The positive impact of malpractice suit limits in Texas: “Doctors clamoring to come to Texas, creating backlog of applicants.”
Vance did a great series on insurance and managed care. These examples are good to be aware of in light of the new Michael Moore movie. Here are just a few of the links.
Is National Health Insurance the Answer? - A brief history on how we got here.
You would think that with the Walter Reed Army Medical Center issues that nationalized healthcare wouldn’t be a winning political issue for this election. Somebody tell me again how turning over more of this to the Federal Government is going to make it better?
Advertisement
Michael Moore (as usual) fails to note the myriad of problems with government-managed health care. A quick list:
-long waits
-speaking of which, how can doctors pay off $300,000 (no exaggeration) of med school loans on a gov’t salary?
-worse care
-less innovation (as the returns on investment and risk are not there)
-that which is currently an employee benefit for the middle class will 1) cease to be a benefit (therefore reducing overall compensation) and 2) will be paid for via taxes. Unless companies actually pass on the cost savings and help their employees offset their increased tax bill with a higher salary, it’s putting more of a squeeze on the middle class. (Please explain how this is good for the little guy and bad for large corporations….???)
-the philosophical issue that the gov’t now has an incentive to let old people die earlier (instead of expending their dollars on prolonged terminal care), encourage women to abort (cheaper than labour & delivery), and generally make your health decisions for you. The right to health care is the right to care free from gov’t interference. By forcing people to have this right, it actually guts the right in question – because there will be no such thing as health care free from gov’t interference.
Rant over. Neil, another fabulous post (at 1 am your time!).
“The National Health Service has relied on foreign doctors to meet staffing shortfalls, and foreign doctors have been drawn to its relatively generous salaries and thorough standards of training. Of the nearly 239,000 doctors now registered with the General Medical Council, about 90,000 of them qualified in countries other than Britain.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/03/europe/britain.php
It seems that these salaries aren’t near enough to encourage English men and women to agree to spend a decade of more of their life in med school and then residency. Anyone know the salary numbers for English doctors? Please do post them.
Check out the pamphlet from my favorite godless atheists over at the Objectivist Center
“Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea — which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical — it does not work — but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I’m going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan — not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it — to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.” (read more at the link below)
http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html
Great points!
This is sort of like the death tax issue. Do you really want the government to profit by your death, either by them getting part of your estate and/or them not having to pay your medical bills?
Yes, it will have to come from taxes, not the fantasy “government will pay for it” approach.
Hey something we agree on…
Socialized healthcare is just another – well, not just another (it’s much bigger than most) – power grab by the federal government.
Theo, you nailed it with this: “the philosophical issue that the gov’t now has an incentive to let old people die earlier (instead of expending their dollars on prolonged terminal care), encourage women to abort (cheaper than labour & delivery), and generally make your health decisions for you. The right to health care is the right to care free from gov’t interference. By forcing people to have this right, it actually guts the right in question – because there will be no such thing as health care free from gov’t interference.”
Why is it so hard for people to understand that this is a horrible idea?
totaltransformation, you must find it very ironic that your “favorite godless athiest” is making points using morality as an argument.
Beings my job requires me to disburse medicaid like it’s candy, I’ll probably be back to comment when I’m not working
.
In case your curious though, I’ll weigh in on the conservative side against socialized medicine.
“Hey something we agree on…”
Now aren’t you glad you stuck around!
“In case your curious though, I’ll weigh in on the conservative side against socialized medicine.”
Phew – the suspense was killing me!
“totaltransformation, you must find it very ironic that your “favorite godless athiest” is making points using morality as an argument.”
Not really. I have quite enjoyed their literature for a long time. I have no problem working with folks that don’t agree with me on all the issues. And I wasn’t calling them “godless atheists” in a pejorative sense- just a matter of fact statement.
o yea it will line the pockets of Pelosi and her gang ………..:)
Here’s a thought… If we put the gov’t in charge of our healthcare, how long until they start demanding racial quotas (for equality, of course) for procedures such as cardiac catheterization, or dialysis, ect?
Whoa! Brooke. Good point! Scary stuff. Scary because it’s very easy to imagine happening.
totaltransformation – I knew that. Just having a little fun. As one of those “godless athiests” I understand completely.
Some object to health care on the supposed grounds that gov’t shouldn’t be doing stuff like that.
