The Socialist Myth

[smjsl]

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.

Yes, I am interested in taking charge of my life. And I'd rather live it than every year spending it figuring out which plan screws me the least going through pages and pages of health insurance documentation looking at fine print and obscure rules designed with profits in mind (good thing at least some of the plans must satisfy certain government guidelines), instead of with medical care in mind. Now, that's depressing...

 

[Leonidas]

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

I'm not going to educate you on several centuries of philosophy, history and natural rights. Go read it for yourself.

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

Thanks for the input, but I would still like Letj's response to my question.

As to stopping me from most of those activities by incarcerating me, you should read up some on what goes on in prisons in this country. You'll definitely be paying for my health care, and other than driving drunk, all of those other activities are readily accessible to all prisoners who want to engage in them.

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...

Really? There's a lot of things that I don't want to be forced to pay for. I don't want to pay to bail out idiots who took out liar loans on way too much house. I don't want to supplement people's new car purchases to prop up the car companies and unions who trashed their industry. How difficult is it to understand that I think there are limits to what I'm willing to pay for?

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.

Thanks for acknowledging the power of the people to amend the Constitution.

There's no reason why we can't change our opinions about who and how we pay for everyone's health care. The Framers of the Constitution did provide for a means for us to collectively make changes to the document. But they specifically limited the power of Congress to legislate under certain enumerated powers. Congress has supremacy over the states only in those enumerated powers. Congress does not get to create legislation that falls outside the powers that the Constitution granted it. In other words, we decide if we want to grant Congress some power not already given to it - Congress does not get to grant itself new powers.

So the question comes down the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

My opinions aside about health care legislation aside for the moment, this does come down to a very basic Constitutional issue. Even if you support the changes made to health care as a result of the new legislation, you can't defend violating the Constitution to accomplish those things. And so the question is has Congress stepped outside of its enumerated powers and attempted to extend it's supremacy there, to an overall general supremacy over the rights reserved by the states and the people.

The states and the people gave powers to Congress, not the other way around.

 

[smjsl]

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.

I imagine people want HDHP because they feel they are healthy and would rather pay less into the system, so that they don't need to "support" less healthy folks that have to use the system more. I would fully support such a system if getting ill was completely under our control, but it's not. Not even close. It depends too much on your genes and all kinds of factors, some known and most unknown (you got a house with asbestos? How about Chinese walls?).. I am not sure I want to find myself getting ill in such a society, since then I have to worry not just about my health but also about how much it costs me to get well just as I get sick. This also means I am less likely to accept potentially beneficial treatments if it hurts me financially (often it's not known whether a treatment will help you for sure as is depends on correct diagnosis and other factors). Something seems inhumane about this...

[Edit: to be on the safe site, wanted to clarify that this of course is not meant as personal attack of any kind - I was just thinking about 2 systems - one that allows HDHP and one that does not.]

 

[jIMOh]

Of the many ridiculous hyperbolic claims that pass for truth these days the one expressed most frequently is that the U.S. is, or is becoming, a socialist state. The truth, though is that the U.S. is far less “socialist”, and government intervention in the private sector is far smaller, than it was at nearly any time in the past 80 years.

Here’s an article about how the 1996 Welfare Reform law is keeping the growth of welfare recipients below 10% notwithstanding a more than doubling of the unemployment rate.

Or consider . . .
- The median top marginal tax rate from 1920-2010 is 70% versus 35% today
- Union membership has declined from 36% of all workers in 1945 to 13% today
- Social Security was reformed in 1983 to be less generous
- Welfare reformed in 1996 to be less generous
- Many industries regulated in the 30’s have been deregulated – Rail & Truck transportation deregulated in 1971, natural gas deregulation in 1977, airline deregulation in 1978, interstate bus deregulation in 1982, ocean shipping deregulation in 1984, Telecommunications deregulation in 1996, and Glass-Steagall repeal 1999 . . . among others.
- Wage & price controls 1971-1973


Looked at objectively, it is very hard to say we're a more socialist country today than we were in say, 1950. But yet many people [-]are told[/-] assume we are.

decent article

a quote

Rhode Island changed its welfare program in 2008. Under the new program, known as Rhode Island Works, people can receive cash assistance for no more than 24 months in any 60-month period, with a lifetime maximum of 48 months of benefits. The lifetime limit had been 60 months.

I see no reason why anyone would need benefits for more than 60 months in their life... even 48 appears generous.

Suggesting "extending" these benefits makes me cringe.

 

[ziggy29]

I see no reason why anyone would need benefits for more than 60 months in their life... even 48 appears generous.

In the era of 5% unemployment, I would agree. In the era of 10% "official" unemployment and closer to 16% "real" unemployment, it's not hard to see why someone would need help for more than 10% of what should be their working years.

 

[Danmar]

Very interesting discussion. Civil as well. Enjoyed it but nothing of value to add .

 

[Gone4Good]

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.

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.

Pretty clear what my point is . . .

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

 

[jIMOh]

It's hardly a "strawman". It's a reaction to the very specific claims, here and elsewhere, that we are in fact a socialist nation.

So if people want to casually throw around this notion, then maybe they can step up and defend it.




I don't see how I'm any less free today than I ever have been. Someone will have to show me exactly what I can't do today that I was able to do before (airport security aside). I know that I'm free to choose a telephone provider, whereas in the past I couldn't. Same too with natural gas and electricity (in some states). I'm free to fly regional airlines. I know that broadcasters are more free to broadcast vulgarity, and I'm more free to hear it if I wish. And more importantly, I know that compared with prior decades women and minorities have far more freedoms than they once had.

I realize above was a reply to someone else... my take is a third angle-

socialism is not necessarily the absence of freedom, and taking away a freedom does not make one a socialist.

I think the above posts moved away from socialism discussion of the OP.

Socialism (to me) is about government deciding what is best for society as a whole (to a small extent) and making it happen by funding programs which are primarily paid for by the rich, used by all, and in general "rationed" or "distributed" to people without regard for who earned the reward, supplied the most money to the program, or had the best idea.


I think socialism works in small doses on some programs. Energy, military, police, fire departments all immediately come to mind as excellent examples. The government needs to provide these services to the public, and pay for them (in most cases) with tax dollars.

Could you imagine if it was deemed everyone had a right to access the internet and needed a computer... could the government take over Microsoft or apple in those cases? What would happen to Linux or Oracle if that were to occur?

What if it was deemed everyone's "right" to own a car and the government took over GM- wait that almost just happened, bad example (LOL).

 

[jIMOh]

In the era of 5% unemployment, I would agree. In the era of 10% "official" unemployment and closer to 16% "real" unemployment, it's not hard to see why someone would need help for more than 10% of what should be their working years.

devils advocate-

the recession is NOT 5 years old right now.
I don't think its 4 years old either.

so if someone was collecting benefits for 3 years prior, and benefits are running out now, I suggest there is a bigger problem, and the solution to that is NOT extending benefits.

at least extending benefits is NOT the solution I would favor.

 

[jIMOh]

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.

is the spike in spending WWI and WWII?

 

[Leonidas]

Totally OT, but I have to say I love the second half of you signature. I should have it tattooed somewhere.

 

[ziggy29]

Pretty clear what my point is . . .

But my point is that asking what programs the founders did or didn't intend for government to create is utterly and completely irrelevant. They intended for us to follow a process by which laws are changed and the Constitution is amended to be compatible with new programs -- no more, no less.

Their intent was simple: government that operates according to the document as currently amended combined with the ongoing ability of the states and the people to collectively change it (through the Constitutionally sanctioned process) whenever it no longer conforms to what we want our government to be.

Don't see how that's so hard to understand.

 

[Gone4Good]

But my point is that asking what programs the founders did or didn't intend for government to create is utterly and completely irrelevant. .

Then we agree.

Not sure why you're arguing with me. Maybe you should take issue with the assertions of Samclem, and others, to the contrary.

 

[IndependentlyPoor]

Will somebody fill me in on the parts of the health care reform bill that are likely to face constitutional challenge? I freely admit to being negligent here, as I have been avoiding the health care debate as much as possible, but I'll bet that I am not the only one who is not up to speed.

 

[ziggy29]

Will somebody fill me in on the parts of the health care reform bill that are likely to face constitutional challenge?

I believe the main one is the mandate that requires that everyone have health insurance.

The unfortunate thing is that this is the only way you can create a workable system with no underwriting or preexisting condition exclusions.

 

[Leonidas]

Will somebody fill me in on the parts of the health care reform bill that are likely to face constitutional challenge? I freely admit to being negligent here, as I have been avoiding the health care debate as much as possible, but I'll bet that I am not the only one who is not up to speed.

This article seems to sum it up decently: Is health-care reform constitutional? - washingtonpost.com

Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.
But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.
If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.

