Health-Care: Commodity or Right?

I've just come back from Europe, where citizens in most countries (on the left, right and center) would revolt if their leaders dared to privatize their health-care systems. That's because they've grown accustomed to getting shoddy care rationed out by bureaucrats, opponents of health-care reform in the United States insist. In fact, it's because citizens in countries such as France, Germany, Finland and the United Kingdom – all of which boast lower infant-mortality and higher life-expectancy rates than the United States – don't think of health-care as a commodity. They think of it as a public good and a basic right.

Might Americans come to think of it this way? Not a chance, skeptics watching the fury unleashed at town hall meetings in recent weeks might contend. Americans think owning guns, not having access to medical care, is a basic right. But this conclusion isn't warranted. President Obama actually said it plainly enough during the presidential campaign, telling Tom Brokaw in an exchange on health-care with John McCain, "I think it should be a right, for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills… there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

Fundamentally wrong. A right for every American. If Obama intends to pass meaningful health-care reform, he needs to remember these words and begin reminding Americans that reforming health-care isn't important simply because it will cut waste and improve the quality of care, points he emphasizes in an op-ed in today's Times. It's important because denying medical care to citizens who can't afford it in one of the world's wealthiest countries is unfair and unconscionable: because health-care is not simply a commodity but a right.

Comments (131)

1. It's a right, and will be denied by Dick Armey and his minions on Sept 12 when they march on DC. The only successful strategy for progressives is to present a huge respectful crowd of the uninsured on the same day in a passive mode that would make Gandhi proud.

   Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 08/16/2009 @ 1:35pm

2. I think healthcare as a right is beyond just a moral question, not a metaphysical one, but rather for the common good and welfare of our nation. Perhaps even a national security issue-- to get our nation the healthiest and most educated. This notion that a public option is extraconstitutional is simply disingenuous considering we already have medicare/medicaid, the veteran's health administration and private insurance companies coexisting already. More competition will keep the health industry honest. Isn't BlueCross/BlueShield already non-profit?

   http://tinyurl.com/n33c4m

   Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 1:52pm

3. I'll stipulate that it is a right.

   The problem Obama has now, is his lack of leadership in letting the Pelosi/Waxman staffers run wild without any adult supervision. They produced HR3200, which is flawed beyond repair. If the President has any sense, he'll tell them to withdraw this mess and start over. In attempting to avoid the catastrophe that was Hillarycare, the administration simply hoped that the House and Senate would muscle through something, and then they could fix it in conference. It hasn't worked because unlike most Congresspersons, some citizens actually read the 1018 page instruction manual for disaster, and were horrified. The Pres has got to start over or lose big time.

   Posted by sntauri at 08/16/2009 @ 2:01pm

4. <<Might Americans come to think of it this way? Not a chance, skeptics watching the fury unleashed at town hall meetings in recent weeks might contend. Americans think owning guns, not having access to medical care, is a basic right. >>

   This comparison doesn't make any sense because it misunderstands the fundamental difference between a negative right and a facilitative right. A negative right is one that government cannot deny. The right to bear arms, for those who defend it, falls in this category. It doesn't mean that the government has to make guns available to those who can't purchase them; it only means that the federal government can't prohibit everyone from owning a gun.

   I actually don't think there's any disagreement that health-care is a right; in fact, it seems pretty obvious. Would the government be justified in stripping people of health-care? No. The real question is whether it is a right that the government cannot deny, or whether it is a facilitative right and the government is in some way obliged to ensure that everyone can enjoy it. That's the actual rights debate.

   As a sidenote, the argument has been made that the government should only be protecting rights. This is plainly false. To name only a couple of examples...tax breaks are not a right, nor are roads.

   Posted by Thrawn at 08/16/2009 @ 2:11pm

5. The Times reports today that the Obama admin is dropping the public option. If true, it's tantamount to surrender ... in spite of healthy majorities in both houses.

   Obama is showing himself to be a weak, even a reluctant leader. His campaign promises, both specific & thematic, become ever distant memories, less & less related to actual performance.

   At home & abroad, we've been had, yet again.

   Posted by sloper at 08/16/2009 @ 2:15pm

6. Isn't BlueCross/BlueShield already non-profit? http://tinyurl.com/n33c4m Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 1:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   here's what happened in my state, NY. blue cross was indeed non profit. was. they bought off the legislature, and made a deal to get to be for profit, there's money to be made off those sick folks.

   in exchange for that they set up a fund to help offset the climbing cost of health insurance. this fund helps insure kids for free, and offers low cost insurance for lower income families, of which I am one. my insurance is $600 A MONTH for two. next month, when my son turns 19 my insurance will go up to $1,000 a month. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE.

   Posted by emile duBois at 08/16/2009 @ 2:26pm

7. Posted by emile duBois at 08/16/2009 @ 2:26pm

   It is a bad thing that your rates are increasing at such a rate.

   Now, according to what we know about HR3200, which has been so very well thought out, how much will your insurance be, and will the coverage be better, the same, or worse than what you have now?

   Posted by sntauri at 08/16/2009 @ 2:40pm

8. Change (his mind) we can believe in.

   Posted by Citizen54 at 08/16/2009 @ 3:03pm

9. His campaign promises, both specific & thematic, become ever distant memories, less & less related to actual performance.

   At home & abroad, we've been had, yet again.

   Posted by sloper at 08/16/2009 @ 2:15pm

   Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip,........death by a thousand cuts..........drip, drip, drip......

   Hopey and Changey forever (or until Jan. 2013, whichever comes first)......LOL!

   Posted by Happy at 08/16/2009 @ 3:19pm

10. It's official: the Obama presidency has failed to deliver on its key promise to the Democrats' base.

    " ... By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Scroll Down For Video

    WASHINGTON - Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system ..."

    Instead of the usual excuses made for yet another Democrat failing to deliver in office, probably it is better for party insiders to decide who besides Obama should receive the party's nomination in 2012.

    Also, turning out of office the Congressional leadership (including Pelosi, to be sure) in the mid-term would be a great thing to happen.

    Accountability time.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/16/2009 @ 3:39pm

11. Yep, I'm paying about $750/mn already plus copays...

    It would go down to $0 if 'everyone' was on a common plan with our gov taking care of the for profit insurance side of it... Like medicare/medicaid, Vet Health Adm., Soc Security,...

    A little more in taxes for 250K+-ers. OK with me.

    How many billions lost (disappeared) to no bid for profit companies in Iraq? Those very same jobs our military used to do for 1/10th the pay plus no profit.

    For profit companies will always up the cost. People will continue to die earlier, higher infant mortality,... higher cost.

    Profits for our common general misery.

    War profiteers, healthcare profiteers-- is there really a dif?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 3:41pm

12. Let's be clear: the Democrats cannot blame Republicans for any of this failure. The Democrats have a hold on all three branches of the legislating government. The failure that has taken place was purely on the part of the party's highest officials and trigger-pulling officeholders. Pelosi and Reid completely failed to lead in Congress, allowing a rogue group of corrupt, bought-and-sold Democrats to derail a historic legislative promise. Obama, for his part, apparently can't even get his own party to support his presidential agenda. He is apparently a weak leader.

    The Republicans have behaved atrociously, they have nakedly exposed themselves as a nihilistic, angry, destructive group of demagogues parading around in front of the only wing of that party left, the nut wing. The Republicans are a bad joke at best. But they can't be blamed for anything other than being a small, angry mob of frequently racist maniacs and crazies. Their "intellectual" leadership arrives in the form of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. These two together in a room would be unable to screw a lightbulb into a socket without both breaking the bulb AND electrocuting themselves in the process. They probably need help tying their shoelaces, its just too much of a puzzle.