For folk with an interest in Judeo-Christian values, I might remind us of the Jubilee and Sabbath laws found in the OT and referenced in the NT. Those were policies put in place at the national level in Israel to have a system for dealing with the poor, the foreigner (who was welcome), the orphaned and widowed and otherwise marginalized in the land.
So, those Christians and othe believers who argue against gov’t healthcare purely on the grounds that it’s “wrong – it’s like stealing,” don’t do much at all to convince me.
Moore has done a good job (from what I’ve read) pointing out the flaws of the current system, which are real and serious.
I don’t know if gov’t getting involved is a better solution, it would probably depend upon the plan. But ethically, from a faith-based point of view, there is no problem with the notion of implementing a national policy to deal with some of our issues.
For me, it’s more of a question of, Will it work? Which remains to be seen.
We all seem to agree that the current system has serious flaws. Some are pretty obvious to me. Can you imagine how much more auto insurance would cost if you had to file paperwork for oil changes and had no incentive to negotiate the costs? Note how costs for cosmetic surgeries and lasik defy the trends of other costs. With all our dramatic technology improvements the cost of health care should be going down.
Re. the Biblical model – those are interesting thoughts, but are you suggesting we return to a theocracy? Seems like picking and choosing if you just want to pull out the health care part and ignore the rest. And I think the Israelites had a slightly more robust accountability program in place than our Federal Gov’t does. Wouldn’t an application of that philosophy include the Biblical notion that if you can work and don’t that you don’t eat?
“For folk with an interest in Judeo-Christian values, I might remind us of the Jubilee and Sabbath laws found in the OT and referenced in the NT. Those were policies put in place at the national level in Israel to have a system for dealing with the poor, the foreigner (who was welcome), the orphaned and widowed and otherwise marginalized in the land.”
Laws and celebrations given to a theocratic nation lead and controlled by God, quite different from our own nation. For example I doubt you would also endorse the following sound basis for legislative change in America: the penalty of death for sabbath breaking (exodus 31:13), homosexuality (and other sins of sexual immorality) (Lev. 20:13), and various other God given rules to the Israelites. Probably not. And for good reason, these were given in the context of a theocratic government run by God and God led men.
I trust God with such things, I don’t trust men. Especially men in government who insist that they can separate God and State.
A proper time will come though. I will be all for it come the millennial kingdom.
“Laws and celebrations given to a theocratic nation lead and controlled by God, quite different from our own nation.”
To be quite clear, I have no desire for a theocracy this side of heaven. I don’t trust gov’t especially either (which is why it amazes me the number of supposedly “small gov’t/don’t trust gov’t” types who are okay with a massive military!)
But, although Israel may have nominally been a theocracy initially, they were for the most part, not. They had rules handed to them from men who said they got them from God.
Those rules were variously adopted or ignored by the monarchs that came to rule thru most of Israel’s history.
The point I was making was that on a practical level, Israel had rules that those humans tried to implement on a policy level. That suggests to me, amongst other things, that it is okay, from a biblical point of view, to implement policies for the welfare of a nation’s people.
And I say that merely to counter those (some of whom are Christians) who suggest that any such tinkering with helping people is wrong, wrong, wrong. A given policy may be ill-advised or it may work, but biblically speaking, a case can easily be made that there’s nothing theoretically wrong with welfare-sorts of policies.
“To be quite clear, I have no desire for a theocracy this side of heaven.”
Don’t forget Christ’s millennial kingdom, after all, that will be this side of heaven.
“I don’t trust gov’t especially either (which is why it amazes me the number of supposedly “small gov’t/don’t trust gov’t” types who are okay with a massive military!)”
Neither do I, which is why I stand with our founding fathers in support of a strong federalized Navy, and ground forces composed of militia (derived from the able-bodied males between the ages of 18-45) living in the respective states. I begrudgingly support a small nationalized “army.”
Sadly, it appears, barring a massive catastrophe, that such shall never return to our land. We are doomed to carry on our back the burden of a huge military because (1) status quo tends to remain, and (2) The rest of the world for all their hateful rhetoric relies on our military to safeguard them from the potential threats of Russia, China, and radical Islam.
Nothing wrong with Objectivism! I agree with them: gov’t-run health care is an immoral idea. There’s not much difference between that and gov’t-mandated meals, exercise, or marriage. In fact, gov’t-run health care will invariably lead to such. Government is no more moral, at its best, than those it rules over. Need I go all Federalist 51 on y’all?
