Universal Healthcare. Good Idea or Commie Plot?

[Winterfire2008]

Well gee if the US has programs that will cover medical procedures a person can't afford, the US is half way to Universal health care.  Why not go all the way so everyone is covered.  Not just the poor,  the veteran, or the aged.  That's medicaid, VA, and medicare.  All of these are government funded programs.  Would it be so difficult to to extend the coverage?  Other countries have been doing this for decades.  Why is the US the only major country not to do so?

Is it because some of us are afraid we might have to wait a little longer to see a doctor?  Well lets lower the cost of training doctors and nurses, open more medical schools, get rid of health insurance companies, fund research for drugs, (instead of leaving it to the drug companies that only want to sell you drugs that make money). WOW with just the money that's been going to insurance companies you might find a cure for the common cold!!!!!!  Oh yeah now one doesn't have to  buyi insurance for the poor neighbor!!!!

I see a lot of comments about responsibility.  Basically it reads like the only thing some want to be responsible  for is themselves and no one else.  Does this mean training doctors only for them?  Training police and firemen only to protect them and their property?  

Make the illegals legal, they are here to work, so let them work.  What a concept!  Then they to can be contributing instead of being a so called burden.

[griff61]

Griff,

The problem of the commons manifests itself in longer wait times.  I don't need a peer-reviewed report to see it.  The fact that you are willing to look past the long wait times and the need for supplemental insurance are evidence of the problem that you have failed to seriously consider.

I have been promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Not socialized health care.  I appreciate that I can, as a result of my own effort, get better than adequate health care.  I don't think that it is a citizen's responsibility to provide health insurance for their neighbors.  Just like I think it is an unfair burden on tax payers when a couple squeezes out a dozen kids and then burdens the public schools with them.  You referenced octomom a while ago, and yes, that is a burden on the California economy, and guess what, that state is going broke!

I also think illegals are a burden on the health care system in our border states, and I do not think it is my responsibility to care for them either.

Ethically, you are correct,we probably should provide for the less fortunate, and we do through social programs and state funded programs that are going bankrupt left and right.

If a single payer system provided for and guaranteed the level of care and access to doctors and advanced medical equipment and the discounted rate you speak of, I would probably be all for it except that I know there is a trade off somewhere.

I have also read in this thread that Canadians enjoy cheaper drug prices which is true.  The US allows the drug companies to charge more (via patents) to recover R & D costs for the first three years.  When you consider that Canada and other countries do not pay towards R & D costs one could make the argument that Canada is a "free-rider" on the US.

And last but not least, you made no response to the Fraser report where it discussed disparities on access to health care by lower-income families in Canada.  Nor have your really responded to fair and accurate criticism of the problem of the commons as evidenced by longer wait times and aging equipment.

I asked you for your preferred method of fixing the problen of the over 45 million uninsured in the US, regardless of my preferred payment plan.
They aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or any insurance at all AND they are American citizens. Medicaid, in case you are unfamiliar witrh it IS state funded healthcare provided to the poor. The 45 million are NOT covered by it, because they fall between the cracks. Nor does that number include the more than 10 million illgals who balso burden the hospital system.

I asked you for your preferred method of fixing the problem of the over 45 million uninsured in the US, regardless of my preferred payment plan.
They aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or any insurance at all AND they are American citizens. Medicaid, in case you are unfamiliar with it IS state funded healthcare provided to the poor. The 45 million are NOT covered by it, because they fall between the cracks. Nor does that number include the more than 10 million illegals who also burden the hospital system.

You keep running back to your commons obsession rather than answer a straight-forward question and then you take a tangent of into the distance over drug patents and the poor abused pharma's R & D costs.
As I pointed out the commons problem is a rampant flaw in the US SYSTEM, because illegals and the uninsured use services they never have to pay for, in any form. This, even though it is 4 to 6 times more expensive to use an ER than a regular, primary care doctor. In Canada, ssoner or later the person will pay taxes somewhere, or get caught evading them.
I wasn't even the one who posted the response that contained that information on the commons problem as it pertains to US hospitals, jimmyc did. please feel free to read it.

It's simple to simply keep sharp shooting every suggestion I put forward. A bit harder to come up with an answer to the problem.