    No, no, the Republicans cant be blamed. This historic failure is 100% the fault of the Democratic Party.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/16/2009 @ 3:48pm

13. Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The insurance maggots are worse than war profiteers by far.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/16/2009 @ 3:48pm

14. The Democrats have a hold on all three branches of the legislating government.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/16/2009 @ 3:48pm

    If only you had said all 3 branches of government. Perhaps a SCOTUS ruling that healthcare cannot be separate but equal... would help.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 3:55pm

15. Just as making war profitable puts us in perpetual unnecessary wars-- so too does making our healthcare system profitable puts us in perpetual unnecessary illnesses.

    Just have to watch some TV advertising.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 4:32pm

16. Can't believe we're going to go another round with these insurance companies...they have been piece-mealing our health care out to as at higher and higher rates for more than 40 years now...anybody seen the cost of a COBRA payment lately???...let alone the premiums...my family of four is paying almost eight-hundred dollars a month now, PLUS deductibles, co-pays and caps...IT'S TIME TO MEET THESE PEOPLE IN THE STREETS>>>I'm ready to show up on 9/12/2009>>>HOW 'BOUT YOU GUYS???

    Posted by ggmac101 at 08/16/2009 @ 4:34pm

17. Notice that the insurance lobby is now declaring victory ... via one of their Democrat pets:

    " ... WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A key Senate negotiator said Sunday that President Obama should drop his push for a government-funded public health insurance option because the Senate will never pass it.

    Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster ..."

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/16/2009 @ 4:41pm

18. Finally, it must be pointed out just sick American society has become: the profit margins of insurance corporations are placed higher in priority than the health and well-being of people.

    The insurance maggots will have Hell to pay, some day, for what they've done.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/16/2009 @ 4:46pm

19. Oh cut the shit and lick the knife, already.

    President Obama is wholly-owned by the HMO/Insurance gangster cartel and to pretend otherwise is just ignorant. If you don't want Single-Payer health care, just ADMIT IT and be done with it already.

    The whole Obama "thing" is too absurd for words, anyway, really. It's all about a bunch of square, rich, White women who think loving Barack Obama and "defending him" against mean old Rush Limbaugh makes them almost "Black" themselves!

    I know, I know. "Give him a chance." "He has a lot on his plate."

    Tell it to the mother of a child blown to bits in one of Obama's wars.

    Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 4:53pm

20. It's not only the insurance companies, it's also big pharma, hospitals, doctors, ... It's all crazy expensive and getting crazier.

    And all the the loony right spout about is their freedoms and death panels and shit, any shit to continue the march to the ruin of our nation further.

    And yes what's worse is that people are still listening to the same shit that they voted out.

    MSM has got to do some fact checking of the shit they let these lying shacks dump on the air or they got to go away and be reformed too. Their lack of anything approaching journalism continues to be dangerous. Like talking us into an unnecessary war wasn't enough. Now they're backing the demise of our healthcare needs.

    The rage out there is genuine but needs to be better directed at what is wrong instead of at shadowy fictions.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 4:56pm

21. Tell it to the mother of a child blown to bits in one of Obama's wars.

    Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 4:53pm

    Er, what war- The Perpetual Redneck War?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 5:15pm

22. Said much better than I:

    "Look, it's simple. HR3200 is a cut-and-paste of liberal-leaning programs that have been slapped together the moment Obama won the election. Each author has trusted the author before him to do the fact-checking. As a result, this entire document is a vast mess. Sections make no sense, might contradict others, and allow for no end of creative interpretation at the taxpayer's expense.

    Ordinary Americans supporting this initiative have not read the proposals. If he or she did, that ordinary American would say "There is no way I am entrusting my health care to this group. I can't even understand what the hell they're saying." When you applied for health care coverage with your employer, do you remember how many pages the information was? Two? Three? Four? And a lot easier to understand than this stuff.

    Evidently, the people who wrote it do not understand what they have written in its entirety, but worse, they think they do. But they don't understand it anymore than the admin assistant understands the legal contracts he or she photocopies for an attorney waiting in another conference room.

    Be afraid, folks. Because the only people who really do understand this stuff will be the first ones to twist it to their financial advantage."

    http://www.gormogons.com/2009/08/hr-3200-pages-301-400.html

    Posted by sntauri at 08/16/2009 @ 5:34pm

23. Posted by sntauri at 08/16/2009 @ 5:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    It's called technical writing. I can read it. It makes perfect sense, to me.

    Just because most people don't read much or just read novellas, or blogs, txt messaging, doesn't mean the bill makes no sense.

    Just means you need to read more slowly and think in technical terms.

    Takes practice, true.

    Sorry? Perhaps educational funding reform next up?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 5:56pm

24. It's called technical writing. I can read it. It makes perfect sense, to me.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 5:56pm

    True points. I actually understand it myself, having spent 30 years in various technology and legal positions. That's the problem. The bill would make no sense even if it was written in credit-card-plain-language disclosure style. Based on HR3200, what will a citizen pay, and what coverage will that person get? (Hint: it is left as an exercise for The Secretary) But we're supposed to support this bill?

    Posted by sntauri at 08/16/2009 @ 6:16pm

25. In the US, healthcare is not a right, it is a service and should remain so.

    In the European Union Charter, healthcare is a codified human right and thus those govts are required to provide that service.

    It would be one of the final nails in the coffin of our constitutional republic if we abandon our constitution in order to mimic Europe.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 6:36pm

26. So now... a people steeped in authoritarianism... bred in the false prosperities generated by legislated relaxations of hard earned regulatory reforms... and weaned of all traces of 'empathetic exuberance' and business capitalized compassion...

    ...are calling Obama a weak leader... and a philanderer of corporate interests...

    So... are we oblivious now to the 'etched in stone' track record of the Bush administration... and it's absconding of America's previously prosperous decade... the sidetracking and eventual derailment of our intellectual high-tech culture... the further dismantling of our industrial infrastructure... and the fortified installment of an upper economic class seemingly impervious to either democratic impulses or cultural morality...

    Obama believes in the Democratic basis of our political makeup... even if we have to lash out at him in our mistaken impotence of effective organization... for though we have had much regression and suppression as our lot for the last ten years... there is no legitimate excuse... for democratic realization begins with the collective actions of it's people... not it's president.

    The President is our servant.

    Bush was an anomaly... and by being such... has proved the rule.

    We need to get off our asses and become citizens again... which, by the way doesn't mean 'shouting down' your opponents... that's the way fascists 'do it'... it means engaging in dialogue and repairing the many rends in our social fabric... reinstating our post petroleum destiny... devaluing the money made off of money games... revaluing the trans generational corporate ethos that allows business to prioritize long term benefits to society, rather than the illusory mirages of short term leverages...

    Posted by ttr at 08/16/2009 @ 6:37pm

27. The health care debate... though it comes too quickly on the heals of a 'we're telling you how its going to be' mindset... has become our wake-up call... our 'sink or swim' moment... out of the pan, and into the fires of a sluggish re-enlistment of long forgotten democratic principles.

    This isn't about Obama... he's waiting for us.

    This is about Bush's legacy... America's arrested and atrophied sense of patriotic democracy.

    Posted by ttr at 08/16/2009 @ 6:42pm

28. This is about Bush's legacy... America's arrested and atrophied sense of patriotic democracy.

    Posted by ttr at 08/16/2009 @ 6:42pm

    This has nothing to do with Bush. This is about Obama and the Democrats trying to bankrupt the nation while implementing their vision of another European style socialist country.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 6:55pm

29. Tell it to the mother of a child blown to bits in one of Obama's wars.

    Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Revisionist history.