Neil,
Your quote: “And I think the Israelites had a slightly more robust accountability program in place than our Federal Gov’t does.” That was an excellent understatement!
Good post…
Oh? The Israelis had prophets to denounce the kings when they weren’t doing right. We have prophets to denounce the president when he or she’s not doing right. Additionally, there are watchdog groups of MANY various sorts – within the gov’t and without.
By my reckoning, we got Israel beat on accountability by a landslide.
“We have prophets to denounce the president when he or she’s not doing right.”
I might be walking right into it here, but please tell me who are these prophets?
Michael Moore is as usual totally over the top with SICKO, but some of his points are valid. Health care is unnecessarily expensive in the US compared with anywhere else in the world. Taxpayer spending per head on Medicare, Medicaid, VA and free care in county hospital ERs is about the same as the British Governement spends on the NHS, which is available to everybody, not just the 41 million uninsured.
In the UK newly qualified doctors do not have a $300,000 debt. Governement salaries are generous. Were I retiring now rather than 4 years ago my salary would have been more than $300,000 and my pension half that with a lump sum of nearer half a million.
There are problems with any system of health care, but sloganizing does not help. I think the governemnt is too intrusive in the NHS, but the American system of ‘managed care’ is far worse.
I have written extensively about the pros and cons of teh NHS at http://mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/
Hi Dan – I was referring to the gov’t not holding people accountable the way the Israelites would have held people accountable. I agree that we should hold the leaders accountable.
We have lots of Katrina refugees in Houston who could find work, but don’t even try. Every few months their benefits get extended. They could have gotten associates degrees by now! My point was that the Israelites would have told them to get off their assets long ago.
Terry, thanks for weighing in! I figured you would have a lot to add on this topic.
Volokh on Moore & Hucklebee:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1184263095.shtml
Hucklebee believes that Moore & people like him are the problem with American health insurance – if you’re fat, you cost a lot.
(Of course, this accident-prone elephant isn’t one to talk, but she knows of no way to become un-accident prone.)
“I might be walking right into it here, but please tell me who are these prophets?”
Let’s keep in mind that the prophets were entirely fallible human beings who sometimes made some horrible mistakes and who were not always speaking for God.
Having said that, who might our prophets be? Michael Moore, maybe? Jim Wallis almost certainly. My pastor, without a doubt. In fact, many members of my congregation take on the prophetic role on occasion.
How about MLK, 40 years ago? Oscar Romero, down in El Salvador speaking truth to power 30 years ago? Mother Teresa, Dorothy Day, Billy Graham, maybe? Leonard Ravenhill, Keith Green, Captain Randy Stonehill, Larry Norman, all have spoken prophetically at least to me. Wendell Berry, of course! Kentucky’s own patron saint and prophet of sustainability.
As God told I believe it was Isaiah, don’t assume all the prophets are gone, they’re still here for those who have ears to hear.
Dan, you might want to clarify the definition of “prophet” first. Here’s what Deuteronomy had to say. These are some strong and clear words. The prophets weren’t sinless like Jesus, but they put their lives on the line every time they claimed to speak for God. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Michael Moore is not a prophet.
Deuteronomy 18:17-22 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
—
Bridget, that is an excellent (and funny!) point about Moore. I’m not saying that will fix everything, but there is no question that basic lifestyle adjustments (i.e., diet and exercise) can dramatically improve health. Forbes did a great piece on this a while back. Doctors would sometimes skip the basic advice (“stop smoking / drinking / eating too much and start exercising”) because they assumed people wouldn’t listen. So they went straight to medicinal solutions, which of course may not be as effective and sometimes have unintended consequences themselves.
“My point was that the Israelites would have told them to get off their assets long ago.”
I don’t know. Israel had no social workers. No case managers. No one whose job it was to “get people off their assets,” as we do.
Instead, they had systems in place that allowed the needy to help themselves to the remains of others’ crops, that had their debts forgiven on a regular basis, that kept stuff from accumulating in the hands of the few to too large a degree, right?
Someone could easily have lived off the work of others without much accountability at all, if they so chose. Of course, they’d have to work at it.
But today’s poor have to work at it, as well. Anyone very familiar with those in poverty in the US recognizes that most of them have to work much harder than the average person, just to stay behind.
They have to get up earlier to get their kids ready earlier so that they can catch the bus to get them to some childcare, so that they can get to work or to the employment hall, just so they can sit around and see if a job comes open.
