The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

scaeagles' opinion notwithstanding, social security is routinely considered the best thing the federal government has ever done. I daresay a requirement that everyone be health insured which resulted in everyone having health insurance would be similarly popular, and similarly devised by the people FOR the people.

So government intrusion and requirements are OK if the majority of the people agree with it. I am often amused by how many people are against government intrusion unless it is for something they think is a good idea. I admit to falling into that myself at times.

Social security was poorly planned and is doomed without major overhauls and increased taxes. When it started, life expectancy was around 66 years. Now that life expectancy is 10 years beyond that, retirement age (or better said the age at one which can begin taking benefits) will keep increasing.

I'm not sure who thinks social security is one of the best things ever done by government unless everything the governmnet has done has been more poorly planned than it, which is certainly possible. I was under the impression that most people my age don't believe they will ever see a cent of social security money, but I don't have exact polling numbers on that.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So government intrusion and requirements are OK if the majority of the people agree with it.

Um, unless such intrusions or requirements were unconstitutional, isn't that EXACTLY THE POINT of government of the people, by the people and for the people? You've totally lost me, scaeagles.

As for those intrusions which are completely unconstitutional, let's start with the federal income tax in general, and the withholding of estimated federal income tax by employers in particular. Those are intrusions I object to, and have a right to object to.

I'm not sure that social security is unconstitutional, but I'm willing to take a look at that if you can provide any information to that end.


Otherwise, it's precisely the kind of thing that the populace might want to set up for itself via its elected government. Ya know, so that we don't end up starving in the streets or surving on dogfood while living in a cardboard box. The kind of thing that was, ahem, quite common worldwide and in the U.S. before social security. Yeah, not brilliantly planned out. Still ... The.Best.Thing.Ever.Done.By.The.US.Government.

[scaeagles]

I would argue, though I don't know why it would be necessary, that the government requiring anyone to have health insurance is an intrusion and unconstitutional. How could that not be considered an intrusion into my personal freedoms?

I would argue that I have a right not to have my money stolen. Social security can be viewed as legalized theft. The government says "I will take your money, give it to someone else, and there is no guarantee (regardless to the ridiculous concept of the lock box) that you will ever get it back". So if the people decide they can take my money like this it is OK? So, yes, I regard legalized theft as unconstitutional.

I'm with you on the income tax. That is simply a tax on the accumulation of wealth.

Government for the people and by the people must be limited to the constraints of the Constitution. The Constitution is not an enumeration of rights for the people, it is a limitation of the powers of the federal government, so the federal government cannot do something just because most people think it is a good idea.

[€uroMeinke]

I would love to just see a health plan that doesn't involve being linked to an employer. How is my company any better at picking health care options than my government?

[innerSpaceman]

I see your points, scaeagles. It's just that once I've accepted (not quietly, but accepted) the fact that the government takes 12.5% of my money for a retirement plan that may go bust, and another 32% of my money to fund, well, mostly war and violence to which I object with all my heart and soul ... I guess I'm just not going to blink an eye about another 14% taken for health insurance.

And before getting too outraged at the Constitutional envelope pushing/shattering of the above items ... I've no better idea how to prevent most senior citizens from starving or how to fund the expenses of the federal government.

[scaeagles]

(To EM: ) They probably aren't. One difference is that companies frequently (at least this is the case with both the school my wife teaches at and the very large corporation I work for) shop the market for better deals among the health insurance companies. I can also opt out if I choose.

I do not claim that this is a perfect system. I don't think there is a perfect system. Knowing the propensity for government to mess things up and have cost overruns in the hundreds of billions of dollars even on the comparitively small prescription drug program, I hesitate to want them to have an opportunity to control my health care costs.

(To ISM: )
How does one fund the expenses of the federal government? Not an easy task. I realize it is a necessary evil, but the spending is so horribly out of control on things that the federal government was never designed to handle or manage that I cannot help but think that the simple answer is that the feds should spend less. I'm sure you are familiar with baseline budgeting, which allows an increase of 5% on a budget item to be construed as a cut because there is a mandate from the Carter years that budget items go up 10% every year regardless of if the money is needed there. I wish I could have some form of mandate to increase my budget every year by 10%. Don't think it's going to happen. I have to be responsible and make tough choices with my spending, as does everyone....except the federal government.

[Alex]

It was bouncing about in the back of my head and it popped out today, but the question on employers being the gatekeeper for enforcement of mandatory universal health converage has been addressed in Massachusetts.

As of July 1, 2007, Massachusetts requires all residents to carry health insurance (I disagree with their logic that being uninsured necessarily unfairly passes your health expenses to society at large, but so be it).

The method of reporting is as I suggested above. When residents file their state tax returns they'll also have to include their insurance policy numbers. I'm not sure how this guarantees enforcement among the poor and dependent where it most likely to be an issue but that is how they do it. And there are civil penalties for failure to have health insurance. The first year it is loss of the personal tax exemption and then gets much more expensive in subsequent years.

While I wouldn't really support the Massachusetts law, if such is going to exist, that is the enforcement model I'd support. Between the person and the state, not the state putting a private bureaucracy in place as a private police force. The state also has requirements for employers related to health care, but in meeting those that is also a direct relationship between the state and the business (the state doesn't tell the electric company that they have to get proof of compliance before they can turn the power on in the offices).


By the way, it was Mitt Romney that signed this into law.

[scaeagles]

Good reason not to vote for him. Thanks for the research, Alex.

[innerSpaceman]

Ya know, now that I see it passed as an actual law, I gotta admit it smacks of facism to me.

Maybe it's just the way it's framed. If perhaps the state took your taxes and enrolled you in a government healthcare plan, I might find it slightly less creepy.

After all, the federal government is essentially telling me I have to pay to kill Iraqi civilians, but I am saved the step of ordering that off the menu at the war cafe and taking the money out of my wallet for it. So much easier when my employer does not even give me my money, and instead sends it directly to George Bush to kill Iraqi civilians on my behalf.


Still, the Massachusetts law strikes me as vaguely unAmerican.

[Alex]

If you are interested in more detail, here's a pretty good rundown of the law. According to it, Romney not only signed it into law but proposed it in the first place. I haven't been paying enough attention yet to know what he's been saying about universal programs in his president-seeking activities.

But essentially it says, we've subsidized health insurance enough through various programs that "affordability" isn't an excuse for anybody not to have coverage (price goes down to fully subsidized for certain people) so it is their responsibility to go get it at certain minimal levels.

One thing I don't like about it is that catastrophic coverage would not be sufficient. That's the kind of coverage I prefer since it makes economic sense for a pretty healthy, well off, family of two. I go years without seeing a doctor and when I do I can afford to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket if necessary and in a mini emergency many thousands would not be too strenuous on us. But if one of us gets cancer or hit by a car I would want coverage for medical expenses over, say, $40,000 or something. That I want insurance for, but I don't want insurance to pay for the $150 office visit if I get the flu or want a weird rash looked at.

So I find it a bit of a stretch to say to Bill Gates, "look you have to have insurance because if you don't and you get sick you'll be a financial burden on society."