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/16/2009 @ 7:11pm

30. n the European Union Charter, healthcare is a codified human right and thus those govts are required to provide that service.

    It would be one of the final nails in the coffin of our constitutional republic if we abandon our constitution in order to mimic Europe. Anti-everything.

    It is a human right because it is the an extension of the right to live and it is at the root of our pursue of freedom and happiness. (Can you be that and chronically sick??) It is on the basis of our Declaration of Independence and heck all of the humanistic ideas in our Constitution are originally imported from Europe, specially France aren't they?

    Come on, there is issues like life, freedom, and healthiness that are intrinsic to human dignity and much over money. Health is a value as or more desirable than education. All those guys that criticize health care reform, but specially the public option, they are all about money. They are soooo selfish they just can't stand the government 'distributing wealth' with their taxes. They prefer a citizen dead than paying say $100 a year more. In essence they would kill you for that money.

    It is a fact that HMO's maximize their profits by in essence constraining supply of services (like the oil companies do) so that they are felt to be scarce and they can boost the prices of them. They don't want to extend coverage, but to stretch unit margin. They have proven to be unfit and therefore the public option is a necessity.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/16/2009 @ 7:14pm

31. Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 6:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Can someone please IP ban this guy.

    Posted by Milhaus at 08/16/2009 @ 7:39pm

32. <i>In the US, healthcare is not a right, it is a service and should remain so.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 6:36pm</i>

    That doesn't answer the question of whether government should, partially or entirely, provide that service (see, e.g., roads).

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/16/2009 @ 7:47pm

33. The bill would make no sense even if it was written in credit-card-plain-language disclosure style.

    Posted by sntauri at 08/16/2009 @ 6:16pm

    Credit cards are written in a plain language?!?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 7:52pm

34. Based on HR3200, what will a citizen pay, and what coverage will that person get? (Hint: it is left as an exercise for The Secretary)

    Posted by sntauri at 08/16/2009 @ 6:16pm

    What about the other 3 bills? They all have one of your shadowy hidden 'hints' in them too?

    Ya' think maybe the compromise bill will even have a hidden special decoder ring maybe?

    Wow! Can't wait to get one!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 7:58pm

35. That doesn't answer the question of whether government should, partially or entirely, provide that service (see, e.g., roads).

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/16/2009 @ 7:47pm |

    Did you read the title to this thread?

    It asks whether healthcare is a commodity or a right.

    No, the Federal govt should have nothing to do with healthcare. It should left up to individuals or the states.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 8:06pm

36. Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 6:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Can someone please IP ban this guy.

    Posted by Milhaus at 08/16/2009 @ 7:39pm

    I LOVE THIS! Banning free speech at THE NATION? Well, of course. As far as I can tell, it would be the only natural position for THE NATION to take these days.

    I remember how THE NATION was when I was in college. It was a great source of information that you didn't even see from a much better American media.

    Now, THE NATION is just another part of the corporatist mainstream because some coward with a skin-suit slightly lighter in color than -- say -- Balbina Herrera's is president of the United States.

    The difference, though, between Barack Obama and Balbina Herrera is that when she ran for president of Panama, she told the truth. And she's always been a REAL progressive.

    Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 8:06pm

37. Tell it to the mother of a child blown to bits in one of Obama's wars.

    Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Revisionist history.

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/16/2009 @ 7:11pm

    So, George W. Bush is still president of the United States. Phew! Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. I thought Barack Obama was president.

    In a way, though, it doesn't matter, really, does it? Both are/were just SALESMEN for the Corporatist State. So, OK. I agree. Revisionist history. Obama ENDED the wars. Obama provided SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE.

    He's just too wonderful for words, isn't he?

    Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 8:10pm

38. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsUM7V6Ku_8

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 8:19pm

39. Obama ENDED the wars. Obama provided SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE.

    Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 8:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Not yet....but when he does, I'd like to be in line to shake his hand. As for Bush (and the Republicans), there are few words that adequately describe the contempt I have for him (them).

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/16/2009 @ 8:33pm

40. The article asks whether health care is a right or a commodity. That asks the wrong question.

    Certainly, health care comes within those rights of the people not enumerated in the Constitution that are protected by the Ninth Amendment. However, that merely precludes the government from taking away health care, and does not obligate the government to provide it. This is shown by the historical lack of government-provided health care in the United States, at least until a partial system of government-provided health care was adopted by the enactment of statutes creating the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

    The real question is whether the federal government should create a new right to health care that requires the government to provide health care to at least some portion of the population. In the EU and most other developed countries other than the US, that question has been answered in the affirmative.

    Because our current health care system allows certain companies and individuals to profit not just from providing health care but from doing so in a manner that is not designed to provide optimum benefits for minimum cost, those companies and individuals are fighting to prevent any change, without regard to whether that would be beneficial to the country as a whole. The task of the administration is to overcome that opposition, and to educate the majority so they understand that universal health care is in their best interests. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the administration is up to performing that task.

    Posted by taikan at 08/16/2009 @ 9:05pm

41. Hey hebrewhepours, whats your prob man, got a wild hair, just pull it and get with the program, we need fighters not complainers, we have enough of them with Anti and Big P and Pyette and Jomamma and etc etc etc, give Obama a chance for gods sake, he's been in office 6 m0nths, wait and see what he can do, instead of being whiney. And for crimenys sake, don't even try to compare him to bush, no comparison.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/16/2009 @ 9:59pm

42. "Americans think owning guns, not having access to medical care, is a basic right. But this conclusion isn't warranted. "

    Now there is your classic marxist leftist problem exemplified for you! They cannot and do not know how to read the Constitution of the U.S.A. or the Bill of Rights! Please highlight the areas of those mainstays of our founding documents that your LIES are based on? Quit reading from the ones on the Europeon continent! They don't apply here!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/16/2009 @ 11:00pm

43. No, the Federal govt should have nothing to do with healthcare. It should left up to individuals or the states.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 8:06pm

    Just like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Veteran's Health Administration, and the general welfare... for the common good.

    For the good of blood sucking for-profit from our misery corporate greed-- that is!

    Liver takes such an incredibly wide stance for pervy repub needs-- just keeps going down that limp impotent antichristian road again and again and again; bobbing and lobbing, lobbing and bobbing over and over again like forever. I guess it's the only way he could figure to fill his belly...

    Must really be easier for some than for others.

    Don't suppose he really like it?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 12:18am

44. Look at the atrocious amounts of money the health insurance executives are putting in their pockets every day. We need a single-payer system to run these guys completely out of business.

    Posted by chswad at 08/17/2009 @ 06:10am

45. Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 8:06pm

    Curious...you attack "The Nation" for a BLOGGER's call for censorship, when nobody at "TN" censored anybody?

    Seems your vitrole is both excessive and un-warrented.

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 07:56am

46. Since the only thing people seem to agree on is that some people don't have coverage and need it, wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just change the Medicaid law to indicate that EVERYONE who wants to be covered by Medicaid is now covered: no thousand-page bills, no muss or fuss?

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 08:13am

47. Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 08:13am

    Actually, I think the theory is "drop the age minimum for Medicare"...not Medicaid.

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 08:19am

48. A SCOTUS constitutional ruling that declares that there cannot be a separate and unequal federal general welfare healthcare system?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 08:40am

49. And why are we having all these town hall meetings AFTER the bill has been written, rather than the other way around?

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 09:31am

50. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 8:06pm </i>

    I did read the title, and I responded to the title already. I argued that even if healthcare is a right, the question is still whether it's a negative right or a facilitative right because that makes a huge difference. So I already addressed that part.

