03/02/10 by AX.

Although the title suggests this post will be about getting drunk on wheat beer after being upset and making up some excuse about ice causing a fall, wait where were we going with this? Oh yeah, economic recessions can be a very dangerous time in many ways. Slippery slope arguments are usually only effective when preaching to the choir because the opposition can quash them with the simple question; what’s your evidence that (fill in the blank) will actually happen? Here at AmendmentX we prefer to know ahead of time where the slippery slope goes.

So, there you are having a conversation with a pro-big -government type and he is arguing that the Federal Government should get involved in your life in some way. It really doesn’t matter what the discussion is about because the Feds have no business in your personal life. Call it health insurance or schools or whatever. You try to make that point, but your not getting far because you can’t come up with any time that the Feds have been messing with someone you know. So, you want to whip out the slippery slope argument, but your afraid he’s just going to call you paranoid. It’s OK, just because your paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t coming after you.

Try asking a few questions just to get a feel for how your big-gov pal really feels about a government getting in their backyard. Here’s a few to get started. “Do you think the Fed should regulate farming?” (Obvious answer, but you are putting him in a comfortable mood.) “Should the Fed regulate ALL farming?” (again expect an affirmative answer, but if he strays, he’s going in the direction you want anyway.) “Should people be allowed to eat what they grow?” (Duh.) “So, if you have a garden and eat what you grow, should the Feds regulate what you grow even if you never sell it?” (If they haven’t said no, reiterate that this is food and is for you and your family and no one else, and that you are not talking about during times of war. By this time, he should be wondering where you are going with this. Good, we’re getting there.) “Let’s say that the Government decides to fix the price of food, for the public good of course, and part of the bill that regulates the price of the food and regulates how much money farmers earn, for their own good of course, also allows the Feds to monitor, regulate, and fine you for non-compliance for just growing yourself some food. Are you OK with the Feds fining you for growing your own food?” (You’ll probably have to repeat that last bit a couple of times.)

If you are speaking with someone that actually believes that it is just fine for the Federal Government to impose penalties on individuals for growing a garden, you can try making the state’s rights versus Federal Government case, but the wall behind him is more likely to be persuaded. At this point, your best bet is just try to get some understanding behind why he thinks command/control totalitarian governments are better and give up on reasoning your way through a debate. You can’t win against faith based arguments.

If, on the other hand, you are talking to someone that sees that bureaucrats  in Washington D.C. should not concern themselves with an individual’s garden, you are almost ready to go for the kill. With a bit of luck or persuasion, your adversary should be calling you paranoid (yes, we want this now). If not, keep digging. Make the case a little by saying that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Federal Congress could seize that control. Now throw in that even if you had already planted and grown your garden, so long as you haven’t harvested yet, the law would not be retroactive.  So, the Feds could control price, the pay for farmers, and how much food is grown by whom. All because of economic conditions, not war.

We are looking for him to say something like; “That’s never going to happen.” If you can get there, you win because it already has. And it was upheld by the Supreme Court.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended in May1941 (before we entered the war), allows for exactly what was described above for wheat and other named foods. Now you may not grow wheat. And it is true that under certain rules, a small farm could be exempted from fines (although not regulation). The logic behind supporting this legislation is that if you don’t buy your food on the open market, that loss in the marketplace affects the price of goods, and therefore, the Interstate Commerce Clause gives authority. So the only question left for your hapless foe is; “What else do you not buy that the Government may want to know about?”

Lest anyone think that this was some obscure case back in the forties that only applied to large farms. It has been used as precedent to regulate what is grown inside people’s houses this quite recently. The Supreme Court has ruled (2005) that the Federal Government may regulate certain plants (marijuana) even though state law makes possession and consumption legal. Overriding state medical use laws, the Feds can enter your house and arrest you even if your state has changed its laws to reflect the will of the body politic. Although the original offending law was passed and held constitutional during a time of economic depression, 2005 was no such time. You may be considering that the 05 decision was the Court and not Congress. True, but that only goes to show that we must be very careful what gets passed when conditions are right to take steps toward oppression. The original case came before the Court because of a law. Many years later, the Feds use the same law (or the court precedent that directly resulted from the law) to empower the Federal Government and reduce not only state’s rights, but individual’s as well.