I'll ask once more, regardless of whatever method I put forward, what is your solution to provide the 45 million uninsured in this country access to good healthcare and stop the abuse of the hospital system by your favorite pet peeve, the commons?

[flew-da-coup]

Well gee if the US has programs that will cover medical procedures a person can't afford, the US is half way to Universal health care.  Why not go all the way so everyone is covered.  Not just the poor,  the veteran, or the aged.  That's medicaid, VA, and medicare.  All of these are government funded programs.  Would it be so difficult to to extend the coverage?  Other countries have been doing this for decades.  Why is the US the only major country not to do so?

Is it because some of us are afraid we might have to wait a little longer to see a doctor?  Well lets lower the cost of training doctors and nurses, open more medical schools, get rid of health insurance companies, fund research for drugs, (instead of leaving it to the drug companies that only want to sell you drugs that make money). WOW with just the money that's been going to insurance companies you might find a cure for the common cold!!!!!!  Oh yeah now one doesn't have to  buyi insurance for the poor neighbor!!!!

I see a lot of comments about responsibility.  Basically it reads like the only thing some want to be responsible  for is themselves and no one else.  Does this mean training doctors only for them?  Training police and firemen only to protect them and their property?  

Make the illegals legal, they are here to work, so let them work.  What a concept!  Then they to can be contributing instead of being a so called burden.

The US is the only super power too. So what if others do it? As for personal responsibility well, why should I be responsible for some welfare queen squirting out babies and smoking crack? PLEASE tell me how her life is my responsibility? Do you have a clue to what personal responsibility means? Let me help you a bit. My families welfare is my SOLE responsibility. Some guy named Jim Bob in Kentucky is not responsible to pay for my family's health, utilities or any other bill. It is my job to do that. Too bad some people don't understand that. I guess their parents were sloths living off others and that is the only way of life they know. Not me! I am an adult and a responsible parent/husband.

[griff61]

No, I responded simply that the US spends a larger percentage of its GDP (15% vs 11%) and rather than dealing with MRI waiting times, we fail to cover everyone. Do you really think MRI acces is a more pressing need than access to good health care?
Its great to be able to get an MRI quickly, but first you have to get a doctor to treat you in the first place.

It matters if you are suspect to cancer or any other fast moving problems like spine inflammation.

If you can't afford to actually see a doctor, you aren't ever going to have the luxury of worrying about whether you get an MRI or not.

If you need to see a doctor and seriously can't afford it, we have programs that will cover you.  My little brother had a $300k back surgery compliments of the citizens of the State of California.  Our system seems to work, that is unless you view a lack of health insurance as a lack of medical care.

What magical programs would those be? Did your brother benefitted from government provided healthcare because he couldn't afford to pay? What a concept! Were his doctors of the inferior type that is so common in socialized systems? I'm betting he's not part of the commons problem either. I'm pleased to read your grateful words in praise of publicly provided healthcare.

In Nevada, as I cited before, they've closed the Oncology department at UMC, those folks aren't so lucky as your brother.

[Winterfire2008]

You know what I find so funny..."the crack smoking welfare queen squirting out babies"  a crass way to put it ..... is already yours  and my responsibility.  

I guess the policeman that patrols your neighborhood is not responsible in any shape, way, or form for keeping speeders off the street in front of your house,  the thief from breaking and entering or any of the other unspeakable things that happen when criminals run amok.  I guess the fireman doesn't need to respond to your house when it catches on fire. I bet the city engineer  is no longer responsible for keeping the city streets paved and free of potholes that you drive on.  It is your sole responsibility to catch the speeders and the criminals. It's your sole responsibility to get to your house and put out the fire.  You will be the one out there with the paving machine and the shovel to fix the streets, why because it's your sole responsiblity.  Are you the judge, jury and executioner too?  Lots of responsibilities there.  My my how do you find the time to earn a living, protect, and defend all in one day?

Now I don't believe for a minute that anyone does all these things, but maybe you do.

I pay my taxes and fees so I and others can have public services in the community in which we live.  I pay property taxes so not only my children can be educated, but others as well.  It is my responsibility and duty as a US citizen to pay my income taxes so my country can keep armed forces to defend and protect against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I find it interesting Coup that you feel the need to inform me what personal responsibility is.  