    Your analysis, on the other hand, seemed to imply (as you've explicitly argued before) that government should only provide for rights and not services. My argument is simply that people defending universal health care can do so by defending it as a service, just as one would defend institutions like roads.

    That's not to say the argument is definitive. I've already established numerous times with no adequate response that the Constitution allows the government to create a system of national health insurance. Various forms of health-care regulation can fit under either the "tax-and-spend" clause or the "interstate commerce" clause. Of course, whether the federal government SHOULD do it is another question entirely (though your willingness to include "state governments" as possible actors seems to signal that you're not entirely opposed to government action here after all).

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 09:52am

51. Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 09:31am

    A bill, has been written, Mistral. Not "the" bill. There are several, including one being hashed out in the Senate by Grassley and Baucus.

    And then there's this thing called "Conference Committee."

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 10:08am

52. Health care is NOT a right, it is a service to be paid for by the recipient, like anything else. It is someone else's labor: a whole lot of it, given that it takes years of schooling to become a doctor or nurse. A "right" to someone else's labor is the very definition of slavery.

    Posted by TWylite at 08/17/2009 @ 10:19am

53. TWylite-The oath that doctors take makes them voluntary slaves and,like the military,police,firefighters,etc,they would be paid and when you pay someone then you have a right to expect to get what you paid for.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 10:25am

54. Posted by Thrawn at 08/16/2009 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --Thrawn's either a law professor or an ex-nerdy law student. I'll sum up his post: the Constitution creates duties and rights for the three co-equal branches of government, in order that they best serve the people; and rights for the people that cannot be taken away by that government. The rights aren't absolutes, they are floors below which the government cannot go (no one has an absolute right to free speech. the government has the right to arrest any citizen for certain speech: yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, for example.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 10:48am

55. More Grassley inanity: "I've never called the Pelosi provisions a 'death panel.' The issue is whether end-of-life provisions should be part of legislation that's about controlling health care spending, and which also creates a government-run health care program, as the Pelosi bill does. Doing so escalates concerns about the rationing of health care, since government-run plans in other countries ration to control spending. Putting end-of-life consultations alongside cost containment and government-run health care causes legitimate concern."

    So that means if our government considers subsidizing those that can't afford a 'doctor end of life consultation', it may lead to rationing, but if the gov doesn't consider subsidizing it at all THAT'S MUCH BETTER!?!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 10:55am

56. Why do we have this argument about whether or not healthcare is a right? Whether or not you think it is a right in the same sense that freedom of speech or religion is a right, we do provide care such as Medicaid for those in need (just as we provide a fire brigade for everybody, rich or poor, in the neighbourhood) and Medicare for the elderly, and emergency room service which by law must be provided to anyone who shows up at the door.

    Isn't this debate really about allocation of resources for people with pre-existing conditions, or people not poor enough for Medicaid, but who can only find very costly insurance, or whether or not taxpayers should be required to pay for abortions (or, if you want to take a more positive outlook, in-vitro fertilization treatment), or other such devil-in-the-detail matters?

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 10:58am

57. since government-run plans in other countries ration to control spending.

    why do these spend less and have a better outcome than our "system".

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:08am

58. Posted by TWylite at 08/17/2009 @ 10:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

    you are confusing health care with health insurance. while they are obviously linked, they are not the same thing.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:10am

59. <i>In the US, healthcare is not a right, it is a service and should remain so.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/16/2009 @ 6:36pm</i>

    That doesn't answer the question of whether government should, partially or entirely, provide that service (see, e.g., roads).

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/16/2009 @ 7:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --show me where in the constitution it says the people have a right to healthcare paid for with tax dollars; or where that right to the people is implied.

    congress has the power to implement such programs, you won't see me argue they don't (although I'm sure antisocialist will argue congress doesn't have that power). the bottom line is: obama's not putting his 2nd term on the line, so blue dog democrats, etc don't feel the pressure to get in line. if obam really wanted to stick his neck out, there'd at least be a bad single-payer law pushed through.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 11:18am

60. Well lets consider for a moment if we were #1 in life expectancy instead of #45:

    http://tinyurl.com/yvls29

    Or had the lowest infant mortality rate instead of #31:

    http://tinyurl.com/2je7aa

    Would we still be able to spend as much on being the #1 military superpower or the #1 healthcare spender?

    UHmmm, now that's a tough one...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 11:31am

61. Thrawn wrote (to antisocialist): "I did read the title, and I responded to the title already. I argued that even if healthcare is a right, the question is still whether it's a negative right or a facilitative right because that makes a huge difference. So I already addressed that part."

    --where in the constituiton is healthcare expressly or impliedly a "negative" or "facilitative" right?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 11:37am

62. thrawn wrote (to antisocialist): "Your analysis, on the other hand, seemed to imply (as you've explicitly argued before) that government should only provide for rights and not services. My argument is simply that people defending universal health care can do so by defending it as a service, just as one would defend institutions like roads."

    --i have not seen antisocialist say the gov't should not provide any services. he's for roads, military, etc. He's against taking healthcare out of the private sector and making it a gov't run system. that's a valid argument. there's nothing in the constitution that explicitly says the federal gov't has the power to run healthcare. however, antisocialist also ignores that congress has many implied powers, and it has successfully created such programs as medicare and that has never been struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional. even if he were to concede that congress has the power to create a single payer or a universal health care program, he's still arguing against it. what's wrong with that?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 11:51am

63. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 11:18am </i>

    The Constitution says nothing about it; on that, at least, I agree with antisocialist.

    My argument (made since the Founding) is that there is a difference between legal rights and moral rights. There's no argument as to whether a legal right to health-care exists; it doesn't. No law affirms one and the Constitution doesn't either. The question is whether there is a moral right to health-care, i.e., whether or not the government has a moral obligation to provide (in some sense, whether it be insurance or direct control) health-care to its citizens.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 11:52am

64. thrawn wrote (to antisocialist): "That's not to say the argument is definitive. I've already established numerous times with no adequate response that the Constitution allows the government to create a system of national health insurance. Various forms of health-care regulation can fit under either the "tax-and-spend" clause or the "interstate commerce" clause. Of course, whether the federal government SHOULD do it is another question entirely (though your willingness to include "state governments" as possible actors seems to signal that you're not entirely opposed to government action here after all)."

    --thrawn, i'm for universal health care, and i agree 100% that congress has the power to create a single-payer and/or universal health care system. what i would like, if you don't mind, is an expansion on how the specific clauses you mention above give congress that right. thanks pal.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 11:56am

65. My argument (made since the Founding) is that there is a difference between legal rights and moral rights. There's no argument as to whether a legal right to health-care exists; it doesn't. No law affirms one and the Constitution doesn't either. The question is whether there is a moral right to health-care, i.e., whether or not the government has a moral obligation to provide (in some sense, whether it be insurance or direct control) health-care to its citizens.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 11:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --what do you mean by "moral" right? and where's this moral right the people are entitled to in the constituiton?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 12:15pm

66. Your analysis, on the other hand, seemed to imply (as you've explicitly argued before) that government should only provide for rights and not services. My argument is simply that people defending universal health care can do so by defending it as a service, just as one would defend institutions like roads.

    That's not to say the argument is definitive. I've already established numerous times with no adequate response that the Constitution allows the government to create a system of national health insurance. Various forms of health-care regulation can fit under either the "tax-and-spend" clause or the "interstate commerce" clause. Of course, whether the federal government SHOULD do it is another question entirely (though your willingness to include "state governments" as possible actors seems to signal that you're not entirely opposed to government action here after all).

