health/war cost

[Dan Baltzell]

http://lokwi.com/upl/16.jpg
http://lokwi.com/item/16

I said Iraq was a hoax, and I was said to be unpatriotic.
I said Afghanistan was for an oil pipeline and opiates for the pharmaceuticals not terrorism, and now they want to call me un-American.
When I said what's wrong with giving care to people, when the elderly spend their life savings and lose their houses on medical procedures, when people lose their jobs and can't afford care because those same corporations want higher profits for more investors, I was called a socialist/communist. So I used the terms fascists, imperialists, corporatocracy, oligarchy, and theocracy to describe those factions. Now I'm told to tone down the rhetoric based on an assassin painted as schizophrenic. I think I still have the freedom of speech, even though this may be like screaming fire in a crowded theater. While I see an overzealous government as being hazardous to our well being, I see it as the military industrial complex as Eisenhower warned on his way out the door, or as the large corporate interests as Kennedy's speech before being assassinated, not as programs for the benefit of the people (although the health care bill was designed to prevent the collapse of the insurance industry, it became an issue upon inclusion of pre-existing conditions). We'll have no general welfare for the masses. It is being designed to collapse, to create an empire of extreme wealth and extreme poverty, similar to the old empires of European feudalism with kings and serfs as support. Instead of the workers having an interest in the business, and doing a great job for the client, they think about living paycheck to paycheck and worrying about paying bills. Is this why there's a correlation with high corporate profits and unemployment. Free speech is fundamental to our design as a nation, something we can herald to the rest of humanity to rise our consciousness from the lowly states of slavery and despotism. viva rhetoric!!

[Tony]

Cute cartoon, but I'd be more impressed if Obama had made any really serious efforts to actually end these expensive police actions. And for god's sake please let's declare victory in the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" and stop with the sensationalism.

[Nanuk]

Bottom line: The US Constitution authorizes the federal government to levy taxes to pay for military expenditures and gives it the power to declare and wage war. That is one of the few powers that the Constitution specifically granted to the government.
Nowhere in that document did the founders give it the authorization to tax people to pay for nice things for other people, health care being just one of those "nice things".

In this country, you have the right to as much health care as you can pay for. No one stops anyone from buying it. That's what freedom is--the ability to buy as much of anything as you can afford. But freedom ends when the government forces people at the point of a gun to buy stuff for other people, or demands that they buy a product that they really don't want.

And if you don't like the way that businesses run in this country, start your own and run it any way that you want to. Give your employees as much as you care to. Again, you're free do do that here. But freedom ends when the government--or unions with government backing--try to force people to run their businesses contrary to their own wishes.

Obama's really not looking like a "freedom" sort of guy here, is he?

Better say it now, because the new restrictions on speech that many in his party are calling for may prevent criticism of him later.

November 4th, 2008 will always be remembered as the day that Freedom died.

[longleaf]

November 4th, 2008 will always be remembered as the day that Freedom died.Oh please. Are we supposed to now sing,"So bye-bye, Miss American pie/Drove my chevy to the levee/But the levee was dry...."?

And those "nice things" that you speak of, the stuff that we have to pay for, what exactly are they?

[Tony]

In this country, you have the right to as much health care as you can pay for.BS. Right now we're lucky to have 1/10 the health care we pay for. But I know that isn't your point.

I've pointed out before, and you've admitted it's true, that hospitals don't turn people out on the sidewalk to die, regardless their ability to pay. But where we disagree is that it would be lots cheaper to give that person care long before the situation gets critical.

As to what the constitution allows, let's not get absurd. It also doesn't give the government the right to seize property without just compensation, but it's done all the time - even before people are convicted of crimes.

[Jenniffer]

A good quote for today: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom. " Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Nanuk]

I'm good with spiritual doom. Another catchy quote is that a government which robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul. (In this case, "Paul" = lazy, inept people who can't carry their own weight.)

No one stops anyone from giving their own money to charity in this country. However when a majority of 535 people start demanding that we all give our money to the causes that they champion and using force to make it happen, well then we don't live in a free country any more.

[Willis]

However when a majority of 535 people start demanding that we all give our money to the causes that they champion and using force to make it happen, well then we don't live in a free country any more. Precisely, that's why I opposed that war in Iraq from way before day one.

[Nanuk]

Precisely, that's why I opposed that war in Iraq from way before day one.

So we should have just let Iraq and it's unstable ruler continue to threaten our oil supplies, support and aid terrorists, and actually acquire the weapons that he convinced the world that he had at the time? and keep in mind that the whole world really thought that he had the weapons that he was boasting about having.

Military action for the common good and the defense of our country's interests and security is different that politicians offering welfare checks in exchange for the votes of the lazy and unemployed masses and the union sheep. It also has Constitutional authority and precedent, with President Thomas Jefferson ordering a navy created specifically to sail it to the Mediterranean Ocean to kick (muslim) pirates in the ass.