I alone am responsible for the choices I make. I don't blame others for the misfortunes that have occurred in my life nor do I make excuses when things don't go well.  I accept accountability for things I do.

[Duckbutta]

Griff,

You are right about one thing, health care is not a purely free market system. Government intrusion distorts market forces and is the primary reason our health care costs have risen at the rate they have. Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, government spending has increased from 24% to 45% of health care expenditures in this country. And as you may or may not be aware, the government dictates what a doctor may charge for any given procedure. In many cases, the reimbursement rates do not cover the cost of providing the service. This drives up the cost for everyone else as doctors must recoup these losses by charging others more. That is why many doctors refuse to accept new Medicare patients. They can't afford to. A single payer system would only exacerbate this problem and inevitably lead to a shortage of doctors. It would create a disincentive for our most talented people to pursue this most noble profession due to the prospect of diminished earning potential. They would simply enter more lucrative (read less regulated) professions.

I would also like to add that the move toward employer provided health insurance was also caused by government intrusion into the marketplace. It was a direct response to the wage controls imposed during World War II and employers found a way around it by offering health insurance in lieu of higher wages. While market-based, this third party payment system is far from ideal and provides its own set of problems, not the least of which is the problem of the Commons that Adam so deftly spelled out. I am more apt to use my health insurance if I believe that someone else is paying for it and there is minimal out-of pocket cost to me. I have no incentive to temper my use of the resource.  I would like to see a move to a more free market-based approach. You made a comment in an earlier post and I let it slide. Now it seems appropriate to bring it up. You mentioned that employers are already subsidizing a portion of our health insurance. This is an outright fallacy. I got news for you, I'm paying the whole freight. Every dollar "contributed" on my behalf is one less dollar that my employer can afford to pay me in monetary compensation. I would much rather have this dollar in my paycheck and shop around for my own health insurance. I can guarantee you that I would shop around for the plan that best suited my needs and gave me the most value for my money rather than being shoe-horned into a plan that provides me with more coverage than I need or want. If everyone in an employer sponsored plan was given this option, health insurance premiums would surely decrease. No doubt about it. Insurance companies would offer many more options in order to serve this new market.

The answer is less government, not more.

[griff61]

Do you have a clue to what personal responsibility means? Let me help you a bit. My families welfare is my SOLE responsibility.

Is your health insurance employer provided group insurance, individual group insurance or do you pay for all your family's medical needs out of pocket at the full price?

If you buy private insurance or pay taxes, you are paying for welfare queen's medical care. It is a simple fact that you can't escape, whether you believe it to be wrong or not. Every time an uninsured person uses a hospital, they pass the cost along to you. The same way Wal Mart passes the cost of 'shrinkage', or shoplifting, on to paying customenrs. It's a cost of doing business. It isn't going to change either.
The way to keep you, the responsible one, from paying for the irresponsible one, is to make a primary doctor available to them so they don't suck 5 times the expense out of our collective pockets. This would also allow us to do things like allow ERs to refuse service for anything minor and refer people at admission back to their own PCP.
That could make it possible to identify non-citizens trying to milk the system and go a long way to eliminate the present abuse of the taxpayer and hospitals

[griff61]

Griff,

You are right about one thing, health care is not a purely free market system. Government intrusion distorts market forces and is the primary reason our health care costs have risen at the rate they have. Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, government spending has increased from 24% to 45% of health care expenditures in this country. And as you may or may not be aware, the government dictates what a doctor may charge for any given procedure. In many cases, the reimbursement rates do not cover the cost of providing the service. This drives up the cost for everyone else as doctors must recoup these losses by charging others more. That is why many doctors refuse to accept new Medicare patients. They can't afford to. A single payer system would only exacerbate this problem and inevitably lead to a shortage of doctors. It would create a disincentive for our most talented people to pursue this most noble profession due to the prospect of diminished earning potential. They would simply enter more lucrative (read less regulated) professions.

The explosion in health insurance costs actually occurred in the pas 15 years, if the various government programs didn't exist, the million of Medicare and Medicaid recipients would be out of luck as well and put the unisured well over the 100 million mark. Private insurance premiums increase at a rate 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation, so it has no real relation to actual cost.
Insurance companies set their own fees, not the government. Hospitals and providers are free to refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients, and some do.

Government intervention has actually resulted in the insurance companies being able to refuse coverage to anyone except the healthiest and leave the rest, who need the help the most to the taxpayer to shoulder. The profit takers take no risk at all, if you look like you're going to actually need that insurance, they can cancel you any time they please and pass the burden to the taxpayer.

I would also like to add that the move toward employer provided health insurance was also caused by government intrusion into the marketplace. It was a direct response to the wage controls imposed during World War II and employers found a way around it by offering health insurance in lieu of higher wages. While market-based, this third party payment system is far from ideal and provides its own set of problems, not the least of which is the problem of the Commons that Adam so deftly spelled out. I am more apt to use my health insurance if I believe that someone else is paying for it and there is minimal out-of pocket cost to me. I have no incentive to temper my use of the resource.  I would like to see a move to a more free market-based approach. You made a comment in an earlier post and I let it slide. Now it seems appropriate to bring it up. You mentioned that employers are already subsidizing a portion of our health insurance. This is an outright fallacy. I got news for you, I'm paying the whole freight. Every dollar "contributed" on my behalf is one less dollar that my employer can afford to pay me in monetary compensation. I would much rather have this dollar in my paycheck and shop around for my own health insurance. I can guarantee you that I would shop around for the plan that best suited my needs and gave me the most value for my money rather than being shoe-horned into a plan that provides me with more coverage than I need or want. If everyone in an employer sponsored plan was given this option, health insurance premiums would surely decrease. No doubt about it. Insurance companies would offer many more options in order to serve this new market.

The problem of the commons is rampant in the present system. As for your premiums, you pay no taxes on the employer portion, nor does it show up anywhere as income. Perhaps you might want to check out how that works. Why don't you go to your employer, tell them you want to cancel your insurance coverage and have them pay you their portion instead? Let me know how that works out for you.

What options do the health insurance companies offer to the unemployed? Those with 'pre-existing conditions'?
Oh, that's right, they don't offer any at all, just line up for the government plan.
The health insurance industry is a non-value-added expense.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Adam:

What is your solution to provide the 45 million uninsured in this country access to good healthcare and stop the abuse of the hospital system?

[Duckbutta]

Griff,

Like I said before, debating with you is like clapping with one hand. You never think beyond stage one. I'm well aware of the tax-free nature of health insurance benefits. That doesn't change the fact that it's income. It's just not in the form that I would prefer, namely monetary compensation. Say my employer allocates $50 in TOTAL LABOR COSTS per hour, not just my hourly rate, for my position. Let's say that it costs him the equivalent of $4/hour to provide me with a health benefits package that I don't want but take it because I basically have no choice. It's use or lose. That leaves him $46/hour that he can pay me hourly. Let's not forget the "employer's contribution" to social security. The "employer's contribution" is approximately 6.2%. Now where do you think the employer gets his portion of the contribution? If you answered, "From the money that he allocated for this position," go to the head of the class. Essentially I'm paying that too. This is what is known as a hidden cost. This hidden cost amounts to approximately $3/hour. Now we're down to $43/hour and I haven't even worked a minute yet. There are other costs but these will suffice for this discussion.

So I'm feeling pretty good about my $43/hour. After I work my first hour, your benevolent government thinks that it's appropriate to take an additional 20% in income taxes. I'm feeling pretty good about that but as I'm examining my paycheck, I notice that my state feels that it's appropriate to hit me up for another 8%. That's roughly $12/hour right off the top in state and federal taxes. That leaves me with $31/hour take home. Not too bad. I'm still feeling pretty good about that and decide that I'm gonna celebrate by going out and buying myself a modest $500 color T.V. Something nice, but nothing too extravagant. Imagine my amazement when the sales clerk rings me up and the total comes to $530. Incredulous, I insist that there must be some mistake, the price tag said $500. She informs me that the state determined that I still hadn't contributed my fair share and that I will be taxed an additional 6% on anything else I purchase. I'm not even going to get into real estate taxes, gasoline taxes, phone bill taxes, highway tolls, motor vehicle registrations, and any number of other fees and surcharges (read taxes).

I don't know about you, but I believe that the amount of money that I am currently paying in taxes is entirely too much. When you add it all up, it's gotta be damn near 50%, if not more, of every dollar I earn. I can't afford any additional burden, I'm tapped out. The current rate of growth in government spending is unsustainable, yet you propose more. Government has some legitimate functions and I have no problem paying a portion of my income in support of those. Every dollar above and beyond that is assault on my freedom and I find that reprehensible. And unlike you, I value liberty. Our government has far exceeded the powers that were enumerated to it in the Constitution. Their powers are few and specifically defined, though one would never know it by the way they carry on. They see the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" that can be twisted to suit their ideology and never ending quest for more power and further intrusion into our lives. Our Founders wouldn't even recognize this monstrosity and would be appalled at what they see. You should be too, but the priciples that made this country great are foreign to you. You're an unabashed Marxist, there's no other way to say it. Why did you even serve in the military and take an oath to defend ideals and values that you yourself don't hold? Was it the "free" health care they offered?

As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

[docbyers]

Duck nailed it in his last post here.

I've read through the pages of posts here, and since I have not the spare time to type out a response, I'll hit some high points:

If Juan Pablo came over the border illegally, my tax dollars should not be used to pay for his medical care, nor the abortion for his 16-year-old daughter who got pregnant by a Latino gang member in south L.A.;

Health care costs in this country started to skyrocket when the gov't. got involved.  OK, I'll pay my taxes for the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, but that's really all I want to fund for medical care.

I have experienced health care in countries with socialized medicine, Italy, for example.  There, the private care you get if you can afford it is top-notch, not as good as U.S. but not bad at all.  The public hospitals and doctors are not very good at all, long waits, poor quality, filthy hospitals, etc., etc...

A solution?  Not from me, but I will point out some contributing factors that create more problems than they solve, like the gov't regulating the health care industry to death (pardon the pun).  When I worked pharmaceuticals there was a room with all the books that held the regulations that we had to follow to make a pill.  50% of those reg's were good to have and follow; the rest just added cost.  The drug companies are all working on the cure for cancer, ALS, AIDS, even the common cold.  They might, maybe make a profit if they can recoup the R&D costs...

Most of the costs of medical care are hidden to the average person.  I had knee surgery a few years ago, with no idea of what it cost prior to the procedure.  I didn't care - my insurance was paying for it.  My insurance company negotiated a set fee for that kind of operation with the surgeon long before I showed up.  The dr. bills 2X that rate, insurance pays the contracted rate, and the dr. writes off the "loss" from his taxes.  The dr. also has to pay his huge staff of clerical types to document everything to do with the procedure in order to comply with a room full of books full of HIPAA regulations (thank Mr. & Mrs. Clinton for those).  So my $500 operation cost $5,000.  Call it overhead, imposed by the gov't.

Solutions?  There are quite a few ideas out there, and I think a combination of them may go a long way to making it better.

I agree with Coup, though, that it's not my responsibility to pay for healthcare for everybody, condoms for school kids, or a fancy plane for Nancy Pelosi.  I have no issue paying taxes for VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, DOD programs, CDC, National Parks, NASA, interstate maintenance, etc.

We live in a pluralist society, and the majority of people just want to take care of their own stuff and have the gov't stay out of their lives as much as possible.  That gives us the freedom to achieve whatever our American dream happens to be.  That means that your lot in life is dependent on how hard you study and how hard you work.  That will determine if you drive a Cadillac or a Chevy, live in a house or a trailer, pay for health insurance or go to the free clinic, send your kids to college or not...  We're getting a little heavy on the entitlement mentality that's showing itself here in the USA.  I am happy to help out a poor person get health care, but I'm not paying for it forever.  When you get healthy you have to go to work, poor person, and further your education so you can get a better job, maybe one with health insurance.  I want to give them a hand up, not a hand out...

[griff61]

So to boil down docbyers and ducks posts,

You've got no solutions
Government bad, Corporations good
People without healthcare are deadbeats
Corporations would shower us with unicorns and rinbows if it wasn't for that pesky regulation.

Thanks for your input.

Now perhaps I can get on with discussing it with someone who would like to address the problem wih something other than pithy slogans and trite generalizations.

