GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik Gets Dragged For Not Understanding Medicare

Huffpost ^ | 7/30/21 | David Moye

[Rockingham]

So I guess LBJ and other advocates for Medicare who insisted that it was not socialism were all liars?

[Rurudyne]

LBJ was a liar and a crook … he’d lie at the drop of a hat, any hat… even had his own hit man while a Senator … so not a good example.

[BobL]

“There is still no enumerated power for the program and it is unlawful.”

It is only ‘unlawful’ when the courts say it is unlawful.

[Rockingham]

LBJ was scum, but Medicare is the single most popular federal program and has wide support from all sectors of the country. That it is financially unsupportable in the long terms in its present form does not deter the public.

Is Medicare socialism though? Arguably, it is, in the broadest sense, but the emergence and economic viability of modern welfare states in North Europe argues for a different view.

In essence, such countries have enjoyed general prosperity and freedom along with a vast welfare state by embracing free markets, deregulation, and the work ethic. The classic Soviet model of totalitarian socialism remains a potential threat in concept, but it currently has no substantial and coherent following because the welfare state has co-opted its economic and social appeal as a critique of capitalism.

Applying that lesson to the US, Medicare is not so much socialist as antisocialist because it steals the appeal of socialism and puts it to the service of modern American capitalism, free markets, and democracy.

Thus solid free market economists such as Milton Friedman declined to argue for the abolition of Medicare. Granted, the program needs reform, but it accomplishes a broadly supported goal of assuring medical care for the elderly. Otherwise, unless quite wealthy, they find medical insurance unavailable or unaffordable.

Few Americans are willing to accept seeing their parents and grandparents broke, homeless, and dying of treatable ailments. Nor do they want to have to make a choice between providing for them or for their children.

Notably, by putting much of the cost of medical care for the elderly on the public treasury, that burden is shifted from their families. This frees their time and financial resources for child rearing. Absent Medicare or something like it, birth rates in developed nations would be even more dismal than they are.

Modern American conservatives often seems to have unthinking libertarian economic reflexes that put them at odds with Ronald Reagan's insight: the modern welfare state has to be accepted as "the social safety net" because it is too popular and important to abolish. And, if we want to prosper and be free, conservatives need to run the country, so we had better make our peace with Medicare and the rest of the welfare state.

After all, capitalism and free markets are so productive that they make the popular parts of the modern welfare state possible. That paradox may be uncomfortable for American conservatives but it is utterly ruinous for Leftists.

Ever since the fall of the USSR, Leftism has been in broad decline throughout the world as a basis for governing because markets tend to apply swift punishment to Leftist governments that try enacting full-on Marxism. The world's few remaining Communist regimes stand exposed as corrupt thuggocracies. And despite mainland China's nominal use of Mao as a national icon, they no doubt have prisons at the ready for anyone who takes his economic teachings seriously.

[Rurudyne]

Incorrect.

The Court does not have the lawful power to pull new understandings of the Constitution out of its arse the way it has done large FDR.

It plays no lawful role in the amendment process.

What Marshall described as an obligation arising from fidelity to the Law is not a pretext to making crap up as they go along.

You may also note that if it is “worse than a solemn mockery” to make justices to take their oaths of office and yet require them to turn a blind eye to the Law and see only statutes then what is it to require others to take the same oath but turn a blind eye to the Law and only see opinions of the Court?

The modern Court has been in willful abeyance since the 1930s when they helped FDR kick the Constitution to the curb.

[Rurudyne]

That’s nice. Immaterial, but nice.

Still, no enumerated power is no enumerated power.

The job of the federal is to obey the Law that allows it to exist at all, not to take care of the people.

Progressivism is cancer in the National bones. It was bad from the beginning. It is worse now that it has metastasized.

[DoodleDawg]

So I guess LBJ and other advocates for Medicare who insisted that it was not socialism were all liars?

Pretty much.

[DoodleDawg]

Applying that lesson to the US, Medicare is not so much socialist as antisocialist because it steals the appeal of socialism and puts it to the service of modern American capitalism, free markets, and democracy.

So socialism in the U.S. is called anti-socialism?

[Rockingham]

As H. L. Mencken quipped, "Democracy is the theory of government that the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard." Since the American people want Medicare, Medicaid, public education, and the other elements of a modern welfare state, they will get them, one way or another.

Politically, the enumerated powers argument is a loser's lament and puts conservatives in the position of being like the odd bird in the bow tie and high water pants in the back of the audience at the county commission meeting who is always objecting to things for esoteric reasons.