Here at AmendmentX.info we try not to speculate more than… well,  some. But it is difficult to imagine the person who is pro government  wanting one government that they can’t control (Federal, because other states get a voice too) overriding the state law they just fought for and going to jail for smoking pot they thought was legal. Perhaps these people forget that the Feds do more than just give away other people’s money.

We don’t have to  guess where all slippery slopes lead. The end of the road for big government is your living room.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

02/24/10 by AX.

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution allows the Congress the power to “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ” among many other things. This is of course is the opening to the Powers of Congress section.  Note that this section of the Constitution was of great importance and focus of the construction process. Because this section empowers the new Federal Government with enormous power of the Union, special care was taken to ensure the proper phraseology. As with the rest of the document, succinctness was extremely important so as to not give rise to misinterpretation due to an overabundance of legalese.

Reading the passage in a natural way, there are three major parts; what, why, and a caveat. The what is funding, the why is what the money is spent on, and the caveat is a limitation on how the money is collected.

Assuming that the Congress hasn’t had too many problems taxing (although an amendment was later added to increase their ability to collect more), we will skip that portion of the passage. How that money is spent has been a source of great debate. The focus of this post will be limited to the General Welfare Clause.

The welfare clause juxtaposition to the defense clause is more than coincidental. Welfare is defined by Merriam-Webster as 1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity. So, “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” begins to gain meaning. Common defense is easy to define. Remembering that the Constitution was solely written to govern the Federal Government and that state is defined in all contexts other than our country as a sovereign nation, The Federal Government was established to band the several states for their protection and in doing so, maintain the strength of the New World against outside invaders. That strength necessarily means more than just militarily. Maintaining cohesion amongst the states is essential to true strength among multiple sovereigns.

The general welfare of the United States inextricably linked to common defense and once again is carefully phrased. Far from the Constitution proposing that the Federal Government should be giving money to individual citizens as “welfare checks”, this clause was specifically intended to prohibit such activity. General does not naturally mean specific or individual. The welfare (health and prosperity) is for the United States, not the individual states or citizens thereof. Remember, at the time the Constitution was written, the Federal Government was prohibited from collecting taxes directly from individuals by Article 1 § 9. The common theme throughout the document was keeping the Federal Government removed from the individual lives of the citizens as much as possible.

The introductory clauses of A1§8 were placed in front of the specific powers of Congress to explain the necessity of the following enumerated powers. That the preamble to the Constitution reflects this line of reasoning. Beyond that, Madison himself felt compelled to further iterate this point in Federalist Paper 41. (On a side note, take a look at the Second Amendment. The introductory statement gives reason to the actual restriction on infringement of arms. To illustrate the point, consider this statement; A sturdy house being necessary to protect from wolves, the right of pigs to build brick houses shall not be infringed. Would a reasonable person believe that if pigs live away from wolves they can be prohibited from building brick houses?)

After the introduction portion of §8, the rest of the section is devoted to how the Congress may procure the money to finance its various endeavors pursuant to the first part of the introduction and how to provide for the common defense and general welfare. The powers enumerated in the body effect the means for ensuring the successful defense with armies and a standing Navy as well as accommodating for the general welfare through such powers as establishing post offices and post roads, regulating the monetary system, the power to create a copyright regulatory system and others powers enumerated therein. Additionally, §9 follows up with a set of prohibitions relating directly to taxation (of various forms) and activities legislatures are wont to do that are detrimental to the general welfare (such as bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and suspension of habeas corpus).

One reason the Federal Government has been diligently trying to redefine the term general welfare (not to mention the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause) for so long is the Tenth Amendment. Because the Tenth Amendment strictly forbids the Federal Government from exercising powers not specifically enumerated in Article 1, the only way to increase power is to invent enumerated powers. With a complicit Supreme Court, those pretended powers become real.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | No Comments »

12/03/09 by David.

We find the idea of labeling every government issue that is even the least bit scandalous with a “gate” suffix, stupid. The climate scientist e-mails that were recently hacked wasn’t even an American instance. But we digress.

No, this has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment. What we can and must conclude from the correspondence of these global warming alarmists is that not only is their data highly suspect, but more importantly, they have rigged the peer-review process. That means that ALL of the anthropogenic global warming rhetoric must be essentially thrown out. If you believe that people are some, partially, or completely responsible for climate change (including the lack of rise in temperature over the past 11 years) you must use new data. If you are like most Amendment X readers you may be saying “Dark beer tastes better than light beer.” Also, “What about the raw data?” Well, that was thrown out once these “scientists” had manipulated the information into what they wanted. So, start over. If you have substituted global warming for religion and therefore every form of descent is heresy, your dogma likely incompatible with this blog. If on the other hand you have an open mind, you can still believe in anthropogenic global warming and embrace better, more cost effective solutions such as those proposed in the fabulous new book, Super Freakenomics. (review forthcoming)

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

11/11/09 by admin.

We are pleased to introduce a new author to AmendmentX.info; G.

G was a mentor in our philosophy and is a contributor to many debates and should give a slightly different view on a variety of subjects. G will have occasional posts and may or may not contribute regularly. As we don’t have a regular posting schedule, this should be of little consequence. Enjoy.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | No Comments »

10/26/09 by David.

There are a lot of rumors going around about Obama giving poor people a cell phone and talk time at taxpayer expense. This rumor is not true and it would be unconstitutional (like several other welfare programs that exist unconstitutionally). It is true that if you meet certain income requirements you can get a free cell phone and time to conduct your drug deals whatever. The program is funded by all telecommunication companies that provide interstate service. The legislation does not specify how those companies fund their contributions, although most of them pass it on openly in your bill as Universal Coverage Fee. Because the fee is not a personal tax and only interstate companies are required to pay, Congress has the authority to collect it. Speaking of Congress, it was the Republican controlled legislature in 1996 that effectively caused the current system to be giving phones to drug dealers people. In 2004, under the Republicans, the program was expanded to give service to another 1.25 million drug dealers people.If Democrats want to call Republicans cold-hearted for opposing the program now, they should look first at who started it. If Republicans want to call Democrats wasteful for giving phones to drug dealers poor people, they too should look at who started it. Nothing about the program is new this year except that some forms for telecommunication companies have been made available online. The recent uproar seems to stem from Trac-phone’s participation in the program and advertising campaign. Remember, just because an ad says new doesn’t mean it is new.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | No Comments »

10/22/09 by David.

The Weekly Standard has an excellent piece on what is publicly referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Of particular note is that there is no such legislation. The term stems from an executive order by President Clinton. We will not get into the actual debate here except to suggest that openly homosexuals could be segregated in much the same way as women. (Women are not allowed in combat for example) Of importance to this blog is found in the actual legislation that Clinton was attempting to circumvent. The law disallows open, non-coerced homosexuality. More importantly, at the beginning  after Constitutional authority for the law, subsection “(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.” The U.S.armed forces are regulated by Congress under authority of Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States. While some rights are retained by those serving, those rights are far from complete. Free speech via words and clothing immediately come to mind. There are political and rational reasons reasons to allow women to serve and also to limit their roles. Race is on different footing. Other than purely visual characteristics, there is no difference between men (in general) of different races any more than hair color or eye color. Distinguishing on those basis would be a violation of due process. On personal traits however, distinctions should be made. A pacifist should not be allowed in combat roles regardless of any other characteristics and their background is irrelevant. If everyone should be allowed to serve, wouldn’t pacifists be part of everyone? So now that we have established that individuals can be classified into what roles they may be allowed to serve in, all that’s  left is deciding the lines we are willing to draw.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | No Comments »

10/22/09 by David.

Taking a quick look over the most prominent health care bill in Congress, the Baucus bill sheds some light on what Democrats want to do. The President has come out on many occasions to state that he would not support a bill that would; reduce benefits, cause waiting, or raise the price of health care. Well, if he told the truth, he won’t be supporting this one. The 1502 page proposed bill covers a great many things, but we will take an example to show how much you can trust what you hear.