[_Adam_]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Adam:

What is your solution to provide the 45 million uninsured in this country access to good healthcare and stop the abuse of the hospital system?

First, the 45 million uninsured do have access to good health care.  A lack of insurance is NOT a lack of access to health care.

Second, I have said, repeatedly, that abuses will occur in either system, you are the one who specifically said controls are easy to implement so the onus is on YOU to prove that abuses can be stopped with controls.

Third, what is to stop those without insurance from purchasing individual plans for coverage?

For instance I went to Kaiser Permanente's web site and inquired about coverage for me, a 34 yr old male...  The Gold $500 with Rx Deductible Plan offers predictable costs for office visits, hospitalization, and other services with a moderate deductible. Prescription coverage is included.  The monthly premium is $218 a month.

That wasn't even their cheapest plan - in fact, it was one of the more expensive plans.  The cheapest was $107 per month.

This is a PRIME example of a private solution that will provide adequate care and prescription coverage.  The only catch is, you have to take personal responsibility and pay for it.

[griff61]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Adam:

What is your solution to provide the 45 million uninsured in this country access to good healthcare and stop the abuse of the hospital system?

First, the 45 million uninsured do have access to good health care.  A lack of insurance is NOT a lack of access to health care.

Second, I have said, repeatedly, that abuses will occur in either system, you are the one who specifically said controls are easy to implement so the onus is on YOU to prove that abuses can be stopped with controls.

Third, what is to stop those without insurance from purchasing individual plans for coverage?

For instance I went to Kaiser Permanente's web site and inquired about coverage for me, a 34 yr old male...  The Gold $500 with Rx Deductible Plan offers predictable costs for office visits, hospitalization, and other services with a moderate deductible. Prescription coverage is included.  The monthly premium is $218 a month.

That wasn't even their cheapest plan - in fact, it was one of the more expensive plans.  The cheapest was $107 per month.

This is a PRIME example of a private solution that will provide adequate care and prescription coverage.  The only catch is, you have to take personal responsibility and pay for it.

So you're ok with the real problem off ER abuse in the US, but condemn the likelihood of it anywhere else under any other system? That's kind of an odd position, but ok, your solution is the status quo, where the uninsured go to ERs and the hospitals and private insurance comapnies pass the cost along to everyone else.

Just so you don't think I've asked you to provide an example of it in Canada without having one handy for the US, besides the one posted by someone else, here's an example for you. The way the US system is designed right now, actually encourages it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090402/ap_on_re_us/frequent_er_patients


You keep saying those millions of uninsured folks ought to just run out and buy the some insurance, do you really think there are over 40 million people who woke up one day and "Hey! I don't feel like having health coverage for me and my family"
The 'welfare mom's' are covered by Medicaid programs, like the one you mentioned in Oregon, the over 65 crowd has Medicare. Those aren't among the 40 million, the 645,000 who lost jobs and employer health coverage last week are in the group of uninsured. The single parent who works to support their family and makes just enough to bump her income above the max level for Medicaid is in that group.

Your assumption that these people all lack personal responsibility is REALLY odd when you just finsished posting this:

My little brother had a $300k back surgery compliments of the citizens of the State of California

I'm not thinking that you consider your brother to be an irresponsible slacker, does your judgement only apply to other people? If he couldn't afford to get insurance, why didn't you sign him up for that $107 plan?

[Duckbutta]

Griff,

What you are failing to consider in this whole conversation is the morality of the topic at hand. The "problem" of 45 million uninsured Americans is not a problem of liberty. It is a problem of socialism.

Walter Williams is one of my favorite authors on this subject and I am posting an article of his here for your convenience. I think his point here is brilliant but I'm sure you will disagree. It reads as follows:

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

Again, Dr. Williams brilliance on display. That's logic and moral clarity that I think even you will understand.

[mdbuike]

Thanks Duck..

BTW, I snowblow the driveway and walks of the lady next door, and also mow her yard..I do it for no return, because it's the thing to do..

However, in return I get some of the hottest peppers grown around here    Taco night is special

Forced servitude (whether through service or money) is not good..It should be from the heart and soul..just spend a week at a local food pantry

Mike