The Socialist Myth

[Gone4Good]

Maybe some of the chart gurus can compare federal spending as a proportion of GDP sans Medicare and Medicaid.

Here you go . . . looks pretty flat since the mid-1950s. We're above the 60 year average in 2010 but were below it before the recession.

 

[Gone4Good]

Are you free to choose your own healthcare in 4 years?

According to the legislation that passed, absolutely. And I'm free not to have it too, I'll just pay more in taxes. Same with my choice not to have children. Or my choice not to have a mortgage. Or . . .

But here's the thing. If I'm someone with a chronic illness I'll have the freedom to buy insurance in 4 years. Whereas now I can't.

 

[samclem]

According to the legislation that passed, absolutely. And I'm free not to have it too, I'll just pay more in taxes.

I hope you are being facetious, or maybe you are using a different working definition of freedom. By your logic, we can also "choose" not to pay the "taxes," (i.e. fines) thereby "choosing" to go to jail. Once there, we'll still have lots of options--eat the food or don't, sleep or stay awake, etc. Yep, we all have just as many choices as before.

The selection of health care options for most people will decline (no high deductible "bare bones" true insurance policies, no option to go without insurance, etc). The government has decided for us that we shouldn't have these options. How does this not reduce our freedom? These may not be options you'd choose to use yourself, and maybe you think no one else should be able to choose them, either, but let's not pretend that there's no diminution of freedom.

Perhaps it's a small point, but I also feel that my freedom is endangered when my government engages in spending that will clearly require that I will pay higher taxes in the future. And so will our kids. Taking of personal property is a very real reduction of my liberty. Our property is gained through the application of our skills and the finite hours of our lives, and when it is taken it is akin to taking this time from us. There are legitimate functions of government (the Constitution spells them out), and I doubt that the framers really intended for us to be donating the fruit of hundreds of hours of our lives to support a very brief reference to "promoting the common welfare" in that document. They spent several paragraphs dealing with small items (administration of tariffs, etc). If they'd intended that we have a welfare state with old age care, health care, etc, administered by the federal government then they probably would have mentioned it.

 

[Zathras]

No Sam, I don't think he is. And I agree with him.
While I may not have the freedom to choose to not have insurance, society as a whole will not have to pay through the nose for as many uninsured people going to emergency rooms for runny noses.
There are always minor issues which you could claim are 'limiting or expanding' your freedoms.
Does every new rule/regulation that is implemented turn us into a socialist state?
Does every rule/regulation/law that gets repealed return us to freedom?

 

[samclem]

While I may not have the freedom to choose to not have insurance, society as a whole will not have to pay through the nose for as many uninsured people going to emergency rooms for runny noses.

But this is just citing the results of a previous error as a reason to make another mistake. Who first denied those running ER's the freedom to choose how they use their time and talents? What's more, I'm not clear what part of the Constitution requires "society as a whole" to pay for the medical treatment of people who lack insurance. Maybe you and I are in agreement om this.

Does every new rule/regulation that is implemented turn us into a socialist state?
Does every rule/regulation/law that gets repealed return us to freedom?

No and no. I already addressed the "socialism" strawman argument, so I won't go there again.

 

[Letj]

Sam,

It depends on how you define freedom. Someone who can't leave a job even though it's killing because they need insurance is not free at all. This is one of the few countries in the world where healthcare is not considered a right just like the right to an education. The measure of any country, is how it treats the vulnerable and if you cannot get insurance simply because you can't afford is a sure sign that we've lost our moral compasss.

 

[samclem]

Sam,
It depends on how you define freedom.

So, if I go to the store and cannot find shoes at a price I want (or even can) pay, am I being denied freedom? Surely I would have more options if there were cheaper shoes, but no one owes me shoes, or health care, or food/

The only way to provide me my "right" to shoes would be to forcibly take the rightful property belonging to other people (to give to the shoe merchant or to me so that I can buy the shoes) or force the shoemaker to build shoes for free so that I can have my "freedom." Does this really increase freedom? Justice?

 

[Leonidas]

nonono: I can't believe I'm getting involved in this conversation)

This is one of the few countries in the world where healthcare is not considered a right just like the right to an education.

These of course are not inalienable rights, but rather rights that governments and societies have chosen to give.

And since the topic is socialism, let's look and see the background on these man-given rights.

"... neither the American Declaration of Independence (1776) nor the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) protected the right to education as the liberal concepts of human rights in the nineteenth century envisaged that parents retained the primary duty for providing education to their children. It was the states obligation to ensure that parents complied with this duty, and many states enacted legislation making school attendance compulsory."