The story of welfare queens driving around in cadillacs to the drug dealer to get their crack while their children are out playing in the streets is mostly mythical in nature. Oh, examples of that exist and in numbers that are way too high!
But it’s not the norm.
We live in the inner city. My wife is a church social worker who helps homeless families, addicts and others. Our church has a welcome center where some of the homeless guys hang out. Until recently, our church was right in the middle of a housing project (the city tore them down).
We see the poor routinely and the “cadillac welfare queen” is not the norm by a longshot.
Does that mean that I think there are no problems in our welfare programs? Not at all. There was a certainly simple elegance in the Jubilee/Sabbath solutions that I wish were somewhat replicable in today’s society.
But today’s society and systems are much more complex. As a result, I think our ways of trying to deal with the poorest are not as ideal. The complexity of our systems breeds complex and less ideal welfare approaches.
Lack of oversight and accountability may be lacking, but is certainly not missing. And almost certainly a more present reality than what is described in Israel’s Laws.
Dan, you might want to clarify the definition of “prophet” first.
I was mostly joking about Michael Moore. I haven’t seen this particular movie and I’m relatively certain he isn’t claiming to speak for the Lord.
I would define a prophet as one who speaks God’s Word prophetically (okay, that’s cheating…) How about, a prophet is one who speaks God’s Word/God’s Truth and whose words turn out to be true. Not as in fortune telling (“God is going to send you a package in the mail with $50 bucks in it!”), but as in one who preaches God’s sometime difficult Truths to a people who need to hear it.
I think we find it fairly normative in the Bible that the prophets are there especially when a voice is needed to speak against the powers that be who are operating in opposition to God’s Truth and especially when that results in oppression of the poor, the foreigners and otherwise marginalized.
Hey, maybe Moore IS a prophet!
Dan, that is very cool that your wife helps those people.
I wasn’t implying the examples you listed. I simply meant that many people could take more initiative to work and don’t. I doubt the Israelites would have let that happen.
Well, that was a beauty of the Israeli system. The food was there in the fields. Marginalized people could go get it or not. It was sort of self-reinforcing. The Israelis didn’t have to “let it happen” – let people lay around doing nothing.
But set that aside a second. Consider the Bible. How many times did the prophets speak to the “poor, lazy, parasites” living off the fat of others? Was there even one such word from a prophet? I can’t think of it, if so.
No, what the prophets repeatedly condemned along these lines was the failure of the Israelis to live up to the Jubilee/Sabbath laws – and especially of Israel’s policy-makers failing to make sure the poor and marginalized weren’t oppressed. It is the wealthy who are consistently raked over the coals by the prophets, not the poor.
Why is that? Were there no lazy shirkers in Israel?
[And, yes, there are a few passages - mainly in proverbs - where laziness is condemned, but I'm talking prophetic words.]
“Someone could easily have lived off the work of others without much accountability at all, if they so chose. Of course, they’d have to work at it.”
That’s the point: Anyone who could work would do so, because that would be better than gleaning.
“Were there no lazy shirkers in Israel?”
Probably not many, because if they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That part of the system worked fine. And I think your analogy starts breaking down right about there. Israelites had to share their own crops with the poor. They didn’t get to tax the Canaanites.
It would be an interesting study to go back through the prophets and see what they spent most of their time on. My $ are on the Israelites false teachings and apostacy, though I’ll concede that they were also rightly taking people to task for mistreating the poor.
Trust me, I’m all for giving generously. I just stick with Will Rogers’ saying (Hat tip to Tammi): “I can remember way back when a liberal was one who was generous with his own money.”
“Israelites had to share their own crops with the poor. They didn’t get to tax the Canaanites.”
I’m not talking about taxing the Canadians. Only our own people. How’s that a breakdown?
It WOULD be an interesting study to see just a count, “Of the x-hundred times that Prophets pronounced a judgement, x-dozen were because the people were worshiping idols, x-dozen were because the people were oppressing the foreigners, x-dozen were because the leaders were oppressing the poor,…” etc.
Surely something like that exists? Any of you wise folk able to reference a study?
“I’m not talking about taxing the Canadians. Only our own people. How’s that a breakdown?”
Israelites = theocracy, U.S. = melting pot.
Again, there may be good public policy reasons for helping the poor. And I’m all for people letting their moral and religious convictions influence their voting decisions. I just don’t find taxing others (Christians or not) to support my preferred charities to be a biblical motif.
Israelites were not a theocracy in the days of most of the prophets – Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, Elijah, Elisha, etc etc etc were all dealing with monarchies.
Would you be opposed to letting just anyone (poor, homeless, foreigners!!) come on to your land and glean the corners of your field if it were mandated by the gov’t? Is taxation even less intrusive than the biblical model?
Point taken, but Israel was still rather unified in their Judaism!
I agree that we don’t have an apples / apples comparison with respect to gleaning and such. What you don’t appear to be acknowledging is that the U.S. is just a tad different than Israel and that taxing other people to fund your preferred charities is not biblical.
No, you’re absolutely right. It’s not biblical. Nor is it unbiblical. As you rightly note, ours is a situation that doesn’t exist in the Bible and so it’s not really addressed at all.
Although we can see some similar principles (policies for taxation to tend to poor vs policies for gleaning to tend to the poor), which is what I was getting at.
Understand that I’m not necessarily defending the existing system and its shortcomings. Not at all.
I’d like to see some vast changes that would allow for more elegant Jubilee Law-like solutions (although, of course, still different), but I suspect I’m in the TINNNY minority on that front.
Neil great post. I absolutely hate the idea getting even more involved in the medical world as it already is. I had to take Owen at the age of 9 mos to a doctor that took mostly medicaid patients and it was absolutely frightening. It was wall to wall children with now room to sit. The floors were visibly dirty and muddy. The wait was HOURS long, but the place was closing in a few hours. I decided not to find out any more and walked out the door carrying my child in tears. I hate that some people HAVE to experience this. AND I fear that is what every place will become if the government runs it.
Anyone who thinks the government should take over healthcare should take a look at all the other things the government has tried to fix.
Ask a family farmer about being helped out by the government, if you can find one. Unfortunately he has probably been put out of business by a farm getting huge subsidies. I just learned of one in Ohio that received 1.9 million last year.
SST – let me know if you ever want to do a guest post on farm subsidies and such. I’ve read several articles about it in Forbes but would be interested in the perspectives of someone who is living in that world. I’ve gathered that there are lot of unintended consequences that come out of well-intentioned programs.
Recommended reading on farm subsidies: Wendell Berry or Gene Logsdon, both farmers.
I wonder, though, with all this antagonism towards any gov’t solutions, what some of y’all would do with the poor children in the dirty medicaid office to which mommyz referred? Are you talking about removing even that safety net -as awful as it is – for these little ones, or do you have some better solution for them?
No Dan,
I agree that there has to be that safety net. But it is really the responsabilty of Christians to care for these people. Why they are not doing a better job is a long complex story that I am not up to telling, even if I completely understood it.
Most of the problem is that only the Christians (forqive my intolerance) have what people really need to break the cycle and move to a better life (on second thought, I’m, proud of my intolerance).
My wife worked for a while for a pilot program to try to help get single mothers off welfare. Although several women managed to complete their educaction and get jobs, several welfare caseworkers were constantly trying to sabatoge the program and it was finally cancelled.
She later worked with a program to help teens who were wards of the court learn independent living skills. There were a lot of horror stories there too.
In once case a caseworker went to court to force a young man to drop out of high school and join a job training program. The caseworker claimed the young man was not capable of getting a diploma. The caseworker decided who got to testify so my wife was not allowed to say anything. When she checked with the high school principal he knew nothing about the case but he was confident that the young man would graduate if allowed to remain.
My wife then resorted to the probably unethical method of telling the story to a friend of the judge, he asked for more information from the high school and allowed the boy to stay. He got his diploma, got a job, and is now out of the system.
The state decided to keep this program and hired a multi-state contractor to run it. The foster parents we know tell us they have not seen anybody from the program since.
I really don’t want my healthcare handled by a system like this.
I suspect that part of the problem is people hear the relative few horror stories and don’t hear the success stories. Anecdotal evidence is helpful, but not a complete picture by any means.
What do you folk say to this: What if every “welfare” related program had to demonstrate that
1. It was being successful
2. It was saving – not costing – taxpayer money
That is, what if the programs demonstrated that for every $1x of taxpayer money invested in it, it was saving taxpayers $2x, or even $1.2x?
Even setting aside morality, from a self-interest/fiscal responsibility point of view, shouldn’t those programs be supported?
It is true that we only hear the horror stories.
But I still maintain that the government can’t provide people what they really need. Only God can provide the Holy Spirit, and only through Jesus. I am aware of some churches in Indianapolis involved with Crown Financial Minisitries that have some great programs. Some of them even provide temporary income when needed, but participants are required to participate in training and are held accountable.
