09/29/09 by David.

A lot of conservatives have been railing against the idea of requiring health insurance. The basis for the argument is that they hate Obama. Also, they complain about transfer of money from young healthy males to old women. While we here at AmendmentX believe that transfer of wealth is facially a bad idea, where does the money come from that currently pays for the coverage of high cost insurees? Where the pundits miss the boat is that everyone in the United States currently receives health CARE and that cost is paid by people. So, the transfer of wealth now comes from people who have insurance or actually pay with money for treatment. By keeping those unwilling to buy insurance from having to, the conservatives are effectively mandating a transfer of wealth from responsible and wealthy people whom are no better able to afford it than the young males they purport to protect.

Universal coverage is a political reality. We have it now. It is however less economical to treat large numbers of people in emergency rooms. Beyond that, the majority of the body politic wants some sort of change. That change does not mean government health insurance. It means lower premiums. Something is going to change about the current system and we can either argue for something that actually helps, or we can let the socialists give us a government plan. As to the Constitutionality of required coverage, look no farther than Medicaid and Medicare. We already pay the government through forced taxation money to pay for other people’s health care. Requiring people to pay for their own is easier to swallow.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | No Comments »

09/18/09 by David.

A short six moths after the Obama administration took over GM and fired the CEO, the president still doesn’t want to run a car company. Making a generic investment in the private sector is not on its face wrong. Think government contracts. Taking a majority stake in a company is not the same.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | No Comments »

09/17/09 by David.

Slippery slope arguments usually aren’t persuasive for several reasons. Most importantly; in the winter, slippery slopes are fun. Also, we need to know how slippery the slope is as well as how steep. At the bottom of the slope, what’s there? We like grassy fields. Sometimes there’s a barbwire fence and a highway. The Department of Education is not enumerated in Article I section 8 of the Constitution where it should be to be legitimate. It was part of the vast general welfare clause of Art.I §8 in a department called Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Under Jimmy Carter, the cabinet level position was created as well as a new bureaucracy. It has only gotten worse from there. Federal dollars (aka yours and mine) are given to states and school districts as bribes, no different than highway money. Which brings us to our fun fact; in fiscal year 2009, the federal government will spend $159,400,000,000 on education. And no, that does not include all the money you pay at the local level where it is supposed to be. That $160 billion came from your community, went to Washington D.C., and theoretically, comes back to be added to the money collected from home-owner’s taxes, sales taxes, and a host of other local taxes that go more or less directly to the school districts. Starting with an ambiguous clause in the Constitution, and “for the children,” creating a massive program for bribing local governments is hardly consistent with letting people make their own decisions.  That slippery slope is one scary ride.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/16/09 by David.

The President and members of Congress are not wrong about some of the problems with the best health care system on Earth according to the World Health Organization. That’s right, when the socialism part of their ranking is removed so financial and “fairness” are separated because they are not the same as”health care,” WHO actually assesses responsiveness to patient needs. As mentioned in the last post, the risk pool must be maintained in order to provide money to pay for inclusion of pre-existing conditions and severe health care issues. While libertarians may not like the idea of the government getting involved at all, there are times when legislation is needed to prevent massive takeovers by the same government. Requiring insurance companies to cover high risk individuals is a good idea. For that mandate to work, the risk pool must be sufficient. The solution is making health insurance mandatory. The instant reaction for most people is; “what about people that cannot afford it?” The answer lies in something more important than insurance: food. Food stamps are an income qualified program that is available to those below a certain level in order to provide a necessity to those that can’t afford it. When citizens file their tax filings, they will show proof of insurance and receive a credit for it. If they fail to provide proof, there will be a penalty. For those below a particular level, they will receive “food stamps” with which to purchase health insurance on the open market. That will allow them to also provide the required proof. Eliminate Medicaid and Medicare and get the government out of the insurance business. By using those funds to purchase private insurance and eliminating the subsidized plan, the private companies will have a sufficient risk pool to cover the costs of high cost members. This will in turn boost the competitiveness by increasing the market and the companies will try to further increase market share. More legislation undoing prior legislation to open interstate commerce among insurance companies will allow consumers to shop across state lines for the best service and price. Illegal immigrants are not accounted for in this or any other plan. And they shouldn’t be. That however, is a different discussion.

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/10/09 by admin.

There are certainly problems with the health care system in the U.S. The problem with the current government position is that government has been the problem all along and now they want to cause more problems. Most Americans like even the least favorite insurance companies enough to stick with them. This is no surprise because often their employer is paying the deductible or a portion thereof. Also, the health insurance industry is highly competitive and hence, even the lowliest must provide decent coverage to remain viable. What people don’t like is the cost. High premiums or high out of pocket expenses and deductibles are where consumers feel the negative side. As we delve into why costs are so high, try to remember the part of the Constitution where the Federal Government has responsibility for individual’s health insurance.