The Baucus bill creates entities without definition. For pre-existing conditions, section 2215;”(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH RISK POOLS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall establish 1 or more high risk pools that— ‘‘(A) provide to all eligible individuals health insurance coverage (or comparable coverage) that does not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such coverage for all eligible individuals; and ‘‘(B) provide for health benefits coverage and premium rates described under subsection (b).”

OK, so this phantom pool is just a group of individuals with pre-existing conditions that get a subsidy for insurance. Well, not really. That’s only true if the subsidy stays under $5billion. If that amount is exceeded, subsection (2) applies ‘‘INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.—If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.”

The bottom line is; everyone will get what they want, unless they don’t. If you are part of the latter, which is estimated to be around 85% of the population, voting is REALLY important.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

10/07/09 by David.

We have been trying to come up with a method to compel private health insurance without screwing up the free market. If the Government follows a plan of setting a fine (in some form or another) of a fixed amount for failure to have health insurance, that amount will become the new minimum for premiums. For example, if the amount is fixed at $3600 per annum, people who currently do not feel a need to have insurance would not pay more than $300/month for insurance because that is the fixed minimum to pay. The insurance companies could charge less to gain market share, but there is little incentive to go much below because they know everyone will have to spend $300/month if they don’t get insurance at all. In this situation, even HSA’s could see a dramatic increase in premiums. Tying the penalty to income makes much more sense. Setting the penalty to something like 7.5% of AGI means that insurance companies would not have a fixed minimum premium. For example, if a person earns $50,000/year (AGI), they would pay $3750 for failure to have insurance. For that individual, the $312.50/month is competitive with insurance that would provide benefits (unlike a fine). On the lower end of the scale, people with less income would not be forced to purchase expensive policies that they cannot afford. The $126.25/month for a $25,000/year earner would buy a catastrophic coverage plan and still put money into the risk pool. On the upper end, affluent people could save money (although they typically carry insurance now). The dollars from the penalties would be used to purchase insurance for the person from an insurance provider of the Government’s choice. Although there is the potential for favoritism, only idiots would pay to have the government choose their provider. While we are not fans of government over-regulation of private industry, at this point it is political reality that something is going to change. While they are disallowing exemptions for pre-existing conditions, disallow income based premiums. Insurance companies do not use income as a factor now, so that limitation would not be burdensome. Additionally, subsequent violations would  increase the penalties for failure to obtain insurance. An annual increase of 2% would soon make it unreasonable not to get insurance on their own and the additional dollars would pay for the poor. The government purchased minimal insurance savings as well as the additional money from increasing fines would help pay for insurance food stamps for the poor.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | No Comments »

10/07/09 by David.

In a rare occurrence, President Obama was actually doing his job as called out in the Constitution. General McChrystal flew to Denmark to meet with the Commander in Chief while the President was there to campaign. apologize for America. make treaties. secure locations for missile defense. bid for the Olympics. Obama didn’t like the news reporting that he hadn’t spoken with the commander of the troops in what Obama called a “war of necessity.”  So, he had the General meet him for a whole 25 minuets inside Air Force One before Obama left Copenhagen. We found a tape that reveals the details of that meeting.

Obama: What’s your problem, boy?

McChrystal: Sir?

Obama: You can’t go to London and speak your mind like you did yesterday.

McChrystal: Sir, we need more troops in Afghanistan to prevent terrorist organizations from taking over.

Obama: No, we don’t. Just like I said about Iraq, we don’t need more troops to secure the country.

McChrystal: But it worked in Iraq and now we are drawing down troop levels just as predicted by supporters of that surge.

Obama: Let me be clear; I don’t like you. I don’t like the Army. I don’t like what you people do.

McChrystal: Sir, I just think we should have a plan.

Obama: We have a plan. By we, I mean Joe Biden. And by plan, I mean law enforcement.

McChrystal: With all due respect, Joe Biden is an idiot. Besides, didn’t you just stop all prosecutions of suspected terrorists?

Obama: So. I mean, no. Not stopped, just not happening now. Anyway, I inherited this problem from the previous administration.

McChrystal: What problem, sir?

Obama: All of them.

McChrystal: And you signed an Executive Order closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Obama: Yeah, like that’s gonna happen. Let me be clear, this isn’t about me; it’s about you. If I thought you were important, I would spend hours with you drinking beer. The truth is; I would disband the entire military if I thought I could get away with it. We don’t need it. We could just have a massive civilian national security force. I can just talk to the other leaders in the world and convince them that they love me. Look how well that strategy is working in Iran.

McChrystal: Sir, Iran just started testing missiles that could send nuclear weapons into Israel.

Obama: I inherited that.

McChrystal: And you shut down strategic missile defense projects.

Obama: I can fire you just like I fired your predecessor Afghanistan.

McChrystal: With all due respect, I am very good at commanding troops.

Obama: Well, I’m pretty good at throwing people around me under the bus. You’re lucky Congress keeps funding the war, because I wouldn’t.

McChrystal: What do you want me to do, sir?

Obama: Let me put my finger to in the air and see which way the political winds are blowing.

McChrystal: Does that really work?

Obama: Not so much. But that’s not important now. What is important is that I get back to campaigning. working for ACORN. giving people that need pacemakers pain killers. running an auto company. spending time in the White House. getting competition in the insurance marketplace. talking to the Dalia Lama. fulfilling my promise to cut the deficit in half. celebrating my 15th wedding anniversary. replacing the White House lawyer. stuff, you know Presidential things. Now, get out of my airplane.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | 1 Comment »

10/05/09 by David.

The American Journal of Public Health published a paper written by several people associated with the Harvard Medical School. This paper opens with “The United States stands alone among industrialized nations in not providing health coverage to all of its citizens. Currently, 46 million Americans lack health coverage.” Moving past the obvious point that ALL people in the US have access to health care (although not health insurance), there are a few problems with this paper and its findings. One must keep in mind that the authors of this study are activists for single payer government health insurance. Because this paper has been bandied about the news with people crying that 122 people die every day from lack of insurance, we thought we would take a quick look at the paper. First, and easiest to find, is right in the limitations section. The rate of those insured is based on a snapshot of interviewees on whether or not they have health insurance at the time of the interview. If all participants were experiencing a short lapse in coverage, the entire study would be worth absolutely nothing. The authors make the bold presumption that if a person is ever without insurance, they will perpetually be either uninsured or only intermittently insured. They go on to declare that intermittent insurance is just as bad (as far as risk factor) as being uninsured. Beyond that, the study found that of those interviewed, those rated poor to fair health by physicians were 33% more likely to be uninsured (although still only 4.8%) than all other groups combined; thereby increasing the overall death rate of the uninsured.

Although the authors took great care to make the study appear to control for many factors (such as if a person has smoked more or fewer than 200 cigarettes in their lifetime), one glaring omission is present; cause of death. With those aged between 17 and 34 comprising of 44.2% of the study group, and assuming the 49.8% male ratio holds true, cause of deaths is rather important. Males died at a 33% higher rate overall and were less likely to be insured. Black Americans were also 25% more likely to die than any other group. Mexican Americans, while only 5.5% of the group, were twice as likely and four times as likely to be uninsured as blacks and whites respectively. When a young male dies in a car crash, drug/alcohol related death, gang related death, or some other non-health related death is not removed from this type of study, the results should not be relied upon. If the authors had their way and these young, uninsured males were covered by National Health-care, they would be deaths of those WITH health care. But just as dead.

The study omits those covered by current Government care so we will limit our stupid extrapolations on from those provided by the study.  61 people die every day in this country with adequate health insurance. 99.4% of those uninsured survive every year. Former smokers are over 71% more likely to die than current smokers. Exercise has no effect on your mortality rate. Skinny people are almost twice as likely to die as the obese. Numbers can be manipulated fairly easily and starting with a defective set makes them all suspect. When counting the elderly (people covered by Medicare) just imagine how many people die while covered by government insurance.

The federal government has no business being in the insurance industry. Don’t let people from what you may think are prestigious institutions fool you with bad papers. The presentation may be first rate and you may hear politicians relay them, but it’s BS.

AX

Posted in Amendment X | Print | No Comments »

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 »