I reckon there are at least two issues here. Clearly, gov’t can’t supply what people “really need.” That’s a personal issue for folk.
But our constitution talks of a responsibility of the People to “promote the general welfare,” and especially when it comes to saving taxpayers money (which I contend a majority of welfare programs likely do), it just seems like a no-brainer to me.
I certainly think that local can generally do it (whatever “it” is) better than state, and state do it better than federal and I’m fine with churches stepping up to take on problems with “the least of these,” but failing that, I think it is only commonsense that “the gov’t” would step up to the plate to provide safety nets, if that’s the will of the people, which I believe it is.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I was unaware that the Preamble contained any legal force.
More than that, if you continue reading the document, you will find that there is no justification for universal health care by the federal government. Health, safety, and welfare of the citizens is a state function.
If your state wants to, it can pay health insurance for its citizens. States are intended to be laboratories of experimentation; please do not mess up the entire country. Confine the nuttiness to one state.
You are certainly correct. The Constitution does not specifically say we should offer universal health care. Nor does it specifically say that we should spend trillions of dollars on roads or the most massive military machine in human history.
And, in fact, our founders would probably be horrified at the size of gov’t in general, and the size of the military in particular.
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
-George Washington
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes…known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-James Madison
Again, the question comes down to, for me, is it smart? Does it work/does it save taxpayer dollars.
Underwriting motorists and the oil and auto industries do NOT save tax payer dollars or help the economy, in balance. It’s not smart.
I doubt that a military at the size we have it is beneficial in the long run either.
Health care? I don’t know the answer to that. Massive gov’t is not to be trusted, to be sure and should be avoided. I’m suggesting that many times, welfare programs REDUCE the size of gov’t/save taxpayer dollars. The jury is still out on the health care, as far as I’m concerned.
“States are intended to be laboratories of experimentation; please do not mess up the entire country. Confine the nuttiness to one state.”
Ha! Best line of the day. Hello, California / Massachussetts? We’re looking in your direction!
Neil,
Got anything against my home state or my current one? We will have words!
Actually, we won’t. I agree wholeheartedly.
(So am I nominated for Tammi’s Comment of the Week? Or is that an elevation over Line of the Day.)
Dan,
With all due respect, that’s the most illogical response imaginable. You posited that the Constitution’s preamble gives us a duty to the common welfare. I responded; you then said that there is nothing specific which requires us to have a massive military machine.
Talk about shifting burdens of proof, lgoical flaws, AND confusing “can” with “must” and “should” with either of the former.
I’ve spent too long tutoring people on the LSAT, so all I can see is potential “what’s wrong with this argument” questions. I’ll address a few:
1. Factually: the preamble AND Art. 1 provide for the military and the common defence. While the Constitution does not specify the size, it is left to the discretion of Congress and the President. So long as those branches of government comport with their constitutional requirements, there is no cause of complaint.
2. You posited that the Constitution REQUIRES us to help others (apparently via gov’t subsidies). I refuted this; you responded by saying that the Constitution does not MANDATE our current military or roads.
First, you happily assume that the Constitution requires certain things, and that which is not required is forbidden. I’ve never heard anyone – liberal or conservative, Federalist or ACS – impose such a restriction on the document.
Second, roads are part of interstate commerce, and are therefore in Art. I, Sec. 8; the military is in both the preamble and Art. I & II. There is no Constitutional limit on either.
Third, you believe that the preamble requires us to implement social welfare programmes. That’s ridiculous. The formation of a stable government allows people to better their own lives. If your interpretation were correct, why did it take 150 years and some pretty wacky jurisprudence to implement Social Security and the like?
Fourth, the federal gov’t is one of enumerated, limited powers.
Fifth, the Madison quote probably refers to a little clause found in the Constitution which mandates that Congress declares war and funds the army for wto years at a time. It’s a remarkable document, that Constitution.
3. You made this comment: “Underwriting motorists and the oil and auto industries do NOT save tax payer dollars or help the economy, in balance. It’s not smart.”
Um, I’m a crazy libertarian. I don’t approve the underwriting of the auto industries (and think they would have been better off if forced to compete with Japanese auto makers long ago) or the oil industries.
As a logical matter, I REFUSE to defend ideas that I never made nor implied.