Like I said though, anyone is free to give their own money to charity. But I suspect that the ones who sit back and support a government taxing other people to raise money for such causes typically contribute far less of their own money, taxed or voluntary. This is why I think that unless you have a job and pay taxes, you should not get a vote when it comes to tax-related issues, to include the election of legislators. Imagine how different our government would be if the ones running for office knew that they had to appeal to the workers and business owners and could not just buy the votes of the layabouts, welfare recipients, housewives and non-working college kids.

[Tony]

So we should have just let Iraq and it's unstable ruler continue to...Maybe not. But we should have gotten every boot off the ground there no later than one week after declaring victory, with a stern warning that we would be back if they didn't keep their act clean. Instead Bush dismantled both the military and the police, which meant we had no choice but to stick around until peace reigned, which of course isn't ever going to happen.

[derricksonb]

Maybe not. But we should have gotten every boot off the ground there no later than one week after declaring victory, with a stern warning that we would be back if they didn't keep their act clean. Instead Bush dismantled both the military and the police, which meant we had no choice but to stick around until peace reigned, which of course isn't ever going to happen.

Do you really think that we'll actually pullout of Iraq? Keep in mind that we still have bases in aggressor nations like Germany, Italy, Bosnia, Japan, and Korea.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Everyone knows that pulling out doesn't work all the time...

[KatherineA]

There was an interesting opinion/op ed piece in the Post yesterday about Pres. Eisenhower's warning about the "military industrial complex" becoming too large - seems he was a good predictor . . .

[Chutney Daftcraft]

There's only one problem with such a giant military-industrial complex...

You have to keep them busy...

[derricksonb]

There's only one problem with such a giant military-industrial complex...

You have to keep them busy...

Which is a much better return on investment than paying people to sit around and do nothing. Considering the very real threats facing our nation from Iran, China and North Korea I'd venture to say that our military could potentially be kept very busy and may even require enlisting some of the deadbeat freeloaders.

[KatherineA]

From Eisenhower's speech:

rice on both societies:

"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. . . . We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011406229.html

wise words from a former five star general

[derricksonb]

....wise words from a former five star general

A wise 5 star who obviously did not understand that it is/was not the job of the federal government to build homes for citizens, but rather to provide for the defense of the nation and it's citizens.

[Jenniffer]

Yeah, Eisenhower was stupid.

[derricksonb]

Yeah, Eisenhower was stupid.

Did I say that? No, I simply said that he must not have fully understand the powers of the federal government as defined by the Constitution of the United States. Obviously in a perfect world we would build homes for our citizens and provide food and supplies for all, oh wait, that's called Communism and so far it's failed miserably.

[Kensey]

A wise 5 star who obviously did not understand that it is/was not the job of the federal government to build homes for citizens, but rather to provide for the defense of the nation and it's citizens.

The bomber is paid for by taxes taken from people who could otherwise use the money to build their houses, or buy the bushels of wheat, or support their local schools, and from companies that otherwise could build those power plants.

[KatherineA]

Did I say that? No, I simply said that he must not have fully understand the powers of the federal government as defined by the Constitution of the United States. Obviously in a perfect world we would build homes for our citizens and provide food and supplies for all, oh wait, that's called Communism and so far it's failed miserably.

Yeah, I guess it takes more than being a 5-star general and a 2-term president to understand the constitution as well as you think you do.

[Nanuk]

In a perfect world, we would all volunteer to build homes for and provide food to those who don't have those things. But we're not perfect; some of us do those things voluntarily and some do not.
And a third group, the most imperfect of all, uses the power of government to take from some to give to others, with strings attached and benefits for themselves being part of the deal.

[Willis]

And a third group, the most imperfect of all, uses the power of government to take from some to give to others, with strings attached and benefits for themselves being part of the deal.
Darn it Nanuk, that imperfect group you are describing includes both the left, the right and the middle spectrums of our imperfect society. ALL groups have factions that take from some to benefit themselves and their cronies. What's your point? Is it that there are greedy bastards throughout our country-heck throughout the world? If so, I'll concur w/o hesitation :)

[OzGirl]

We are already in a "take from some to give to others" - those that pay are paying for those that dont, which is why the only way to make it fair is to have everyone pay for basic coverage.

[Nanuk]

Darn it Nanuk, that imperfect group you are describing includes both the left, the right and the middle spectrums of our imperfect society.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner!



ALL groups have factions that take from some to benefit themselves and their cronies. What's your point?



Point being that it's human nature to be self-serving, and there is no virtue in using force to take from others for the so-called "common good", even if you couch it in terms of "well these people might someday need medical care that they won't be able to afford without mortgaging their house, so you'll just have to accept less money in your paycheck every week."

Such is not the government's role or right, even absent the inevitable corruption that comes from being the one who controls where that money taken from your paycheck and mine and every other working American gets to be doled out.

This is why our founders wanted the government limited and restricted to as little as possible, and the decisions made locally or on a state lever as much as possible so that the people could more closely watch and control their elected representatives. But now we have a federal monster dipping into everything and crafting massive 2,000 page "health care packages" in secret and telling us that we'll have to pass it so that we can find out what's in it. Every legislator who voted in favor of that should have been tarred and feathered. Fortunately we're going to see a repeal vote on it now in the House, and if the party that keep blocking the will of the people on this will do so at their peril in 2012.