Employer provided health insurance is a major problem today. Before jumping  to the idea that everyone would take it in the shorts, consider that when an employer decides to hire someone, the overall compensation for that person must be available. That necessarily includes insurance benefits. In a free market,those funds would still be provided to the employee, who then uses those dollars to purchase private health insurance. This would make insurance companies compete on the individual level rather than for large companies. This brings the question; Why do companies provide health insurance anyways? Government is the answer to this problem, although not directly (at first). Wage and price controls instituted by FDR were the beginning. By limiting the top wage allowed to be paid by private companies during times of war (WWII and Korea), companies could not attract the best people with wages alone. So they found another way to compensate those they wanted in a competitive market; benefits including health insurance. Prior to that, people purchased insurance individually. Once the ball was rolling, Nixon not only re-instituted wage and price controls but went even farther toward institutionalizing employer based coverage. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 mandated offering insurance by companies with 25 or more employees. While that act expired in 1995, the seed had been sown. The populace had become accustomed and conditioned to expect insurance benefits from employers. Now insurance companies are going for the big fish and competing for group policies in companies. So the group policies cost less due to built in risk pools? No. Once again, the government mandates what minimum coverage a company provided policy must contain if they offer insurance. So if a company has employees that are almost all men and older women, (construction, auto repair shop, etc.) they still may have to pay for maternity and well-baby coverage. If your small painting company wants to provide insurance to the all male crew, they still pay for mammographies. The all female companies still pay premiums for prostate exams. Health insurance is not a commodity that should be intimately related to employment any more than car insurance or homeowner’s insurance. Those last two are legally required and contractually required respectively. Health insurance is not either of those yet, although unless a person has a lot of money, it is a good idea. If your house catches fire, you generally want to have insurance much in the same way you want health insurance if a serious accident or health issue arises. If you change jobs, you don’t normally change your car insurance. Why would we want to have to change health insurance. Eliminating this relationship would provide a very good start in getting the government out of the way and improving the quality of the insurance available to individuals by allowing the tailoring of policies to suit them. Resolving the risk pool situation is another matter.

To be continued…

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

09/03/09 by admin.

The country has forgotten about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution for a very long time. Lawyers love to talk about the rest of the Bill of Rights, but rarely seem to care about the last two. Free speech is a most important right to be sure. Religious freedom is often argued from the sides of allowing expression and removing Government acknowledgment. Freedom of the press is currently embattled with the current administration looking to ideas of re-institution of the fairness doctrine and nearly daily press briefings. The right to keep and bear arms is an ongoing debate. OK, the quartering soldiers in private homes during times of peace (and war for that matter) has not really been an issue. On the other hand, searches and seizures, as covered by the Fourth Amendment, could not be more interesting to at least attorneys. Everyone knows about the right to not provide witness against himself (you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to …). Some of the other right enumerated in the Fifth Amendment would also be not too difficult to remember and lawyers know and argue about them all the time. The right to be represented by an attorney is an integral part of the Sixth Amendment. The Seventh pertains to civil cases and is more of a practical set of rules that are followed when those types of cases are brought to Federal court. Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden as it should be by the Eighth. The Fourteenth Amendment allows for incorporation of these limitation on government to the states. Originally the Bill of Rights was only a limitation on the Federal Government. States could largely disregard these limitations and institute an official religion or whatever else they wanted, so long as their state constitution allowed it. Some limitations did apply though. A republican form of governance was at the top of the list. This allowed the people to closely hold politicians accountable for their actions. We have the very few limitations on the states via the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution in Article IV sets certain minimal standards for states wishing to join the union. The Tenth Amendment is easy to understand and is in fact quite short. It reads, in its entirety; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The Ninth is not much different; The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Yes, we are very aware of the commerce clause in section 8 of article I. This blog is largely about how that clause has been interpreted to reach virtually every aspect of people’s daily life. As we examine the news from regular media and courts, special attention will be paid to how the Bill of Rights sets limits on Government, not methods of persecution.

We are not radical Libertarians that believe in anarchy on a federal level. We live in modern political reality. We do believe in satire as much as hardcore rationality. This discussion is not limited to any particular area of life. Criminal law, politics, education, health care, drugs, torture, or any other item we see fit is fair game. Whenever we see abuses of governmental powers, we will be here writing about it.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »