Thoughts on Congress, Medical Insurance, the Integrity of Federal Judges, and the Rights of Americans

The whole argument over Obamacare seems to be proving a lot of cliches to be true.  I don’t know that they reall are true, only that the various opinion groups are falling back on very familiar slogans and arguments. Whatever our position on the matter, I think this indicates a real barrier to getting things resolved.

Which brings up Congress.  I generally regard our Representatives and Senators as Faust-like beings, people who probably had very honorable intentions when they first ran for office, but by now are so vain and corrupt that they couldn’t be trusted with lunch money, let alone the trillions which pour into the Treasury from taxpayers.  I really think that’s where the problem starts.  Your average Congress critter (and mine) is not going to look at a proposed bill as a means to serve his/her constituents, but as a means to insure re-election and increase personal influence and power.  And then, of course, there is the money.  Look sometime at what a Congressman/Senator makes, figure what it costs to own a home in D.C. plus your district/state, plus your staffing costs and so on, and then look at the net worth of most of our Congressmen.  Where, exactly, does all that wealth come in?  And while some places and officials are worse than others, generally the very real corruption of our elected officials is a serious and pervasive problem that never gets a serious look, because the authorities who could investigate and prosecute are themselves often at the mercy of these very officials.

So right from the start, cynical as it sounds, I worry that expecting a genuinely practical and honest solution from Congress is as naïve as trusting the nice stranger who promises he just wants your child’s help finding his lost puppy.  And that brings me to Medical Insurance.  Medicine and Health Care is so huge a part of our economy, that in 2011 it was worth an estimated 2.4 trillion dollars.

Now, long ago I discovered as a business manager, that the more money an employee had contact with, the greater the chance of employee theft.  I learned that my cashiers almost never stole while the till had less than a hundred dollars in it, but they almost always tried to take some if there was more than a certain amount, the amount depending on how busy they were, how close they thought I was watching, how many other employees were around, and so on.  As an auditor, I learned the same thing about managers, but on a larger scale.  That is, a manager would not steal if his location was making small amounts of cash, but there always seemed to be a point where at least some managers would get hinky.  So we developed procedures and ways to check on behavior to make sure we discouraged theft, and caught the thieves warly if they did cross that line.  The problem is, such a system depends on having trustworthy watchdogs, and if someone could be tempted to steal $20 when they saw $500 in the till, it’s not hard to imagine how much temptation is out there when a company sees billions in potential profits they might be able to scam, especially since our government is  not exactly competent at preventing fraud or catching the criminals.  Insurance in general seems to be fertile ground for fraud and outright thievery.

So when we want to address the skyrocketing costs of health care, it seems we should start with catching the crooks stealing us blind, and put safeguards in place to protect against future behavior.  We frankly cannot trust Congress to do this, but there is no obvious easy fix, and it should be noted that no major candidate at the federal level has even acknowledged that corruption and crime might be where we need to start.

We must also seriously consider whether our justice system is up to the task.  A lot of the debate over the past week has focused on whether the courts and the Congress have the power to do what they are doing, but few have addressed the basic question about whether they have the moral authority to do so.  Look, the Supreme Court is full of people who are great at parsing words and finding new powers in the Constitution that were never there before, and some folks think a 5-4 decision means the matter is settled.  But the SCOTUS has been wrong before in its decisions, and some of its rulings have been later not only overturned but are sore points of obvious stupidity and myopia.  How many rulings in the past tried to support the slavery system, how many protected segregation and racial discrimination, how many advanced federal power at the cost of individual freedoms, and how many of them depended on finding powers for the federal government which were never actually listed in the Constitution?  Take the Commerce Clause and taxation powers, for example.  We have reached the point where, as currently interpreted by the court there is no practical limit to federal power, but the mere existence of the Tenth Amendment proves that could not possibly have been the intent of the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution.  And the words of the Declaration of Independence clearly set the rule that power resides with the people, not the government, and it requires the consent of the governed for the government to have any authority to act in any way.  That the government tries to redefine what the Constitution says, and in some cases to ignore the Declaration altogether, should be alarming and hateful to all Americans.