4. Health care? I don’t know the answer to that. Massive gov’t is not to be trusted, to be sure and should be avoided. I’m suggesting that many times, welfare programs REDUCE the size of gov’t/save taxpayer dollars. The jury is still out on the health care, as far as I’m concerned.
How on earth does welfare reduce the size of government???
Hey Bridget – ha – sorry for the double-dissing there of your states – that was purely coincidental! I started with CA and added Mass as a bonus. I’m glad you’ve done your part to slow down their slide into oblivion. BTW, I was born in Oklahoma, so I don’t get too offended with State jokes.
And yes, you are also my comment of the week for Tammi’s post! I added it over there right after I made the comment above.
Purely coincidental… fine…. harrumph!
If you start in on Virginia, it’s war. And all is fair in love and war!
I’m glad you’ve done your part to slow down their slide into oblivion.
Thank you. One of my friends said that I’m becoming the most dangerous woman in California. (Incidentally, he is leading the charge to convert me, and he and Queen of Swords have begun conspiring together. Sigh.)
Virginia is cool! (hey, I know when to quit).
Sounds like a good guy! Tell him I’m on his side
I’ve been reading this threat with great interest the last few days. To tell you the the truth, I am still a little bit surprised that there is such an appearance of unanimity against universal health coverage. I agree that there is no “perfect” health care system yet you would agree that having a lower infant morality and longer life expectancy are positives to a society. Obviously, there is something VERY wrong with the US health care system when we have an unacceptably high rate of infant mortality. Doesn’t being “pro-life” mean you also care for the well-being of children AFTER they are born?
Also, I’m glad that the issues of security and national defense were raised. What better way to provide a common defense against the threat of bio-terrorism than universal coverage? Wouldn’t you, as an insured American, feel safer knowing that EVERYONE in your community is vaccinated for infectious diseases? How secure are we to bio-terrorist attacks, or completely natural epidemics, when we can’t insure that everyone is properly treated?
A dear friend from high school moved to London after college and now lives in Frankfurt, Germany. He had a health scare last year and thought he may have leukemia. During this time he was considering a job move to Texas. He decided to remain in Germany because he at least knew he wouldn’t fall into poverty if he indeed had cancer (and he makes VERY good money working for a European defense contractor). As you know, medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in America.
I can certainly understand the distrust of government — look what they do with military spending for plenty of examples of fiscal malfeasance. Yet, our current system is profit-driven with the motivation to provide as little care as possible in order to maximize profits. Is this really a better alternative?
There are several typos in the above post — please ignore them.
“There are several typos in the above post — please ignore them.”
Don’t worry Dave. This isn’t the kind of comment section where we pick on folks for misspellings unless they are truly and radically excessive. Your comments appear to be neither.
David,
We only get on people for grammar and misspellings when they tell us we are stupid.
That said, I disagree with the vaccine issue. I honestly don’t think that most mandatory vaccinations are part of the government’s power over individuals. I’ve blogged about this a zillion times, so I feel like I’m repeating myself, but here goes:
When the gov’t requires children to be vaccinated against polio before starting public school, it is making a logical decision. Polio can strike at any time, cripple, and kill children. If polio were to break out in a public school, it would be shut down. Here, the gov’t is acting like a private actor: if you want to do business with us, you must follow these rules. “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” One can choose to homeschool his child if he objects.
Now, this has gotten out of control. First, we require children to get the freakin CHICKEN POX vaccine if they want to be in school. The chicken pox isn’t exactly lethal; I’ve been more seriously injured from crossing the street, running track, and swimming in the ocean than I was for the chicken pox. Secondly, the benefit/burden ratio is much lower: children’s immune systems fail to develop properly without some sort of infectious disease. Children who were exposed to more diseases as children are often healthier as adults.
Now, you want to require everyone in the freakin country to get every vaccine made. Yay for the pharmaceuticals – sort of. Two problems:
1) if you don’t like pumping drugs into your system, you’re going to have to move to some small island off the coast of Florida (wait, that sounds good…) to avoid it.
2. That’s the end of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnological innovation. It will simply cost too much to pay monopolistic prices for required products (supply/demand equilibrium will not be met), so the gov’t will set (artificially low) prices for drugs. The potential pay-off for developing drugs (which takes 15-17 years and costs $500 milllion to $800 million) will be much lower, thus stifling innovation.