Medicare is a case of market failure in which, due to the cost of modern medicine, public subsidies are necessary because the free market simply does not offer affordable healthcare for the elderly and indigent. And, by the way, I am sure that you and yours are likely to take part in the Medicare program when old enough to do so. Or maybe you will benefit from the even more generous veteran and public employee retiree healthcare programs.

[Rockingham]

No, my point is that the modern welfare state is anti-socialist because it assuages the needs and grievances that made socialism politically appealing to the public at large. And the public still wants the things that capitalism and free markets offer but that socialism cannot provide: abundant, productive employment; rising living standards; political, legal, and social freedom; and a solid foundation for democratic government.

[rollo tomasi]

So it’s better to burn out than fade away, play with fire, devalue the dollar, over leverage ourselves in a most irresponsible way, import cheap labor, outsource to our hearts content, and live on two knees in front of our government overlords who drive up debt to sustain an huge economic divide in order to prevent insurrections just to keep “capitalism” (Government subsidies is the antithesis of any free market). Go ahead and prove the 19th century “philosophers” correct. Eventually the rubber band of government “safety nets” (Traps in reality) is going to break. Say in the next 10 years because SS and Medicare Part A are dead in the water without drastic monetary influxes in a scheme that is already underwater in debt.

[rollo tomasi]

Necessary and Proper Clause Called the Elasticity/ Coefficient Clause for a good reason). Yes the “Founders” put that in the Constitution, yes other Founders who were against ratifying the Constitution pointed out the abuse that clause would entail. You see, all that enumerated stuff in section 8 doesn't mean a hill of beans if proposals can be explained away using those “enumerated” powers as a baseline. Constitution is nice but as a legal document, ambiguous as heck and intentionally made so because reps were just as divided as they are now.

[BobL]

“The Court does not have the lawful power to pull new understandings of the Constitution out of its arse the way it has done large FDR.”

Either way, the end is the same...

[Rockingham]

You attach a long parade of horribles and a big dose of existential gloom to the Medicare program. Yet such a burden is not justified on the merits. And there is good reason for optimism. If the US runs its public finances and policy choices a little better, we have reason to hope for a long surge of economic gains due to technological progress and continued general peace in the world.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Apparently her voting record isn’t the greatest.

[Rurudyne]

Ah, but it’s not the necessary or proper clause. The and is important.

Something may seem necessary but can be absolutely improper.

There is no elastic except in the diapers of those wanting government to be their daddy. Progressives are lawsless scum.

[DoodleDawg]

No, my point is that the modern welfare state is anti-socialist because it assuages the needs and grievances that made socialism politically appealing to the public at large.

So it does that by adopting socialistic policies like government pensions and government health care? You're still not making a lot of sense.

[a fool in paradise]

>>If you’re going to criticize socialism, it helps to know what socialism is.

Ronald Reagan speaks from beyond the grave to denounce Socialized Medicine:

Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I would like to talk about another way because this threat is with us, and at the moment, is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.

It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.

Now , Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.

Walter Ruther said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.

Well, let us see what the socialists themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, "What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?”

That’s ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.

What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.

Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time -- socialized medicine.

James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.

Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.

Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, “When the American people wants something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want."

So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it.

Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don’t tax to get the money they need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system.

You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he's on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now call your friends and them to write.

If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

[a fool in paradise]

At 56 he’s old enough to know better
https://twitter.com/dmoyeweirdnews?

[Rockingham]

The defining features of socialism are that capital investment and ownership of the major elements of the economy are in public hands, markets are controlled and prices set by fiat, and political power is centralized and nondemocratic in order to provide the strength of command necessary to implement socialism in spite of popular resistance.

Medicare is none of those things. Indeed, it relies on privately owned and run suppliers of goods and services. Fortunes are made on that basis.

Of course, if the reasoning of Hayek (and others) is vulgarized and rigorously applied, then Medicare is but a way point along the inevitable road to the serfdom of socialism. That makes Medicare not quite socialism but a sufficiently addictive potion that it sets one hopelessly on the way toward the gutter of socialism.

Yet I am sure that Hayek, an empiricist of scrupulous adherence to facts, would not endorse that view. As I note, Northern Europe has developed a successful model of high tax, generous welfare states that also embrace free markets, competition, and the work ethic. Similar systems in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea refute the implication that the successful European welfare state model is limited to Nordic nations.

I do not advocate such a model or an expansion of the welfare state in the US. I am not so foolish though to think that trying to repeal Medicare makes political sense. As I point out, elected governments generally do what the public wants. And the American public does not want their grandparents, parents, and eventually themselves suffering for lack of essential medical care. Medicare and Medicaid are how that is avoided.