It wasn't until 1849 that any Constitution of any nation recognized education as a governmental function (Germany), but did not actually create any schools.

But most interesting of all

...The nineteenth century also saw the development of socialist theory, which held that the primary task of the state was to ensure the economic and social well-being of the community through government intervention and regulation. Socialist theory recognised that individuals had claims to basic welfare services against the state and education was viewed as one of these welfare entitlements. This was in contrast to liberal theory at the time, which regarded non-state actors as the prime providers of education. Socialist ideals were enshrined in the 1936 Soviet Constitution, which was the first constitution to recognise the right to education with a corresponding obligation of the state to provide such education. The constitution guaranteed free and compulsory education at all levels, a system of state scholarships and vocational training in state enterprises. Subsequently the right to education featured strongly in the constitutions of socialist states.

Source: Right to education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are not inalienable rights given us by God, they are rights given by society, if it so chooses - and is willing to pay the bill. Rights that society decides to give under law can be taken away again just as quickly.

 

[Zathras]

But this is just citing the results of a previous error as a reason to make another mistake. Who first denied those running ER's the freedom to choose how they use their time and talents? What's more, I'm not clear what part of the Constitution requires "society as a whole" to pay for the medical treatment of people who lack insurance. Maybe you and I are in agreement om this.

I am in agreement with you that the constitution does not specifically guarantee medical care. Our society has decided upon this though. Would you suggest that we provide medical care/treatment for only those that can afford it?
I don't believe I would.
There are cases I don't believe society should pay for individual's bad luck/choices/risks. But I don't think medical care is one of them.

No and no. I already addressed the "socialism" strawman argument, so I won't go there again.

You are quite correct. My error. You posed the question 'are we more or less free each year...'
I take it your position is that we are less free?

 

[Leonidas]

There are cases I don't believe society should pay for individual's bad luck/choices/risks. But I don't think medical care is one of them.

So, let me see if I have this right.

If I choose to smoke a pack and a half a day, drink half a bottle of rotgut before noon, inject some methamphetamine to make the rest of the day go by, drive around drunk or stoned (or both), maybe deal a little dope or do some burglaries/robberies to help pay for my lifestyle - which puts me at a greater risk of being shot by another crook, a property owner, or the police - you're okay with paying my medical bills?

Seriously, what if I never stop? Would you not deny me medical care on the second or third time I showed up in the trauma room suffering from an overdose, or yet another bullet hole?

And the lung cancer, heart attacks, AIDS, cirrhosis of the liver, the injuries from the car crashes - you're okay with paying the bill for it all?

 

[smjsl]

These are not inalienable rights given us by God.

Which rights are given to us by God? And which God are we talking about here?

Are you free to choose your own healthcare in 4 years?

Do many people *really* want to spend their time figuring out which insurance plans they want to be on? I'd rather have a single "reasonable" plan for all.. If it's good enough for a Senator, I'll take it. I don't see much fun in figuring out year in and year out all conditions and stipulations described for various plans out there, and how they changed from last year, and which is the better one this year... what a waste of time...

 

[smjsl]

So, let me see if I have this right.

If I choose to smoke a pack and a half a day, drink half a bottle of rotgut before noon, inject some methamphetamine to make the rest of the day go by, drive around drunk or stoned (or both), maybe deal a little dope or do some burglaries/robberies to help pay for my lifestyle - which puts me at a greater risk of being shot by another crook, a property owner, or the police - you're okay with paying my medical bills?

I would.. and I would also put you in jail so you don't participate in most of these activities.

And the lung cancer, heart attacks, AIDS, cirrhosis of the liver, the injuries from the car crashes - you're okay with paying the bill for it all?

What about these? You would not want to pay for these for other people, but you get them, then you'd rather go broke or have a huge pile of money for self-insurance? Or are you saying that only people who can afford the insurance of these deseases should get treated? I am not following...

 

[ERD50]

Do many people *really* want to spend their time figuring out which insurance plans they want to be on? I'd rather have a single "reasonable" plan for all.

Why stop at insurance then? Let's have government issued cars, shoes, houses, gin, etc. I'm sure we can come up with something reasonable for all, and then we won't need to worry our little heads over things like....decisions, after all we learned in Orwell's book: FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

And we can address each other as "Comrade!".

OK, seriously - YES. I would much rather have a choice of a high deductible plan, and I want it separate from my employment, which is something that happened largely due to the government backing the idea.

