precedent that has stood for seventy years is probably pretty safe to use."
Plessy v. Ferguson stood for 58 years. Does elapsed time increase the correctness and social value of the decision?
-TB
I agree that the Supreme Court has never drafted legislation, I'm not the one claiming that they make laws, the President says they do.
As far as Congress not having Constitutional authority.. well, the way I read the Constitution they sure as hell do. Read Article I Section 8. Again, you may not agree with it, but the Supreme Court has said that gives them the authority. You just said that was the point of judicial review. I agree. They have reviewed and said the Article I Seciton 8 gives Congress the authority to spend of the "general welfare" independent of those powers later enumerated. You may think that's not what it means, but it seems pretty damn clear to me, and I have this thing called precedent on my side as well.
Evil,
"As far as Congress not having Constitutional authority.. well, the way I read the Constitution they sure as hell do. Read Article I Section 8."
I keep a copy of the Constitution next to my computer. I've read it many, many times. It would seem that there is only one way to read clause 1 of AI, S8. Given the layout, and the meaning (at the time) of the word "welfare", coupled with the fact that it is modified by "general", and not "individual", leaves little wiggle room for giving Congress absolute lattitude to determine what constitutes "general welfare". There is an exhaustive list immediately following the tax and spend clause that limits the things upon which congress may "tax and spend".
Also, in the event that the phrase is unclear, one might defer to quotations written by the men who actually wrote the Constitution and created the country. J. Madison and T. Jefferson, respectively, come immediately to mind:
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
How do you read AI, S8? Are there any limits to the tax and spend power? Could Congress and the DoD decide to appropriate millions of dollars in bid-free contracts to companies previously owned by current heads of state? After all, if the life of one is improved by benevolence payments, the "general welfare" is improved.
-TB
First of all I think you are stretching quite a bit to not see the meaning of the term "general welfare." To say that awarding no-bid contracts is for the GENERAL welfare would be quite a stretch as well.
I see the phrase meaning programs that are good for the general public. Not made to benefit specific individuals or coroporations, but for the public generally. That is to say that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States". That phrase does not seem unclear to me in any way shape or form. I agree that the modifier "general" means that it must be for the public at large. A national health care system, much like social security, would meet that requirement, while something like an enormous tax break to a certain oil company would not.
Also, would someone please explain to me how the hell we get an Air Force, airport security, and air traffic controllers under this strict constructionist view of the Constitution?
I see no mention of an Air Force, only and army and navy, and even the army power is rather limited.
Are we allowed to have Interstate Highways? I see no mention of them.
What about dams?
Nuclear power plants?
Why didn't the framers mention these things?
Evil,
"Interstate Highways"
See AI, S8, clause 7. (Post roads)
"Air Force"
If the Air Force were a wing of the Army, so to speak, you'd see no objection. It's simply the application of a new technology (flying) to the Congress' job of providing national defense. Are you making a serious argument with this? Do you feel this question is on par with the question of the constitutionality of wealth redistribution programs?
"airport security, and air traffic controllers"
These are functions the market could probably handle better than government, truth be told. The ATC equipment and general aviation system is so damn antiquated, it's laughable. You'd never catch AT&T trying to run a telecom business with 60's era switchboards. As for security, airlines have a HUGE incentive to ensure safety on their planes. Think about it.
"dams"
Not the job of the federal government. Amendment X leaves this open to the states, or to the people.
"nuclear power plants"
The government should not be in the business of selling energy.
"Why didn't the framers mention these things?"
Well, the obvious answer is that most of them (save dams) didn't exist.
"A national health care system, much like social security, would meet that requirement,"
So would a system where the people who actually create this country's wealth keep what they create, and not have it taken and spent on their behalf on things that "benefit" them.
I don't believe the founders contemplated interstate highways when they allowed for "post roads." It is not clearly stated in their intention so under YOUR interpretation it fails.
Um, where do you see "Congress' job of providing national defense"? The only place I see is right next to that clause that provides for the general welfare, which you say doesn't count unless it is later enumerated, which it's not. Again this is not my argument it is YOURS.
If you think the market could really handle airport security better you're not paying attention. Airlines are CUTTING cost anywhere they can and that includes on security. Privite companies do not have an incentive to provide for security, they have an incentive to provide profits to their shairholders. Under that argument we should privitize our military. Well, actually I guess we're trying that in Iraq. (BTW, it's not working.)
"Well, the obvious answer is that most of them (save dams) didn't exist."
Much like HMO's? Or most prescription drugs? Or modern insurance companies? Kinda like that? It is an obvious answer that is my point!!
"So would a system where the people who actually create this country's wealth keep what they create, and not have it taken and spent on their behalf on things that "benefit" them."
I agree that would be Constitutional. That's because I don't try to say things I don't like our unconstitutional like you. If someone wanted to run on getting rid of social security and everyone fend for themselves and they got a majority in Congress and passed these things (somewhat like what is going on now) I wouldn't say it's unconstitutional. I, much like the Supreme Court, would say that is a political question that has a political answer. You, on the other hand, say that if you don't like it it must be unconstitutional by using extremely twisted logic. I would also tell you that we tried things your way and it didn't work. See Hoover.
I would also say that you may want to look up the definition of "create". Who creates cars? Is it the CEO of GM, or is it the guys working on the assembly line?
"Are you making a serious argument with this?"
I should ask you that question.
"I don't believe the founders contemplated interstate highways when they allowed for "post roads." It is not clearly stated in their intention so under YOUR interpretation it fails."
Do you know what post roads are? They are roads on which mail is delivered. Interstates clearly qualify under a strict reading. What clearly was their intention with "post roads"?