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 09:52am

    Interstate hwys are part of the rights guaranteed to us that in this Republic of States, citizens shall enjoy the right of travel of persons, goods, and services between the various states. Also, Since it specifically calls in Article 1, Section 8 for Congress to provide Postal Roads, there is a constitutional obligation on that aspect alone to provide roads.

    <The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.>

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

    BTW, I've always said state govts had the right to implement healthcare

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 12:58pm

67. antisocialist--the federal government has duties and powers; not rights. only people have rights.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:03pm

68. Eyal Press: "It's important because denying medical care to citizens who can't afford it in one of the world's wealthiest countries is unfair and unconscionable: because health-care is not simply a commodity but a right."

    --I don't think medical care is being denied. The problem is it's too costly for people to pay for the medical care they want/need.

    --Also, how is it a 'right' constitutionally speaking? The constitution is the supreme law of the land. I've read it many times; I've also read many cases intepreting the constition. I don't think anyone can make a reasonable argument that the constitution guarantees the 'right' to health care for the people. If you want to say it's a 'right' please provide evidence of why it should be. Or, realize that if you can't do that, then phrasing it as a 'right' for rhetorical flourish actually weakens your strategy. Frame the argument in terms of it should exist because it's what's best for this country, not because individuals have the right to it. That's the only way you can have a chance of winning.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:22pm

69. Also, how is it a 'right' constitutionally speaking?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:22pm

    I'll take a stab, although I don't believe this is true myself.

    It kind of goes along the line of negative rights and positive rights. Most of the constitution consists of limits on what the government can do to you, not mandates on what the government must do for you. Those who seek greater goodies are always searching for positive rights, and thus the requirement they be served. The simple "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" gets read as a mandate on the government to provide me with whatever resources I may need in order to exercise my right to these things. I don't have a right if I can't exercise that right. I may not have a full right of free speech if I don't have a telephone or an internet connection, therefore I demand the gov't give me one. You can easily extend this to food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, transportation, almost anything.

    Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 1:55pm

70. sntauri--if the constitution mandates the federal gov't provide health care for the people, it's at best an implied directive, because I don't see those express words in the document. if it is an implied directive, which clause(s) is directing?

    those arguments you made (i.e. free speech extending to gov't providing a telephone, internet, etc if you can't afford it) are absurd, not even the most liberal of judges would agree with that (and I'm sure you don't either).

    the people who think health care is a right--i want them to poitn to the part of the constition that says it's a right (and pointing to clauses where you think the right impliedly exists is fine too, but point to them). the "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" language people point to is part of the preamble. it is far too vague to ever hang a substantive right on.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 2:04pm

71. Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 2:04pm

    I agree with you. I was merely regurgitating what I have read in the left/lib/progressosphere. I believe there is a Supreme Court decision from somewhere in the 50's which stated that the government is not bound to fund fundamental constitutional rights. This however does not slow down the "positive" rights zealots in the slightest.

    Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 2:08pm

72. the libs (of which I'm one) should argue congress has the power to do it; and describe policy points why they should. but turning the argument to it's a right for individuals is a losing battle (unless they want to make the battle even tougher and have the constitution amended to make it a "positive" right)

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 2:30pm

73. Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 2:30pm

    Curious, urmy....why don't you run for Congress, given you know better than they do?

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 2:39pm

74. antisocialist--the federal government has duties and powers; not rights. only people have rights.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:03pm

    Urmy, I don't think I ever said the the Fed govt has rights. perhaps you are confusing where I said that the states have the right to implement healthcare. that could have been stated better as I intended it to mean that states have the authority under the 10th amendment.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 2:47pm

75. Mask--continue to genuflect, it suits you.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 2:50pm

76. Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    this is sophistry.

    "to promote the general welfare". promote is an active verb.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 3:49pm

77. There seems to be a common theme, oft repeated, of healthcare being a right that "government" supplies. Ultimately, taxpayers supply it, not government.

    If somebody else has to supply it to you, how can you then claim it as a right? Time is money. Time is also life. Money is what we get in compensation for giving an employer pieces of our life we can never get back or spend in some other, more preferable way.

    So, when somebody else demands that you supply them with something they think they are entitled to in the form of money, what they are ultimately demanding from you is...life.

    And what gives anybody the right to demand that?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:52pm

78. There seems to be a common theme, oft repeated, of healthcare being a right that "government" supplies. Ultimately, taxpayers supply it, not government.

    If somebody else has to supply it to you, how can you then claim it as a right? Time is money. Time is also life. Money is what we get in compensation for giving an employer pieces of our life we can never get back or spend in some other, more preferable way.

    So, when somebody else demands that you supply them with something they think they are entitled to in the form of money, what they are ultimately demanding from you is...life.

    And what gives anybody the right to demand that?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:52pm

79. There seems to be a common theme, oft repeated, of healthcare being a right that "government" supplies. Ultimately, taxpayers supply it, not government.

    If somebody else has to supply it to you, how can you then claim it as a right? Time is money. Time is also life. Money is what we get in compensation for giving an employer pieces of our life we can never get back or spend in some other, more preferable way.

    So, when somebody else demands that you supply them with something they think they are entitled to in the form of money, what they are ultimately demanding from you is...life.

    And what gives anybody the right to demand that?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:52pm

80. Ultimately, the government is us.

    all major countries provide health insurance for all their residents. except for us.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 4:02pm

81. American exceptionalism. We do not flee to Canada or Europe when we need life-saving medicines or procedures. Many of them DO come to us, especially Canadians. Indeed, a member of the Australian parliament was so impressed with his own country's healthcare system that he got on a plane and came here for surgery.

    3-6 month waiting lists for surgery is wrong and bad. The minute any American has to wait longer under the new plan than he did under the way we are now, or is denied medicines he can get right now, is the minute those in Congress and the White House should be recalled or impeached.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 4:24pm

82. American exceptionalism. We do not flee to Canada or Europe when we need life-saving medicines or procedures. Many of them DO come to us, especially Canadians. Indeed, a member of the Australian parliament was so impressed with his own country's healthcare system that he got on a plane and came here for surgery.

    3-6 month waiting lists for surgery is wrong and bad. The minute any American has to wait longer under the new plan than he did under the way we are now, or is denied medicines he can get right now, is the minute those in Congress and the White House should be recalled or impeached.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 4:24pm

83. American exceptionalism. We do not flee to Canada or Europe when we need life-saving medicines or procedures. Many of them DO come to us, especially Canadians. Indeed, a member of the Australian parliament was so impressed with his own country's healthcare system that he got on a plane and came here for surgery.

    3-6 month waiting lists for surgery is wrong and bad. The minute any American has to wait longer under the new plan than he did under the way we are now, or is denied medicines he can get right now, is the minute those in Congress and the White House should be recalled or impeached.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 4:24pm

84. Many of them DO come to us, especially Canadians.

    whattacrock.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 4:42pm

85. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 11:56am </i>

    Two sources: the interstate commerce clause and the tax-and-spend clause

    First, the interstate commerce clause. This gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Since health insurance has been and probably always will be something that participates in the flow of interstate commerce, it falls under that clause. This gives the government the power to regulate health insurance.

    Second, the tax-and-spend clause gives Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. The term "general welfare" is not defined in the Constitution, nor is their any clear indication that such spending is bound to other parts of the Constitution. This is probably the case for two reasons. First, Congress taxes across the board, meaning that they're accountable for the tax money they spend. Second, taxation is not coercive in precisely the same way that regulating activity is. It's money out of your pocket, but it doesn't force you to conform to X rules or anything like that.

    That's the Constitutional link. That's the part that establishes government's power to do this.