-ERD50

 

[Letj]

So, if I go to the store and cannot find shoes at a price I want (or even can) pay, am I being denied freedom? Surely I would have more options if there were cheaper shoes, but no one owes me shoes, or health care, or food/

The only way to provide me my "right" to shoes would be to forcibly take the rightful property belonging to other people (to give to the shoe merchant or to me so that I can buy the shoes) or force the shoemaker to build shoes for free so that I can have my "freedom." Does this really increase freedom? Justice?

No one is denied food in this country because they're too poor to afford and I am glad I don't live in a third world country where the poor is digging for food and anything thing they can salvage out of putrid dumps and that's exactly what would happen if your and my hard earned money didn't go to supplement them. We would have shanty towns, much much higher crime and groups of poor people roaming the streets in search of food and money. You get my drift? The poor will always be with us. They are a myriad of reasons why resources are transferred from one group to another. Poverty can be a very difficult thing to break if you were raised in an environment where you didn't see the values of hardwork and high expectation. I understand that you're coming from a completely different perspective and I sense a divide that just can't be bridged.

 

[clifp]

".

OK, seriously - YES. I would much rather have a choice of a high deductible plan, and I want it separate from my employment, which is something that happened largely due to the government backing the idea.

-ERD50

Me too, I'd like to have situation where I pay for doctors and hospital for routine medical care. For medical catastrophes, I pay an amount into a fund which reimburse the medical community for cancer treatments, car accidents etc.

As I posted earlier tying insurance to employer was a unintended consequence of government wage controls in WWII. I guess it was better to beat the Axis, and end up with our current health care insurance, but I am not always sure

 

[samclem]

You get my drift?

Yes. I believe I understand your position and your motivations for wanting to help. I have seen poverty and have a heart full of compassion for those in bad situations--here and elsewhere. I think we just differ concerning the most humane, just, and practical means of improving their lot.

 

[clifp]

No one is denied food in this country because they're too poor to afford and I am glad I don't live in a third world country where the poor is digging for food and anything thing they can salvage out of putrid dumps and that's exactly what would happen if your and my hard earned money didn't go to supplement them.
...
. I understand that you're coming from a completely different perspective and I sense a divide that just can't be bridged.

Well for every person who dies because some evil insurance company denies them a multi hundred thousand experimental treatment, there are scores of people who get medical treatment at free clients, ERs, or are enrolled in highly subsidized/free medical plans like Medicad.

To me the worse thing about medical care debate over the last 15 months, is it has been so heavily focused on providing medical insurance and not medical care.

 

[Gone4Good]

I had a lengthy response correcting the several factual errors in this thread regarding the health insurance legislation, but we've beaten that topic to death. So I won't go there.

I will take issue with this notion that somehow the Constitution, as originally envisioned by the founders, is the gold standard for our rights and freedoms. Whatever encroachment on our freedom health care legislation represents (I think basically none) it pales in comparison to those accepted without question by our "sainted" founders. It took 15 amendments and nearly 100 years before the rights enumerated for "all men" were extended to African Americans. It took another 50 years for women to earn the right to vote. So it's safe to say the founders views of our rights were incomplete at best.

I won't speculate, as others are fond of doing, what our founders would, or wouldn't think, about our government some 200 years later (or health insurance legislation long before health insurance existed). But it's pretty safe to say that most people wouldn't choose to return to an 18th century government. I could list all of the bad things (like child labor) that weren't explicitly addressed in the Constitution or any laws of the time and have since been rightly prohibited or provided for. Of course, in so doing, I'll be accused of misrepresenting people's positions. But you can't have it both ways. Either we're constrained by only what the Constitution and the Founders had in mind for our government, or you admit that the Constitution is incomplete and our Founders hadn't thought of absolutely everything . . . which is why they created a Legislative Branch to make new laws and a process by which the Constitution itself could be amended.

 

[ziggy29]

I will take issue with this notion that somehow the Constitution, as originally envisioned by the founders, is the gold standard for our rights and freedoms. Whatever encroachment on our freedom health care legislation represents (I think basically none) it pales in comparison to those accepted without question by our "sainted" founders. It took 15 amendments and nearly 100 years before the rights enumerated for "all men" were extended to African Americans. It took another 50 years for women to earn the right to vote. So it's safe to say the founders view of our rights was at best incomplete.

But you just hit on the critical point -- when the Constitution *was* flawed or no longer represented the will of the people, they gave us an amendment process. We did that in abolishing slavery and giving women the vote because over time our values had changed and we came to see what were increasingly viewed as flaws in our system which we fixed accordingly.

