Great Post!
Posted on 03/17/2017 12:40:27 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Fortunately, I think President Trump cares more about what is popular among taxpayers than the public at large.
ML/NJ
Agreed. I'd like to see the approach: "Is this permitted under a natural reading of the Constitution" rather than "can a clever lawyer find some twist to the words so we can claim this is constitutional". If it's unconstitutional, government shouldn't do it, not even if it's something the voters or our elected "leaders" want done.
None of it should be Federal.
But then so much else should not be Federal either.
It’s gotten to the point where so many things are unconstitutional ... and people vote for it when they vote for pork coming from their Congressional delegation ... that I feel most people do not even care anymore. Not I even supposed conservatives care. They just want Federal goodies for themselves, their town, their state, whatever.
Great Post!
Don’t pay any attention to those too lazy to read. Their lack of knowledge will follow them for life. Thank you for posting this. It was encouraging, informative and inspiring. I hadn’t seen it before and it is wonderful to see that common people made the effort to read and understand the Constitution and hold their representatives to that understanding. I wish people today would make the same effort,
Humblegunner run barter town
The argument used is from article 1, section 8
In Publius Huldah’s refutation, he began: “1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause: Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…”
The article goes on to cite Alexander Hamilton to dispute the notion that the power to provide for the general welfare meant welfare programs as we know them.
He makes a good case.
However, the fact that Hamilton was refuting this in his day meant that the power over “general welfare” was being misunderstood from the beginning of the country.
We are seeing the latest iteration and it’s clear that from the 20th century on courts have supported the non-Hamiltonian opinion...John Roberts, for example.
So, are they unconstitutional? It depends on an originalist rather than a straight text understanding. The straight text says the congress can make “welfare” legislation and make all necessary laws enabling that power. The original history has Hamilton saying that was not the intent.
It is a muddled mess in my opinion, because that text does lead to argument.
Doctors take the Hippocratic oath and have taken it for hundreds and hundreds of years. As a result of their oaths, doctors have adapted to taking care of the nation's elderly on a sliding scale basis. Doctors have always expected to contribute at least 10% of their work to charity cases. That charitable ethic has not subsided:
The history of the middle class and its tax burden reveals the reason for the distortion caused by the unwelcome and inappropriate role of government persons who have seen it necessary to suck more and more in taxes from the American people.
Looking at the tax creeo over the ages indicates clearly why Americans can no longer afford health insurance or to afford health treatment and care for their elderly relatives.
In 1913, the tax rate on 98% of Americans was 1% max. Today, the middle class tax rate averages 22%.
In 1937, the first Social Security tax on working Americans was 1%. Today it is 6.2%
In 1966, the first Medicare tax was 0.35%. Today, it is 1.45%.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html
When the matching portions are added from employers, the tax creep above is doubled.
When federal, state, and local taxes are added up, Americans are paying half of their labor in taxes. This overtaxing of American families has forced mothers into the workforce, elderly people to seek dependence on government, and a larger license for government persons to take over. It's a vicious cycle.
The problems with caring for the nation's elderly are clearly seen in government persons getting accustomed to taking over vast portions of the lives of people because that drives new taxes, thus forming a vicious cycle. The business of government is based on tax revenues, the natural inclination of any person, whether government or private, is to increase their revenue.
History of tax creep illustrates conclusively that government persons seek to suck more and more of the revenue of the private sector for themselves. This trend has continued to the point that government persons now present their wages as being far above the average for the private sector and with pensions that can only be dreamed of in the private sector.
Medicare was but one more step in the forced evolution of American society along a path towards socialism. It had nothing to do with principles of insurance. It has everything to do with robbing Americans of their ability to pay their way achieving independence and freedom.
Another point missed in your argument is that the introduction of government into caring for the elderly by its trade name 'Medicare' causes hospitals and clinics to request reimbursements from the government. This process of reimbursement has over the decades been so onerous as to take up to 50% of a physician's time. Today, physicians often have a nurse or themselves spend 50% of working hours on the phone or typing justifications for granting coverage for care. In other words, 50% of the time is spent on the phone arguing about coverage with government bureaucrats. This has caused a patient's time with a doctor to fall from well over 30 minutes to about 6 minutes. Doctor's exams and care have become a factory line as physicians have had to increase the number of patients seen from about 15 to 35 per day. Attention to a person and their health has become a charade.