Um… since when did “caring about children” mean “socialism?” Honestly, if I didn’t give flying fig leaf about the next generation, I would be running in the streets, screaming for socialism. I would get a nice retirement and shove a lot of costs (and economic and technological ruin) on the next generation. Because I care about the kids, though, I don’t want them to live in a pseudo-communistic country.
Our goals are the same. Our methods differ – and I happen to think that socialistic methods are WORSE.
The right to health care is the right to receive medical attention without gov’t intervention. We won’t have that right under gov’t-run health care.
I’m off to see Ratatouille.
It partly comes down to who decides what my welfare is.
I would prefer to decide for myself.
We once had people in charge of our local fire department who decided we needed to upgrade our fire protection to the level of a city. The cost would have been so high that some people would have lost their homes. The supporters of the program considered that acceptable, but why worry about saving an empty house. You have to find a balance somewhere.
“With all due respect, that’s the most illogical response imaginable. ”
With all due respect, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. In most of the comment that began with the above statement or your previous comment. I pointed out that the Constitution has a mention that we are to “promote the general welfare” and you responded by quoting the preamble (from which the line comes) and saying, “I was unaware that the Preamble contained any legal force.”
I don’t know what you’re trying to indicate with that line – I didn’t say that it had any “legal force.” Rather, I was pointing out the reality that our nation was founded upon a notion (among others) of promoting the public welfare. The Constitution then leaves it to us to sort out how we want to do so, right? Where’s your beef in that?
I’m not saying at this point that we OUGHT to provide universal healthcare through the auspices of the gov’t, just that there’s nothing theoretically, legally or morally wrong with the notion. If you want to argue that the negative results of universal healthcare will outweigh the known negatives of our current system, go ahead and make a case.
Where is the illogic in any of that?
That’s all I’ve said thus far. Not that “the Constitution requires certain things, and that which is not required is forbidden.” I think you’ve misread or misinterepreted what I’ve said, or maybe I’m misreading you.
As to this:
How on earth does welfare reduce the size of government?
I believe I’ve already tackled this a bit around here and asked for opinions, but allow me to again.
1. IF a program costs $1 million (to educate at-risk preschoolers, for instance, or to assist convicts get their GED)
2. And IF, as a result, the state saves $2 million (through a lower drop out rate, which can lead to lower paying jobs, higher crime – both of which lead to fewer tax dollars and less productive citizens; or through lower recidivism rates – prisoners with a GED don’t return to prison at nearly the rate that those without a GED)
3. Is it not just common sense and fiscal responsibility that we ought to spend that $1 million – as an investment to avoid spending $2 million down the road?
Just kidding. My friends called to say that one of them can’t come tonight, they are going on Sunday, and, instead of Ratatouille, would I like to see “Sicko?”
Needless to say, the mention of it triggered gastric reflexes.
Last point first:
Welfare wouldn’t really be reducing the size of gov’t, just reducing its expenditures. While those things are often related, such is not always the case.
The big issue is that gov’t seldom restrains itself. Sure, it may be sensible to provide prenatal care so that we have a healthier population, but do you honestly think it will stop there? Soon it will be free labour & delivery, and of course preemie care, and then why aren’t you paying for all kids?
I think I misread you – I am very sorry. From my perspective, the Constitution’s “public welfare” language does not mean welfare, so much as capitalism and industry. Also, it was written after the articles of confederation, which definitely were not helping the common welfare.
What I see happening when the government is saving money.
1. A study shows spending a million dollars on a program can save 2 million down the road.
2. Congress approves the program, and 2 congressmen come up with plans to spend the million dollar savings. After much debate congress can’t reach an agreement and compromises by funding both plans.
3. The original program costs a million more than expected.
4. The program didn’t work out as planned and we have to spend the two million anyway.
Cost of the new program $ 1,000,000
Saved money spent $ 2,000,000
Program overrun $ 1,000,000
Solving original problem $ 2,000,000
TOTAL COST $ 6,000,000
Keeping congress busy with all that debate so they don’t have time to pass stupid new laws. PRICELESS
Funny.
There are certainly way too many stupid new laws passed (whose idea was it to give tax breaks to folk who buy Hummers!!??)
Still, that spending goes overboard (see military budget) is not an argument against responsible spending, right?
“Still, that spending goes overboard (see military budget) is not an argument against responsible spending, right?”
Right, but if the people in charge can’t spend responsibly in existing areas, I don’t think they are likely to do any better in new ones.
Pingback: Wow, an email from the White House! « 4Simpsons Blog – Eternity Matters