I don't necessarily agree with the author when he says that: "The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance". The Supremes have voted in two cases in the last 15 years or so to curtail Congress's broad expansion into areas that were reserved for the states. They haven't done away with some older precedents, but the more recent decision included comments by Stevens (I think) to go back and look at some of those older cases and re-examine how far they let the Federal Government gets its nose into the states' sovereignty.

Edit: Stevens and Thomas -

The Court said that Congress must distinguish between "what is truly national and what is truly local"--and that its power under the Commerce Clause reaches only the former. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas went even further, urging abandonment of "the substantial effects" test.

 

[donheff]

Will somebody fill me in on the parts of the health care reform bill that are likely to face constitutional challenge? I freely admit to being negligent here, as I have been avoiding the health care debate as much as possible, but I'll bet that I am not the only one who is not up to speed.

I'm not sure any of us will know until the papers filed by the states are analyzed. A primary assertion is that the Bill forces individuals to purchase a private commodity (health insurance) with no viable choice. They contrast that with car insurance where you can simply choose not op drive. The Bill's authors counter that there is no mandate. Individuals can choose not to purchase insurance and will not be in violation of the law. The result of that choice is that they will be penalized with a tax (initially under $100, growing to ~$800 IIRC) that serves as a sort of user fee that presumably helps make society whole for the cost to respond to them in medical emergencies.

Edit: I see some other responses mention the same issue but I want to emphasize that supporters say there is no mandate. Anyone can choose to opt out and pay a tax just like people can refuse to insure their cars and stop driving.

 

[Gone4Good]

Edit: I see some other responses mention the same issue but I want to emphasize that supporters say there is no mandate. Anyone can choose to opt out and pay a tax just like people can refuse to insure their cars and stop driving.

Yup. And Congress' authority to tax is broad and well established by precedent.

 

[FinanceDude]

Edit: I see some other responses mention the same issue but I want to emphasize that supporters say there is no mandate. Anyone can choose to opt out and pay a tax just like people can refuse to insure their cars and stop driving.

However, this would be the FIRST time in recent memory that an American citizen would be penalized for NOT enrolling in a health care plan sponsored by the govt..........

 

[Gone4Good]

However, this would be the FIRST time in recent memory that an American citizen would be penalized for NOT enrolling in a health care plan sponsored by the govt..........

This, in my mind, is purely semantics.

Under the current tax code am I penalized for not having a mortgage or am I rewarded for having one? Same thing with the "health insurance penalty."

 

[FinanceDude]

This, in my mind, is purely semantics.

Under the current tax code am I penalized for not having a mortgage or am I rewarded for having one? Same thing with the "health insurance penalty."

Uh no............not that I could ever change your mind.........

 

[Gone4Good]

Uh no............not that I could ever change your mind.........

With arguments as well articulated as that, are you surprised?

 

[FinanceDude]

With arguments as well articulated as that, are you surprised?

The only thing I am surprised at is why I don't put this thread on ignore a long time ago..........

 

[walkinwood]

This was an excellent read. Thanks to all the posters for the informative discussion and the civility.

 

[IndependentlyPoor]

Thanks to Ziggy, Leonidas, and donheff for your responses. This line from the Washington Post article really caught my eye.

While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company.

Golly, this would seem to indicate that it would be easier for a single payer plan to pass constitutional muster than the present legislation. The court couldn't strike it down on taxing or mandate grounds without taking social security and medicare with it.

Aside: Doesn't medicare actually flow through the private insurance system? I seem to remember my Mother's medicare statements coming from insurance companies.

I have somehow absorbed the notion that the interstate commerce clause has been egregiously abused for years, but now when I go looking for real stinkers of examples, I'm not finding much. Using it to defend national child labor laws doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me now. (I know there were other New Deal shenanigans, court packing included.) Maybe that is just more of my super conservative southern upbringing showing.

It does seem to me that for real hot-button issues, ones where the country is sharply divided but the majority party succeeds at passing controversial legislation, the constitution often takes a back seat. For issues that folks (including supreme court justices) feel strongly about, the plain language of the constitution often gets twisted and "extended". Everybody knows that getting 2/3 of the states to pass a constitutional amendment is purt-near impossible.

I am no supreme court scholar, but this goes at least as far back as 1888 when the supreme court decided that marriage laws were a matter for the states, despite the rather clear language of the "full faith and credit" clause.
Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage and the Law in the Lower South, 1865-
Well, how the supreme court managed to declare with a straight face that marriage is not a contract that should be recognized across state lines is beyond me, but miscegenation was a really hot topic, and so we got a weaselly ruling.

If the health care bill can be attacked on constitutional grounds, I have little doubt that the Roberts court will strike it down.