    The second part is whether government OUGHT do it, even if it has the power, and that's where the moral rights part comes in. I affirm the notion of objective morality, meaning that there are certain things that are good or bad regardless of how many people disagree. For instance, even if Hitler had killed everyone who disagreed with him, the Holocaust would still have been morally wrong. Correspondingly, I think there are inalienable rights people have no matter what the government says. Some the government might have to provide, others it might have to simply not obstruct. I think the real debate is about which mold healthcare fits.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 4:43pm

86. those in Congress and the White House should be recalled or impeached. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 4:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    a bit fast on the trigger ain'tcha.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 5:15pm

87. Correspondingly, I think there are inalienable rights people have no matter what the government says. Some the government might have to provide, others it might have to simply not obstruct. I think the real debate is about which mold healthcare fits.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --amorphous nonsense. if it's not in the constitution, it's not a right in this country. it can be in the constitution impliedly, but it still has to be there.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 9:29pm

88. The interstate commerce clause. A handly little workaround tool for Congress when it finds the process of actually amending the Constitution to be too onerous or improbable.

    As far as promoting the "general welfare", it has always been my understanding that Government can only promote the general welfare within the confines of the enumerated powers. The Founders did not give goverment an open-ended catch-all allowing it to sidestep the fact the Constitution is a LIMITING document.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 07:16am

89. The interstate commerce clause. A handly little workaround tool for Congress when it finds the process of actually amending the Constitution to be too onerous or improbable.

    As far as promoting the "general welfare", it has always been my understanding that Government can only promote the general welfare within the confines of the enumerated powers. The Founders did not give goverment an open-ended catch-all allowing it to sidestep the fact the Constitution is a LIMITING document.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 07:16am

90. The interstate commerce clause. A handly little workaround tool for Congress when it finds the process of actually amending the Constitution to be too onerous or improbable.

    As far as promoting the "general welfare", it has always been my understanding that Government can only promote the general welfare within the confines of the enumerated powers. The Founders did not give goverment an open-ended catch-all allowing it to sidestep the fact the Constitution is a LIMITING document.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 07:16am

91. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 9:29pm</i>

    I think we're talking past each other here. I'm making a moral point here, not a legal one. The rights I am talking about are ones that government may be entirely permitted (by the terms of the Constitution and statutory law) to violate, but for which it be morally wrong to do so.

    Here is the basic moral framework, as I understand it, for a right. A right is nothing more than a positive or negative claim that I have against some other entity. For instance, I have a right to life because I have a negative claim against you not to kill me.

    The concept of a moral right is very different from that of a legal right. If all I look at is the law, well it's very clear (as you say) that the law does not provide any right to health-care, certainly not any right to be provided health-care by the government. The law simply doesn't speak to the issue.

    That's not what I'm asking, though. What I'm asking is effectively this: is it morally wrong for the government to fail to provide health-care for those who are otherwise unable to obtain it?

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 08:15am

92. Again, I apologize if this post appears three times. I've tried adjusting cookies, whatever.

    First of all, I do not think of this in terms of the "government" providing healthcare. They would provide the administration of it (inefficiently and coldly impersonal), but taxpayers would be the ones providing it.

    Now, suppose we did individual health savings accounts? Healthcare with Gore's "lock box" applied to it. A box with my name on it that only I can access and nobody else? Well, we know that won't work. People are going to need more than what's in their box, so they'll have to raid other people's boxes, just like they do in the soon-to-be bankrupt social security.

    Think that'll be sustainable? Or will it eventually go the way of medicare, caid, and SS? Yes, it will. The only way to pay for it will be to deny services we have grown accostomed to now, and to heavily increase taxes. Taxes have consequences. If I'm paying them, then I'm hiring less people, spending less money that keeps other people employed. Not going on vacations. Not doing a lot of stuff.

    Is that a moral outcome? Is it moral to take money from 4 or 5 people and redistribute it to one person who has no moral claim on it other than need? Money is what we get in compensation for selling slices of our lives to an employer. When you take more and more money from me, that means less and less of my life "belongs" or "works" for me. It means I am living and working more for somebody else. Shouldn't my life belong first and foremost to me?

    Reform healthcare? Sure. Do it in the private sector and keep government or my fellow people's hands out of my wallet.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:29am

93. Again, I apologize if this post appears three times. I've tried adjusting cookies, whatever.

    First of all, I do not think of this in terms of the "government" providing healthcare. They would provide the administration of it (inefficiently and coldly impersonal), but taxpayers would be the ones providing it.

    Now, suppose we did individual health savings accounts? Healthcare with Gore's "lock box" applied to it. A box with my name on it that only I can access and nobody else? Well, we know that won't work. People are going to need more than what's in their box, so they'll have to raid other people's boxes, just like they do in the soon-to-be bankrupt social security.

    Think that'll be sustainable? Or will it eventually go the way of medicare, caid, and SS? Yes, it will. The only way to pay for it will be to deny services we have grown accostomed to now, and to heavily increase taxes. Taxes have consequences. If I'm paying them, then I'm hiring less people, spending less money that keeps other people employed. Not going on vacations. Not doing a lot of stuff.

    Is that a moral outcome? Is it moral to take money from 4 or 5 people and redistribute it to one person who has no moral claim on it other than need? Money is what we get in compensation for selling slices of our lives to an employer. When you take more and more money from me, that means less and less of my life "belongs" or "works" for me. It means I am living and working more for somebody else. Shouldn't my life belong first and foremost to me?

    Reform healthcare? Sure. Do it in the private sector and keep government or my fellow people's hands out of my wallet.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:29am

94. Again, I apologize if this post appears three times. I've tried adjusting cookies, whatever.

    First of all, I do not think of this in terms of the "government" providing healthcare. They would provide the administration of it (inefficiently and coldly impersonal), but taxpayers would be the ones providing it.

    Now, suppose we did individual health savings accounts? Healthcare with Gore's "lock box" applied to it. A box with my name on it that only I can access and nobody else? Well, we know that won't work. People are going to need more than what's in their box, so they'll have to raid other people's boxes, just like they do in the soon-to-be bankrupt social security.

    Think that'll be sustainable? Or will it eventually go the way of medicare, caid, and SS? Yes, it will. The only way to pay for it will be to deny services we have grown accostomed to now, and to heavily increase taxes. Taxes have consequences. If I'm paying them, then I'm hiring less people, spending less money that keeps other people employed. Not going on vacations. Not doing a lot of stuff.

    Is that a moral outcome? Is it moral to take money from 4 or 5 people and redistribute it to one person who has no moral claim on it other than need? Money is what we get in compensation for selling slices of our lives to an employer. When you take more and more money from me, that means less and less of my life "belongs" or "works" for me. It means I am living and working more for somebody else. Shouldn't my life belong first and foremost to me?

    Reform healthcare? Sure. Do it in the private sector and keep government or my fellow people's hands out of my wallet.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:29am

95. then I'm hiring less people, spending less money that keeps other people employed.

    less money, FEWER people.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 08:46am

96. Shouldn't my life belong first and foremost to me?

    no man is an island.

    stop whining about taxes.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 08:47am

97. When employers are taxed to the point where they have to stop hiring people, start laying them off, or find that it just isn't profitable to keep the doors open, do you suppose people will feel like whining then?

    Increasing taxes on any sector of the population, especially the one most involved with investment and entrepeneurship will have CONSEQUENCES. France and other European countries are seeing that with "wealth flight". New York City is already seeing it.

    Are you even considering the consequences of taxing people 50% or even more of their income? Do you even think about that? Or are is your position based upon an airy, wave-of-the-hand dismissal of truths about economics and human nature?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:05am

98. When employers are taxed to the point where they have to stop hiring people, start laying them off, or find that it just isn't profitable to keep the doors open, do you suppose people will feel like whining then?

