So the mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, wants to ban Chick-Fil-A from opening stores in the city because Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, has made some remarks that have been construed as anti-gay. Cathy said "I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
Does the mayor have the right to ban this company from operating in his city? Absolutely not. It is not the government's place to refuse this company the right to purchase property and operate a business simply because the government (and specifically one person in this government) doesn't agree with what the owners have said.
Don't we have a right to free speech? All that Dan Cathy did was exercise this right. He believes same-sex marriage to be wrong and he voiced that opinion. If you agree with him, great! If you don't, you can go try to convince him that he's wrong. If his comments immensely offend you, don't eat at his restaurant! But certainly it is not the place of the mayor to ban this business that has committed no crime, no wrongdoing other than voicing a controversial opinion.
Let the company be free to do what it wants. Let it say what it wants. Let it operate stores where it wants. If Bostonians are such proponents of gay rights, then no-one will eat at their store and they will be forced to relocate. But we should never allow government to refuse a company its basic rights because it supports a position contradictory to that of the government.
For the record, Chick-Fil-A is an equal opportunity employer. The culture of Chick-Fil-A, in Cathy's words, is to "treat every person with honor, dignity, and respect - regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."
I understand if you are a proponent of gay rights and you wish that an anti-gay company would not establish itself in your city. But you must recognize that it is not the government's place to ban it from doing so. You must realize that the company has the same rights as any other company to operate in your area. If you don't realize these things, you are encouraging our government to discriminate. You are endorsing a non-existent right of government to discriminate against businesses for what they believe.
I am amazed at how many passionate, young people do not realize government's role in the scope of things. It's frightening. If our nation's youth cannot recognize a government's overreach of power, we will guarantee our children a very restrictive and oppressive one. I will be overcome with despair the day that I resign my political voice to opposing big government instead of proposing and supporting helpful public policy. I can only hope that day has not already come.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Thoughts on Voting Laws
As I must admit in all my posts, I should do more research on this topic before I publish my opinions on it. That being said, I would like to write out my initial feelings about this subject.
In the news recently there have been several stories about controversial voting laws. As far as I know, these laws would require some sort of identification, like a driver’s license or passport, to be presented by the citizen in order to cast a vote. I see no problem with this. It should be no problem for all legal citizens of the US. I carry my driver’s license everywhere. Doesn’t everyone? Maybe I come from an exclusive area of the US where everyone happens to have and carry their driver’s licenses, but nonetheless this is the way I believe the majority of the population functions.
Now if the whole of the US had and carried ID’s, there would be no controversy. But obviously, not everyone has government issued identification. This percentage of the population has to be small. I think I know one person who doesn’t have a driver’s license; and she probably has a SS card or passport or some other kind of ID that would validate her vote. Then again I’m not living in the NYC projects where I imagine a higher percentage of the population doesn’t have proper identification.
So this is where the democrats start whining. Young people and minorities are more likely to vote democrat (just my thinking, but I’m sure there are some studies that show this is the general trend). Also, young people and minorities are less likely to have proper identification. So the democrats, in trying to save some of their key demographics, are raising a big fuss over these voter ID laws. But they are not doing so because of some objection to the substance, validity, or benefit of the law, but because the law will potentially diminish the amount of people that vote democrat.
So why do we want this law in the first place? There must have been some event that spurred its creation. I imagine it was a bunch of non-citizens (is that a word?) that managed to cast votes. Indeed, that would motivate me to write and pass such a law as the one we’ve been discussing. But then what would I say to the democrats? What would I say to the citizens in the US that can’t vote because they don’t have proper identification? I would say “Get some proper identification and then you can vote!” It’s as simple as that! How much does a driver’s license cost? $15? I know, I too find it outrageous for a small piece of rectangular plastic, but it’s manageable. I’m not sure how one goes about getting a SS card or a birth certificate, but aren’t those similar processes? Does anyone know the easiest way to obtain proper identification from the government? For me and I imagine the vast majority of the voting population, it has always been extremely easy, even if mundane, to get government issued ID’s.