[derricksonb]

We are already in a "take from some to give to others" - those that pay are paying for those that dont, which is why the only way to make it fair is to have everyone pay for basic coverage.

Where does the money for mandatory basic coverage come from for those who do not have a regular income and rely on government provided social programs?

[Nanuk]

We are already in a "take from some to give to others" - those that pay are paying for those that don't, which is why the only way to make it fair is to have everyone pay for basic coverage.

I disagree. the "fair" thing to do is lower medical costs by restricting the ability of fortune-seekers to sue any and every medical care provider over anything and limit payouts to actual damages for actual foreseeable harm. If medical care can be obtained cheaper because doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical firms aren't practicing "defensive medicine", paying large insurance premiums or building a hedge fund against lawsuits, then costs can reflect actual services provides and people can afford these things without going crazy.

As Obamacare stands now, the same people who are uninsured now will likely remain uninsured until they need treatment for something, and then they'll sign up for it to get the benefits without having had to pay in previously. That is why the industry is seeing expected health care costs going up drastically under Comrade Obama's grand socialist scheme.

[Leprechaun]

I dunno, ... not to make light of the 'Tragedy in Tucson' but shouldn't EVERY American be entitled to the same quality of medical care that Gabby Giffords is receiving? I see they're going to move her to a state-of-the-art recovery facility in Houston. If you or I was shot thru the head and didn't have insurance what kind of care do you think you'd receive? And chances are your spouse would be fired for missing too much time from their job. Just sayin'! Rich man can ride, and the hobo, he can drown!

[Nanuk]

I dunno, ... not to make light of the 'Tragedy in Tucson' but shouldn't EVERY American be entitled to the same quality of medical care that Gabby Giffords is receiving?

Well medical care isn't an entitlement--it's a service that people with training and skills perform in return for payment. If you have enough money, you can get that same level of care at that same place. No one is saying that you can't. Now you may not have that much money, but that's different from being barred. And don't think for a minute that people who can't pay get left in alleys. I've seen more than a few drug dealers get shot and receive top-tier emergency care and rehab even though they officially have no assets or income. Everybody who needs care gets care in this country. The only real issue is cost, and that can be greatly reduced through tort reform and increasing the ability of insurance companies to compete across state lines.

As to the husband, these days many employers offer Family Care Medical Leave. But again, there's no right to be paid for not being at your job unless it's part of your employment contract.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I do have a question... I know that the state of Delaware has very favorable corporate law, which is why many, many companies are 'a Delaware Corporation'.

Right now, insurance is regulated on the state level. Would the insurance companies find a state that has laws that are favorable towards them, and just sell all their policies out of that state? There has to be a reason that this idea is repeated by pro-business people like yourself. And I can guarantee it's not because it will lower our costs and deliver better coverage... That is one thing we can count on in the private health care world: lowered coverage and increased premiums... every single year.

[Nanuk]

I do have a question... I know that the state of Delaware has very favorable corporate law, which is why many, many companies are 'a Delaware Corporation'.

Right now, insurance is regulated on the state level. Would the insurance companies find a state that has laws that are favorable towards them, and just sell all their policies out of that state? There has to be a reason that this idea is repeated by pro-business people like yourself. And I can guarantee it's not because it will lower our costs and deliver better coverage... That is one thing we can count on in the private health care world: lowered coverage and increased premiums... every single year.

First of all, it doesn't matter what state you operate out of. If you seek out or transact business in another state, you are subject to the laws of that state. Companies that set up in Delaware for corporate reasons can still be sued in 49 other states if they do business in those other states.

Now, as for your other claim...you're demonstrating a lack of understanding of the business model again. If companies could compete across state lines, they would have the ability to attract customers away from other companies by offering better coverage at lower costs, cutting profit margins and making it up on volume. They would be free to deny people that have pre-existing conditions or risk factors, but others would come along and specialize in insuring the high-risk people in a pool. Insurance costs go up right no w because we have record levels of government meddling in the field and legislation that is costly to comply with, and also because every trial lawyer in America goes to sleep at night wishing for another client with a medical malpractice claim in the morning. We need to cut that off, too. Give companies the freedom that this country was founded on and restrict lawsuits absent an actual, provable claim, and costs will be down and options for consumers will go up. As with everything else, the solution lies in less government and more freedom.

[Kensey]

Actually, after looking into this, the way I understand it is that currently, insurance is not regulated at the federal level (as a result of the McCarran Act) and federal regulations cannot preempt state ones except when a bill explicitly declares its intention to do so. The result is a patchwork of insurance regulations. So it's not so much that a company can't sell insurance across state lines, it's just that it has to deal with all that state's regulations and regulators as well.

Insurance companies actually do effectively sell in many states by setting up state-based subsidiaries -- e.g. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of .

The plan to "allow" interstate sales is apparently really a plan to [I]preempt state control of insurance regulations, so that states would lose control over the activities of insurance companies selling there but not based there.

CBO looked at the issue relative to legislation under consideration in 2005, and concluded that if all insurance in the US were based on the mandates of the least-restrictive states, the overall cost of insurance premiums would decline about 5% (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6639&type=0).