VMI77 wrote:cb1000rider wrote:I saw one posting indicating that we don't have any sort of constitutional based responsibility to care for them. And I agree from the legal point of view, nothing in the constitution requires that... But making that comparison is a bit like looking for a pineapple in an vegetable garden. Therefore we let them survive on public good will, economic outreach from religious organizations, and private funding. Sounds good - can we count on it in all economic conditions?
You seem to be confused about what the Constitution says and what it means. The Constitution is a charter for limited government. It defines what the Federal government is ALLOWED to do, and all those functions not specifically enumerated come under the sole power of the individual States. The Constitution DOES NOT ALLOW the Federal Government to provide welfare. Now granted, a liberal activist president (FDR) in collusion with a corrupt and dishonest Congress and a activist Supreme Court have deliberately re-interpreted the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, but its clear meaning is quite obvious and simple. That said, if the government actually followed the Constitution, there is nothing prohibiting individual states from doling out all the welfare their residents are willing to cough up in taxes. And there are all kinds of reasons why the Founders wrote the Constitution the way they did --one of them being that the States were intended to be individual experiments for self-governance, both by individual demonstrations of what works and what doesn't, and as refuges for those citizens living in states that strayed too far in the wrong direction --another system of checks and balances.
It doesn't matter one iota what you think is good or how much money you're willing to cough up in taxes to the Feds to support the socialist notion of a guaranteed standard of living; the Federal government has no right to take my money and give it to someone else so they can enjoy someone's idea of a nice standard of living. Furthermore, no one has any right to any particular standard of living at someone else's expense. I most certainly would advocate a return to the system of the 30's and 40's. My father came out to California in the 30's without any money and without a job. He did whatever work he could find and saved his money. The medical system worked just fine --and everything was cheaper....after adjusting for inflation. Everything would be much cheaper now too if the government was out of the medical business, both in terms of inflating demand, and in terms of facilitating monopolistic practices that enable providers to charge outrageous non-market prices. The fact is NO ONE has the right to take wealth by force from someone else because they or the government say they "need" it.
There was recently an article in the media showing how prices for the same procedure vary from about $25,000 to $125,000. This is pure robbery by the medical establishment in collusion with the government. My son recently had an appendectomy. Because he is only employed part time and has no medical insurance, he was charged MORE for the procedure than if he'd had insurance --about $32,000. That price is absurd when you look at prices for procedures insurance won't pay for, like Lasik, and breast augmentation. Medical care is unaffordable because the Feds and the insurance industry have made it expensive.
No one has the right to expect me to pay for their medical treatment, emergency or otherwise. Does that make me a mean old Capitalist who wants to let poor people die at the Emergency Room door? No, I don't want people who truly need emergency care to die without it; but then, that's not what 90% of emergency room care is about anymore. I would gladly contribute money --charity-- for such people and there are many ways such costs could be borne without wealth distribution and a socialist nanny state. It would be charity....and at times charity should come with a bit of stigma attached, and at all times be received with gratitude, unlike "entitlements." However, no one has any right to live an unhealthy life, drink alcohol, get injured doing something they're not supposed to be doing, be in the country legally or illegally, etc, and be entitled to medical treatment on my dime. The situations most people find themselves in are the product of choices they make for themselves, good and bad. No one is entitled to my labor because they made bad choices. People who have children they can't pay for are not entitled to have me pay for them. When bad choices are subsidized and rewarded you get more bad choices.
Someone else in the thread, TAM I think, quoted Benjamin Franklin, about not making the poor comfortable in their poverty. The "entitlement" system and resulting mentality is fundamentally immoral --robbing Peter to pay Paul-- so disastrous consequences are inevitable. The moral degeneracy bred by a system that takes from productive people and gives to unproductive people and attempts to disguise the reality of the process by hobbling the notion of "charity" in order to cater to the "self-esteem" of the unproductive, and calling the proceeds of the theft in their behalf "entitlements," is unmeasurable, but it has pervaded the entire culture for the worst. It has resulted in generations of people who think someone else owes them a living by virtue of their mere existence. People have children they can't afford knowing that someone else will help pay for them, while people like my son and his wife, who would dearly love to have children, take responsibility for themselves and wait until their circumstances allow them to afford children. At some point people get tired of being responsible when those who are irresponsible are rewarded for their bad choices and bad behavior. A system that is fundamentally immoral cannot produce a moral outcome; and without morality we get degeneracy.
Very well thought out and stated