In the end, we are called back to our senses by the warning from Benjamin Franklin who, when asked what we had created with our Constitution, said “A republic, if you can keep it”.

No matter how great or grave the issue, it is for us to decide, not some overpaid government narcissist or some self-focused unelected judge.  The cost, the benefits, and the consequences fall upon us, and it is time for us all to stop allowing others to make life decisions as if they had such right.

Shortlink:

Posted by on July 5, 2012.
Filed under Categories.
Tagged with: .
DJ Drummond holds an MBA with a concentration in Accounting, and has worked in Finance/Credit for 13 years, with 17 years of Operations Management experience before that. He writes on political, religious, and cancer-related issues, with the occasional foray into satire and snark.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Vagabond661

    I will throw this out there again…Term limits for Congress. http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/15/term-limits-for-congress/

  • Guest

    I have a prediction.

    2012. Republicans promise to repeal “Obamacare.”
    2016. Republicans promise to reform “Obamacare.”
    2024. Republicans warn that the “Affordable Care Act” will lead to massive deficits if it is not reined in.
    2040. Republicans promise to “fulfill the government’s promises under the Affordable Care Act,” but to do so without raising taxes.

    • Guest

      I should expand on this a little. My prediction echoes a pattern we’ve seen with other large-scale programs, including Social Security and Medicare. The programs are controversial at first, but the public eventually accepts them, then depends on them … and woe betide the political party that meddles with them then.

      • retired.military

        Unfortunately I believe you are more right than wrong
        You didnt include the following pertinent facts though.

        2012 Republicans win WH and Senate and keep House.
        2014 Republicans lose house and senate due to not overturning OBamacare.
        2016 Hillary elected. Dems keep house and senate Republcians tell Romney go fuck himself because he turned out to be Obamalite.
        2018 dems keep house and senate
        2020 There are no elections as we will have a dictatorship by that time. Bill and Hillary for life.

    • PBunyan

      I think you’re 100% on the money here. Anyone who thinks that Obamacare is not now permanently the law of the land is delusional. Even in the unlikely event that Romney wins the most the Republicans will do is miniscule, insignificant tweaks.

  • PBunyan

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Do we again live in times that try men’s souls? Or will it have to get even worse. Hard to say. As Jefferson put it: “accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”

    Interesting observation about yesterday by Ann Barnhardt: “I will not be celebrating Independence Day tomorrow, because to do so would be utterly hypocritical and a lie. The First Republic is dead, and to pretend that it isn’t only feeds and enables the usurpers and tyrants who are desecrating its corpse in order to give themselves the appearance of legitimacy. If I live to see the establishment of the Second American Republic, THAT date will I observe.”

    • Brucehenry

      Barnhardt’s an alarmist kook.

      And DJ, are you under the impression that the Declaration of Independence is somehow a part of the Constitution or something?

      • PBunyan

        The problem, Bruce, is that you WANT to live in the United Socialist States of America. You want massive, opressive government. To people like you, Grumpy, and Obama, those of us who want liberty, freedom, and the properity for all that always comes with them will always seem like kooks.
        I’m sure your counterparts in the 18th century thought guys like Thomas Paine were alarmist kooks too.

        • TomInCali

          Nah, it’s just the kooks who sound like kooks. Like these people:

          Indeed, these same arguments we hear today against health reform were
          used even earlier, to attack President Franklin Roosevelt’s call for
          Social Security. It was denounced as a socialist program that would
          compete with private insurers and add to Americans’ tax burden so as to
          kill jobs.
          Daniel Reed, a Republican representative from New York,
          predicted that with Social Security, Americans would come to feel “the
          lash of the dictator.” Senator Daniel Hastings, a Delaware Republican,
          declared that Social Security would “end the progress of a great
          country.”
          John Taber, a Republican representative from New York,
          went further and said of Social Security: “Never in the history of the
          world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to
          prevent business recovery, to enslave workers.”
          In hindsight, it seems a bit ridiculous, doesn’t it? Social Security passed, and the republic survived.
          Similar,
          ferocious hyperbole was unleashed on the proposal for Medicare.
          President John Kennedy and later President Lyndon Johnson pushed for a
          government health program for the elderly, but conservatives bitterly
          denounced the proposal as socialism, as a plan for bureaucrats to make
          medical decisions, as a means to ration health care.
          The American
          Medical Association was vehement, with Dr. Donovan Ward, the head of
          the A.M.A. in 1965, declaring that “a deterioration in the quality of
          care is inescapable.” The president of the Association of American
          Physicians and Surgeons went further and suggested that for doctors to
          cooperate with Medicare would be “complicity in evil.”
          The Wall
          Street Journal warned darkly in editorials in 1965 that Medicare
          amounted to “politicking with a nation’s health.” It quoted a British
          surgeon as saying that in Britain, government health care was “crumbling
          to utter ruin” and suggested that the United States might be heading in
          the same direction.
          “The basic concerns and arguments were the
          same” in 1935 against Social Security, in 1965 against Medicare, and
          today against universal coverage, said Nancy J. Altman, author of “The
          Battle for Social Security,” a history of the program. (The quotes
          against Social Security above were taken from that book.)
          http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19kristof.html

          Or some others here: http://www.tnr.com/article/womens-suffrage-and-other-visions-right-wing-apocalypse

          Sound familiar?

          • PBunyan

            Your denying the reality that Social Security and Medicare are both dismal failures does not change the fact that those predictions have come true.

          • Brucehenry

            Social Security and Medicare are both dismal failures?

            That may surprise the tens of millions of Americans who have lived healthier, more dignified retirements (and were able to retire at all!) since their inception.

            BTW, I’m not calling all those who believe in liberty, freedom, and “properity for all” kooks, Bunyan. Just Barnhardt.

            Just for giggles, do your parents live with you? Because they’d probably have to were it not for Social Security. If they were alive at all — which they might not be were it not for Medicare.

          • PBunyan

            My parents were smart enough to provide for their own retirement and not rely on social security’s guarantee that they live in poverty.

            I used to work for an agency that administered federal housing rehab dollars and whenever anyone came in an told me their only source of income was social security, I didn’t bother to wait until the verifications came back because it was 100% guaranteed that they were living well below the poverty level. I have personally been in homes of seniors living on social security and seen their trash cans full of empty dog food cans, yet they had no dog.

            So yeah, I consider a program that confiscates 12% of every penny I earn against my will and wishes, and only ensures that I will live in poverty should I be lucky enough to make it to retirement age (which will likely be raised to 90 or 95 before I’m ever eligible) to be a dismal failure.

            Not to mention that it’s already putting out more than it’s taking in and it’s unfunded liabilities are in the 10s of trillions of dollars– and that’s just today– it gets worse every year. It’s a farce. Like Obamacare. But it is extremely typical and normal and actually above average in successfulness for a government program so its got that going for it.

          • Brucehenry

            Good for your parents, but SS was never supposed to be the sum total of middle class retirement. It was supposed to provide a little dignity to those who had a little savings, and prevent starvation and homelessness for those who had nothing.

            BTW, do your parents send back their SS checks? Or do they use them and enjoy their retirement that much more?

            Think about what you’re saying. These seniors whose homes you have visited, living on dog food — what would they live on without SS? Would they be alive at all? Or would they have starved?

            You don’t mention what would have happened to your parents’ savings in their old age had they not been able to get medical care through Medicare. Would YOU have paid those bills so their retirement savings could last?
            And, not to say I don’t believe you about the dog food thing, but one can buy cans of tuna and pork sausage, beef stew, etc, for the same or less money. I thought that whole dog-food thing was debunked years ago.

          • PBunyan

            Of course, it’s a common belief amongst leftist that the mere existence of a government program means that it is automatically a success, so while quite delusional, you are very typical.