    Increasing taxes on any sector of the population, especially the one most involved with investment and entrepeneurship will have CONSEQUENCES. France and other European countries are seeing that with "wealth flight". New York City is already seeing it.

    Are you even considering the consequences of taxing people 50% or even more of their income? Do you even think about that? Or are is your position based upon an airy, wave-of-the-hand dismissal of truths about economics and human nature?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:05am

99. When employers are taxed to the point where they have to stop hiring people, start laying them off, or find that it just isn't profitable to keep the doors open, do you suppose people will feel like whining then?

    Increasing taxes on any sector of the population, especially the one most involved with investment and entrepeneurship will have CONSEQUENCES. France and other European countries are seeing that with "wealth flight". New York City is already seeing it.

    Are you even considering the consequences of taxing people 50% or even more of their income? Do you even think about that? Or are is your position based upon an airy, wave-of-the-hand dismissal of truths about economics and human nature?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:05am

100. "Are you even considering the consequences of taxing people 50% or even more of their income? Do you even think about that? Or are is your position based upon an airy, wave-of-the-hand dismissal of truths about economics and human nature?"----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:05am

     What was the top marginal income tax rate under Eisenhower and how was the economy of the 1950s?

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 09:19am

101. taxing people 50% or even more of their income?

     the top tax rate for the richest wage earners, as opposed to investment income, is 35%. in the past it has been as high as 90%. we should return to the higher tax rate for the richest. they have the most to gain and most to lose should the economy tank.

     there have been some estimates that as much as a third of the assets of the very rich have been lost in the "recession".

     hold the tears. save them for the millions who have lost their jobs.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 09:20am

102. When employers are taxed to the point where they have to stop hiring people, start laying them off, or find that it just isn't profitable to keep the doors open, do you suppose people will feel like whining then?

     we've had eight years of Bush tax cuts, and millions have been fired. how do you explain that?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 09:55am

103. What do you suppose will happen when those tax cuts are rescinded in 2010? Think it will jump start a hiring spree?

     We're not talking astrophysics here. I'm not claiming that tax cuts are some foolproof shield against economic downturns caused by very bad investment judgement. Nor do they cause them. The stagflation of the 1970s was not caused by tax cuts, but we certainly dug ourselves out of it with them. I'm saying that taking money out of the private sector has real, historically defined consequences that should not be ignored. What if they prove to be more expensive and damaging than just leaving healthcare as it is now? What if the "cure" is worse than the disease, since "cost" seems to be the driving issue of this whole debate? We're reforming healthcare because of the cost, but suppose the fix is yet more expensive? The Congressional Budget Office seems to think it WILL BE.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:18am

104. What do you suppose will happen when those tax cuts are rescinded in 2010? Think it will jump start a hiring spree?

     We're not talking astrophysics here. I'm not claiming that tax cuts are some foolproof shield against economic downturns caused by very bad investment judgement. Nor do they cause them. The stagflation of the 1970s was not caused by tax cuts, but we certainly dug ourselves out of it with them. I'm saying that taking money out of the private sector has real, historically defined consequences that should not be ignored. What if they prove to be more expensive and damaging than just leaving healthcare as it is now? What if the "cure" is worse than the disease, since "cost" seems to be the driving issue of this whole debate? We're reforming healthcare because of the cost, but suppose the fix is yet more expensive? The Congressional Budget Office seems to think it WILL BE.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:18am

105. What do you suppose will happen when those tax cuts are rescinded in 2010? Think it will jump start a hiring spree?

     We're not talking astrophysics here. I'm not claiming that tax cuts are some foolproof shield against economic downturns caused by very bad investment judgement. Nor do they cause them. The stagflation of the 1970s was not caused by tax cuts, but we certainly dug ourselves out of it with them. I'm saying that taking money out of the private sector has real, historically defined consequences that should not be ignored. What if they prove to be more expensive and damaging than just leaving healthcare as it is now? What if the "cure" is worse than the disease, since "cost" seems to be the driving issue of this whole debate? We're reforming healthcare because of the cost, but suppose the fix is yet more expensive? The Congressional Budget Office seems to think it WILL BE.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:18am

106. "I'm saying that taking money out of the private sector has real, historically defined consequences that should not be ignored."---Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:18am

     Okay, again...what was the top marginal rate in the 1950s and what was the 1950s economy like..."historically defined"?

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 10:38am

107. For one thing, there wasn't as big a concern that businesses would relocate overseas in the 1950s as there is now. With Europe still recovering from WWII and the Soviets wrestling with us for world dominance, people just didn't think about going somewhere else. Things are a lot more fluid now. One cannot point to 50 years ago and apply it to the economic situation of today. 1950s China was an economic basketcase. 2009 China is not, for example.

     In the 1950s you get graduate from high school, get a manufacturing job, get married, buy a house, a car, and your wife didn't have to work. Can you manage that today with a high school diploma? We have lower rates of taxation and both parents generally have to work to make ends meet. You want to throw higher rates of taxation into that mix?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 11:28am

108. For one thing, there wasn't as big a concern that businesses would relocate overseas in the 1950s as there is now. With Europe still recovering from WWII and the Soviets wrestling with us for world dominance, people just didn't think about going somewhere else. Things are a lot more fluid now. One cannot point to 50 years ago and apply it to the economic situation of today. 1950s China was an economic basketcase. 2009 China is not, for example.

     In the 1950s you get graduate from high school, get a manufacturing job, get married, buy a house, a car, and your wife didn't have to work. Can you manage that today with a high school diploma? We have lower rates of taxation and both parents generally have to work to make ends meet. You want to throw higher rates of taxation into that mix?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 11:28am

109. For one thing, there wasn't as big a concern that businesses would relocate overseas in the 1950s as there is now. With Europe still recovering from WWII and the Soviets wrestling with us for world dominance, people just didn't think about going somewhere else. Things are a lot more fluid now. One cannot point to 50 years ago and apply it to the economic situation of today. 1950s China was an economic basketcase. 2009 China is not, for example.

     In the 1950s you get graduate from high school, get a manufacturing job, get married, buy a house, a car, and your wife didn't have to work. Can you manage that today with a high school diploma? We have lower rates of taxation and both parents generally have to work to make ends meet. You want to throw higher rates of taxation into that mix?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 11:28am

110. For another, in the 1950s we manufactured most of the goods we consumed. And exported a lot more to boot. We were still exporters of oil back then too, not the importers we are today.

     Now, much of what we consume is made somewhere else. There was nothing like China in the 1950s. Returning the top tax rates now to what they were in the 1950s would essentially destroy our economy.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:02pm

111. For another, in the 1950s we manufactured most of the goods we consumed. And exported a lot more to boot. We were still exporters of oil back then too, not the importers we are today.

     Now, much of what we consume is made somewhere else. There was nothing like China in the 1950s. Returning the top tax rates now to what they were in the 1950s would essentially destroy our economy.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:02pm

112. For another, in the 1950s we manufactured most of the goods we consumed. And exported a lot more to boot. We were still exporters of oil back then too, not the importers we are today.

     Now, much of what we consume is made somewhere else. There was nothing like China in the 1950s. Returning the top tax rates now to what they were in the 1950s would essentially destroy our economy.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:02pm

113. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:02pm

     How about returning them to what they were when the "Reagan Recovery" began in 1983?.....50%?

     (Let me guess...there's an excuse...I mean, "extenuating circumstance" for that too?)

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 12:42pm

114. Well, you don't seem to want to comment on the differences between the 1950s and now. Am I to assume you acknowledge the world was a different place then than it is now?