"Um, where do you see "Congress' job of providing national defense"? The only place I see is right next to that clause that provides for the general welfare, which you say doesn't count unless it is later enumerated, which it's not. Again this is not my argument it is YOURS."
"National defense" was my phrase, not the Constitution's. Let me ask you this: if there were no "Air Force" (or USMC, btw), and the Army and Navy simply operated the planes it used in combat, would you still object?
"If you think the market could really handle airport security better you're not paying attention. Airlines are CUTTING cost anywhere they can and that includes on security. Privite companies do not have an incentive to provide for security, they have an incentive to provide profits to their shairholders."
This is flat-out obtuse. Reconsider the factors that are leading airlines to have to cut costs. (Hint: governmental regulation) Note that airlines cannot make a profit if their planes are falling out of the sky and then continue on with this line of thinking.
"Much like HMO's? Or most prescription drugs? Or modern insurance companies? Kinda like that? It is an obvious answer that is my point!!"
The concept of health and healthcare sure as hell did exist in 1787, but you don't see any mention of taxpayers providing it, do you? This is because the people who wrote the Constitution wanted a small, limited, non-obtrusive government. You know what else isn't mentioned in the Constitution? Food. Should we assume that didn't exist then, either?
"That's because I don't try to say things I don't like our unconstitutional like you."
I assume you meant "are". They're homophones, so I can see how you made that mistake typing it out.
That I dislike the idea of national healthcare is unrelated to the fact that the founders didn't authorize the Congress to appropriate benevolence monies to individuals. I primarily dislike the idea of national healthcare because it's ineffective, wasteful, and provides poor service.
"You, on the other hand, say that if you don't like it it must be unconstitutional by using extremely twisted logic. I would also tell you that we tried things your way and it didn't work. See Hoover."
What's twisted about a literal interpretation using contextuals clues and direct quotations from the authors in the event of uncertainty? I await your answer with abated breath.
What about Hoover? Are you asserting that Hoover's administration was largely libertarian? Bite your tongue, and educate yourself on that.
"I would also say that you may want to look up the definition of "create". Who creates cars? Is it the CEO of GM, or is it the guys working on the assembly line?"
Oh, joy, a semantic argument! But I'll humor you.
It takes three things to create wealth; capital, labor, and entrepreneurship. You seem to think that the only one that matters is the second, forgetting that without the first or the third, the second has nothing to do. I'm not claiming that any is more important; they are mutually dependent. But enough with the semantics.
-TB
""National defense" was my phrase, not the Constitution's. Let me ask you this: if there were no "Air Force" (or USMC, btw), and the Army and Navy simply operated the planes it used in combat, would you still object?"
Way to not answer my question. I don't object to having an Air Force. I'm saying that if I followed your reasoning it would be unconstitutional to fund it. (BTW, I believe the USMC is technically part of the Navy.)I'm taking your legal reasoning and applying it to other Constitutional questions. Like can we fund the Air Force? Well, is it literally mentioned in the Constitution? NO. Well, then under YOUR logic, we can't fund it. Under mine, it's fine because I believe the phrase "the common defense and general welfare of the United States" means exactly that. You don't.
"The concept of health and healthcare sure as hell did exist in 1787, but you don't see any mention of taxpayers providing it, do you?"
Your right, but leaches didn't cost much either. People didn't go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare. It does mention the "general welfare" right next to providing defense which you seem to think is legitimate. You can't really have both.
"ineffective, wasteful, and provides poor service."
Please define. Other countries live much healthier lives and spend much less on health care than the United States, which to me would mean their health care systems are more effective and less wasteful. As far as service goes. I'm sure you'll site some CATO study on that, but I think at the end of the day the goal of any health care system should be to provide a longer healthier life for more people at less of a cost. Socialized medicine does that in the countries that have it.
I will not bite my tongue. I'm not saying Hoover per se. I'm saying the period of laissez-fair policies that lead to the Great Depression, of which Hoover was a part of.
What government regulations are causing the airlines to not make profits? Is it all the tax breaks they get? I'm pretty sure it's their labor cost that are the problem, or at least that's what they claim. The fact is they will not spend money on security. You can claim they would, but they didn't when they had the chance. They think their money would be better spent buying Congressman to exempt them from the lawsuits that follow. And they, in a purely profit minded way, are correct.
"What's twisted about a literal interpretation..."
Nothing except your unwillingness to apply it in all cases. You claim the Founders could not have contemplated planes so that is ok, but when I say they couldn't have contemplated the cost of modern medicine you say that's unconstitutional. You can't have both. I support us having an Air Force. I also support us having universal health care. Why? Because when I read "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." I take it literally. You on the other hand want to cut that off after "for the common defense" and act like the rest is not there. You can't have one without the other. They are LITERALLY spelled out right there next to each other.
"It takes three things to create wealth; capital, labor, and entrepreneurship. You seem to think that the only one that matters is the second, forgetting that without the first or the third, the second has nothing to do. I'm not claiming that any is more important; they are mutually dependent."
Actually, you kind of are claiming that one is more important because you claim that "the people who actually create this country's wealth" should "keep what they create, and not have it taken and spent on their behalf on things that "benefit" them."
I can only assume that you mean the wealthy. Maybe you didn't. But it sure as hell seems like it. Agin, that's fine and would be Constitutional just like it was when we tried it before.
Interesting stuff... I'm going to have to bookmark this and come back later to check it out. Off to work for now. I know, I work late, but there's no traffic!
My first site - download mp3 song
Post a Comment