The problem comes when something goes against the Constitution but legislators pass the bill anyway, and the judiciary looks the other way. (Why do you think FDR wanted to pack the Supreme Court for his New Deal programs? He had to know some of them were shaky if not outright a no-no Constitutionally.) At some point, IMO, they need to put their foot down and say "you want this, get an amendment passed to make it constitutional." Like they did with slavery, women's suffrage, the income tax (boo) and any number of other things.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do it. Ignoring law because it's inconvenient implies that the ends justify the means, and rarely do I think that's the case.

If the Constitution were as flawed as you seem to imply, they would have failed to give us a process to amend it to "fix" it according to evolving values and shared national ideals. I wish we'd just use it more often rather than ignore the need for it.

 

[samclem]

I will take issue with this notion that somehow the Constitution, as originally envisioned by the founders, is the gold standard for our rights and freedoms.
. . . . Either we're constrained by only what the Constitution and the Founders had in mind for our government, or you admit that the Constitution is incomplete and our Founders hadn't thought of absolutely everything.

One thing they did think of is providing a means to amend the Constitution. That's the most forthright and honest way to change the existing "contract" regarding the relationship of the people and their government and between the various branches of that government.
To those who desire a welfare state, just draw up an amendment saying that all citizens have a right to food, shelter, health care, and cable TV, and that the private property rights of citizens are secondary to this goal. Once passed, there'll be no more debate about what the Constitution means.

Later edit: Oops, I cross-posted with Ziggy29. Same thoughts, his were better expressed.

 

[samclem]

Do many people *really* want to spend their time figuring out which insurance plans they want to be on? I'd rather have a single "reasonable" plan for all.. If it's good enough for a Senator, I'll take it. I don't see much fun in figuring out year in and year out all conditions and stipulations described for various plans out there, and how they changed from last year, and which is the better one this year... what a waste of time...

This is depressing. If an adult isn't interested in taking charge of his/her life and taking it wherever he wants it to go, then I guess I don't know what else there is to say.

Anyway--before the infantilization is complete and we decide to let Congress make all of life's choices for us, let's take a look at just how competent they are. This article from the NYT provides some interesting findings of the Congressional Research Service. It looks like the health care of Congressmen and staffers is in doubt as a result of the new legislation. Dang, how could that happen?

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.
The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

My guess: Congress will take care of themselves via some obscure rider on an even more obscure piece of legislation. The rest of us--not so much.

 

[Gone4Good]

Yes, we all crossed posts because I added a point about them explicitly adding an amendment process AND a Legislative Branch.

But process questions do not resuscitate the flawed argument that "Our founders didn't intend" this or that government program.

 

[ziggy29]

Yes, we all crossed posts because I added a point about them explicitly adding an amendment process AND a Legislative Branch.

But process questions do not resuscitate the flawed argument that "Our founders didn't intend" this or that government program.

Not sure what the point of that argument is -- obviously they didn't explicitly intend "this or that", because if they did, they would have written "this or that" into the document.

I believe they intended for a specific process to be followed, though. If a new law or a new legislatively-authorized program did not run counter to the document, that is fine. If aspects of the law or program *did* violate the Constitution, then the amendment process needs to be followed in order to allow it. Again, this is in theory; in practice legislators have routinely ignored many questions of constitutionality and the judiciary was derelict in their duties to stop it (IMO, since I'll bet we disagree on this latter point).

In other words, we're not following the intended *process*. I don't think they intended any future specific outcome, only the process by which we change the supreme law of the nation.

Let me use another example that's near and dear to my heart: term limits for Congress. I could sit around and complain that the Constitution is a flawed document because it doesn't place term limits on Congress. Or I could demand that legislators pass a term limits bill regardless of what the Constitution says (ignoring the fact that they would never vote to limit themselves out of office) and hope the courts ignore the violation. But in reality, the founders gave us everything we need to impose term limits on Congress. We just need legislative approval and 3/4 of the states to support it.

 

[FinanceDude]

Yes, we all crossed posts because I added a point about them explicitly adding an amendment process AND a Legislative Branch.

But process questions do not resuscitate the flawed argument that "Our founders didn't intend" this or that government program.

Not to worry............it appears the Constitution is going the way of the dodo.

 

[IndependentlyPoor]

Not to worry............it appears the Constitution is going the way of the dodo.

Why would you say this?
The current court includes 4 young, healthy, judges who are fairly strict constitutionalists (Robert, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) plus a swing vote that is more often conservative than not (Kennedy). I imagine that they will strike down many laws based on narrow readings of the constitution, and continue to do so pretty much for the rest of our lives.