     Am I now supposed to assume that a 50% rate of taxation now would have the same effect on us as it had back in 1983? Why would either you or I think that? A sustainable rate of taxation then is not necessarily what the economy will sustain now.

     And frankly, who cares if we can afford it or not? By what possible justification would we take 50 cents of every dollar earned from somebody? Just because we did it in the past doesn't mean we should revist past injustices. Instead of rationing healthcare, why don't we start rationing government and start allowing people to keep more of what they earn?

     I've said it once already. Your money represents pieces of your LIFE sold to an employer or business. When we demand more money from people so that we can redistribute it to others who did not create it and have no claim of ownership on it, we are ultimately demanding that you give up more and more of your life.

     A need on my part does not constitute an involuntary obligation on your part. At least it shouldn't.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 1:15pm

115. Well, you don't seem to want to comment on the differences between the 1950s and now. Am I to assume you acknowledge the world was a different place then than it is now?

     Am I now supposed to assume that a 50% rate of taxation now would have the same effect on us as it had back in 1983? Why would either you or I think that? A sustainable rate of taxation then is not necessarily what the economy will sustain now.

     And frankly, who cares if we can afford it or not? By what possible justification would we take 50 cents of every dollar earned from somebody? Just because we did it in the past doesn't mean we should revist past injustices. Instead of rationing healthcare, why don't we start rationing government and start allowing people to keep more of what they earn?

     I've said it once already. Your money represents pieces of your LIFE sold to an employer or business. When we demand more money from people so that we can redistribute it to others who did not create it and have no claim of ownership on it, we are ultimately demanding that you give up more and more of your life.

     A need on my part does not constitute an involuntary obligation on your part. At least it shouldn't.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 1:15pm

116. Well, you don't seem to want to comment on the differences between the 1950s and now. Am I to assume you acknowledge the world was a different place then than it is now?

     Am I now supposed to assume that a 50% rate of taxation now would have the same effect on us as it had back in 1983? Why would either you or I think that? A sustainable rate of taxation then is not necessarily what the economy will sustain now.

     And frankly, who cares if we can afford it or not? By what possible justification would we take 50 cents of every dollar earned from somebody? Just because we did it in the past doesn't mean we should revist past injustices. Instead of rationing healthcare, why don't we start rationing government and start allowing people to keep more of what they earn?

     I've said it once already. Your money represents pieces of your LIFE sold to an employer or business. When we demand more money from people so that we can redistribute it to others who did not create it and have no claim of ownership on it, we are ultimately demanding that you give up more and more of your life.

     A need on my part does not constitute an involuntary obligation on your part. At least it shouldn't.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 1:15pm

117. Returning the top tax rates now to what they were in the 1950s would essentially destroy our economy. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:02pm |

     Please explain the mechanism of action of the destruction...I'm curious to know how the balance of Ken Lewis' savings account can have such a profound effect on the entire economy.

     The 50% tax rate is only on the last N-million dollars of the top 1% earners...how much of 'the economy' do you really think that these people represent?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:59pm

118. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 1:15pm

     Because I'm trying to prove a point, CC.

     See, high taxes under Ike and a booming economy....you'll have an excuse.

     50% top marginal rate when the "Reagan Recovery" was underway....you'll have an excuse.

     Clinton increases taxes in 1993, "the most massive tax hike in history" to quote the average conservative....and we had the boom of the 1990s...

     you'll have an excuse.

     Despite your claim of "historically defined consequences."

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 2:10pm

119. Returning the top tax rates now to what they were in the 1950s would essentially destroy our economy.

     an assertion with no basis.

     a guy pulling down 100 million. so what if he's in the 90% bracket. say the top rate kicks in after five or ten million. let's be generous, ten mill. 90% of 90 mill, is 81 mill, that's the gov't's share. our wage earner is left with 19 million.

     how exactly does that destroy our economy?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 2:50pm

120. Instead of personalizing it with one rich guy as an example, talk instead about the total amount of dollars being yanked out of the private sector through these taxes. I tend to think in terms of private and public sector. This would be a massive loss of money in the private sector.

     So maybe the rich guy, or several of them, do not buy a new Cadillac that year. Fine, what do we regular stiffs care about that, right?

     Except...what if you are a regular stiff working on the Cadillac assembly line and pretty much depend on rich people buying those things?

     Whether that amount of money is yanked out of the private sector through an economic downturn, or through tax confiscation, the effect on the private sector is still going to be negative and it will be felt by all of us.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 3:57pm

121. Instead of personalizing it with one rich guy as an example, talk instead about the total amount of dollars being yanked out of the private sector through these taxes. I tend to think in terms of private and public sector. This would be a massive loss of money in the private sector.

     So maybe the rich guy, or several of them, do not buy a new Cadillac that year. Fine, what do we regular stiffs care about that, right?

     Except...what if you are a regular stiff working on the Cadillac assembly line and pretty much depend on rich people buying those things?

     Whether that amount of money is yanked out of the private sector through an economic downturn, or through tax confiscation, the effect on the private sector is still going to be negative and it will be felt by all of us.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 3:57pm

122. Instead of personalizing it with one rich guy as an example, talk instead about the total amount of dollars being yanked out of the private sector through these taxes. I tend to think in terms of private and public sector. This would be a massive loss of money in the private sector.

     So maybe the rich guy, or several of them, do not buy a new Cadillac that year. Fine, what do we regular stiffs care about that, right?

     Except...what if you are a regular stiff working on the Cadillac assembly line and pretty much depend on rich people buying those things?

     Whether that amount of money is yanked out of the private sector through an economic downturn, or through tax confiscation, the effect on the private sector is still going to be negative and it will be felt by all of us.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 3:57pm

123. Tax widely, spend narrowly.

     Let's personalize this.

     I would like to see pay day go like this. You go to window one, and we give you X dollars. In $5 bills let's say. You move to the next window, and give back your federal taxes. Next window, state taxes. next window, city taxes. Next window, social security. Next window, medicare/aid. Next window, unemployment insurance. And so on. Each window you peal off the bills, and get to see your money disappear.

     Next, let us suppose person A makes $60,000 per year. Person B makes $30,000 per year. How much of person A's money will you give to person B? If person A made $600,000 what would the amount be.

     There are no correct answers, only opinions here.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 4:52pm

124. Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 4:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     your example is impenetrable.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 6:46pm

125. your example is impenetrable.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009

     Not really.

     One person might say, in the first case take away $15,000 so that both have the same amount. In the second case, take away $540,000, the two wind up with $60,000, and the rest goes to the common good. I just want to see how egalitarian our posters are here. As I said, no wrong answer here, only opinion.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 7:13pm

126. let's try another example. the rich guy has a banquet. he eats well, caviar etc. at the end of the meal the busboy scrapes out the plate for a snack. when it comes time for the bill the rich guy walks away and leaves the check for the bus boy to pick up.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 7:23pm

127. when the top tax rate is reduced from 90% to 35%, guess who makes up the shortfall? the middle and lower class, that's who.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 7:24pm

128. when the rich have a windfall, and they have made out like bandits, and wages stagnate or even decline, that's when you have the scenario described above.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 7:26pm

129. let's try another example. the rich guy has a banquet. he eats well, caviar etc. at the end of the meal the busboy scrapes out the plate for a snack. when it comes time for the bill the rich guy walks away and leaves the check for the bus boy to pick up.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 7:23pm

     Bad situation, unless rich guy is a really BIG tipper.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/18/2009 @ 10:17pm

130. did I not make it clear. the rich guy in the story expects the busboy to pay for the banquet. sigh.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 10:25pm

131. sorry Heinzl, I realize I got that one wrong. mea culpa.

     I enjoy your posts, fast or slow.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 10:32pm