In Direct Pay Care that operates without insurance, a patient's time with their doctor can be well over an hour so the patient benefits not only from examination, testing, treatment but also from becoming educated by the physician about lifestyle and prognoses. Such Direct Pay plans are available for $150 per month to $350 per month. But the physician is always available and for much more time than a physician on the insurance factory line.
The last remaining point missed in this sort of thin, almost ethereal argument of "government has to do it because no one else will" is that the rates of reimbursement set by government and the difficulty and delay in reimbursement cause many distortions in price discovery causing health markets to become inefficient. President Trump is well aware of this phenomenon as he talked about it on the campaign trail. Government drives up costs in the health market in turn causing health insurance premiums to increase greatly, not the other way around.
The same prime driver that caused income taxes to grow from 1% to 22%, social security taxes to grow from 2% to over 12.4%, Medicare taxes to grow from 0.7% to 2.9% has driven the cost of healthcare and health insurance similarly.
The problem is socialism.
SOCIALISM ALWAYS ENTERS SNEAKILY.
Socialism always starts out at a very small rate and with a very low profile presence so as to 'acclimate the population' until dependence and votes are cultivated.
SOCIALISM IS A CANCER.
Socialism leads people to think they cannot take care of themselves without government. It leads people to think they no longer need family, churches, or a work ethic.
Medicare is a socialist tool. The antidote for the socialist poison of Medicare is to make Americans rich again. Rich does not mean wealthy. Being rich simply means Americans can take care of themselves, their relatives and the disadvantaged in their community. When Americans are rich, they are the most generous people on the planet. When they are rich, the government's presence fades. Government people don't like that, just ask them.
Thank you for your well reasoned reply. I do agree that government involvement has increased the cost of medical care, however I would argue that advances in medical science have also increased costs.
As far as socialism being a cancer, all societies have some form of socialism. Nobody but the most hard core libertarian would argue that police or fire-fighters should be a pay as needed service. Heck, the military(which I spent 20+ years in) is a form of socialism.
You may be right that even without Medicare elderly patients would still receive care, with no drop in life expectancy. I have my doubts though.
I am a firm believer in the free market and capitalism but I believe there are situations where the free market will not work. Two examples being where you cannot have competition or where there is no profit incentive. I would argue that insuring elderly people falls into the latter.
In reading article 1, section 8 many liberals and judges take General Welfare as a blank check to do any thing. They do not apply it to the list of powers following that phrase and do not see any of sections 8 a restrictive.
I hate (really hate) to say it but w/o some sort of compromise we are absolutely screwed. I imagine Trump will insist on a more conservative deal than what the RINOs appear to be preparing but is also looking to the future - successes with the modified plan can lead to further disentanglements.
I hate (really hate) to say it but w/o some sort of compromise we are absolutely screwed. I imagine Trump will insist on a more conservative deal than what the RINOs appear to be preparing but is also looking to the future - successes with the modified plan can lead to further disentanglements.
We keep telling ourselves that it can’t be done. The truth is that we’re simply not willing to do what it takes.
We’ve earned our shackles and we know it. We rant and rail against the shackles, but only for so long and so loud as to not be tasked with actually doing anything to remove those shackles.
We are no longer free and sovereign citizens. We are peasants in a neo-feudalism.
Next step down is serfdom.
The trouble with the current issue is that if we don't leave some "safety nets" in to prevent a lot of pain and suffering, we may very well lose the House/Senate/WH - only a small percentage of the populace are hard core conservatives so, w/o some successes to prove Trump is working for the People to have it the best possible way, it would be suicide to yank the unraveling thread all the way out and let the seams come apart.
Trump is the first one we have had in a looooooong time that says "We can do it - previous folks either didn't want to, or were too lazy to."
bmp
State op- in on medicaid,but State can not force individual to buy insurance. Buying insurance across State line makes it a commerce,Federal can regulate it.
But you are forced to pay car registration.
Congress should have the same insurance as we have,that will solve lot of problems.
Constitution?
That old rag? That was written in the dark ages, was it mot? What did they know back then?/s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