Here’s another point that might come off as a little brash. If a certain citizen does not have enough money to get a proper ID, they probably don’t have enough money to stay politically informed. If they’re not politically informed, would they be voting? I don’t think so. In my experience, not even all those who are aware of the current political scene end up voting. So I imagine that those who are not politically informed vote even less often. This argument just serves to say that those who don’t have ID’s are less likely to be politically informed and less likely to cast a sincere and seriously considered vote. Don’t get me wrong, they still have the right to vote, it’s just that they are less likely to do so.
So that’s my spiel. I’ll try to do some research and find some hard numbers. As of right now, it seems to me that democrats are just complaining about a good law because it weakens them in the fall election.
Now if the whole of the US had and carried ID’s, there would be no controversy. But obviously, not everyone has government issued identification. This percentage of the population has to be small. I think I know one person who doesn’t have a driver’s license; and she probably has a SS card or passport or some other kind of ID that would validate her vote. Then again I’m not living in the NYC projects where I imagine a higher percentage of the population doesn’t have proper identification.
So this is where the democrats start whining. Young people and minorities are more likely to vote democrat (just my thinking, but I’m sure there are some studies that show this is the general trend). Also, young people and minorities are less likely to have proper identification. So the democrats, in trying to save some of their key demographics, are raising a big fuss over these voter ID laws. But they are not doing so because of some objection to the substance, validity, or benefit of the law, but because the law will potentially diminish the amount of people that vote democrat.
So why do we want this law in the first place? There must have been some event that spurred its creation. I imagine it was a bunch of non-citizens (is that a word?) that managed to cast votes. Indeed, that would motivate me to write and pass such a law as the one we’ve been discussing. But then what would I say to the democrats? What would I say to the citizens in the US that can’t vote because they don’t have proper identification? I would say “Get some proper identification and then you can vote!” It’s as simple as that! How much does a driver’s license cost? $15? I know, I too find it outrageous for a small piece of rectangular plastic, but it’s manageable. I’m not sure how one goes about getting a SS card or a birth certificate, but aren’t those similar processes? Does anyone know the easiest way to obtain proper identification from the government? For me and I imagine the vast majority of the voting population, it has always been extremely easy, even if mundane, to get government issued ID’s.
Here’s another point that might come off as a little brash. If a certain citizen does not have enough money to get a proper ID, they probably don’t have enough money to stay politically informed. If they’re not politically informed, would they be voting? I don’t think so. In my experience, not even all those who are aware of the current political scene end up voting. So I imagine that those who are not politically informed vote even less often. This argument just serves to say that those who don’t have ID’s are less likely to be politically informed and less likely to cast a sincere and seriously considered vote. Don’t get me wrong, they still have the right to vote, it’s just that they are less likely to do so.
So that’s my spiel. I’ll try to do some research and find some hard numbers. As of right now, it seems to me that democrats are just complaining about a good law because it weakens them in the fall election.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Thoughts on Gay Rights
This is gonna be a shorter post because I think this topic is quite simple. If a man wants to marry another man, he should be free to do so. It's a free country, right? It doesn't harm me in any way if two lesbians get married. So let them do it!
Say I want to marry my boyfriend. Has the government impinged on my freedom by not allowing me to do so? I think yes, it has. But oh, your religion thinks it's sinful for me to be a homosexual? Kindly get your religious beliefs out of my government.
I believe in a separation of church and state. It's alarming to me the number of religious people who don't. The Constitution, my supreme argumentative reference, even says this at the end of Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Catch that last bit? The Founding Fathers made sure that people of any religion could hold public office. Maybe they believed in a strong union of church and state but in fairness allowed people of any religion to hold public office and pass certain laws concerning religious issues. Maybe they agreed with me in thinking that church and state should be separated, the government not making any laws concerning religion. Is gay rights a religious issue? Sure. Is it a freedom issue? More so, in my opinion.
I think the Founders believed in a separation of church and state. The 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So Congress can't adopt a certain religion or stop you from practicing yours. The leads me to believe that the Founders wanted government do it's job completely separate from the church. Then why are all the religious people shouting at the government to outlaw gay marriage? Because they don't understand this.
I've got more thoughts about this topic than I thought. I might write more about it later. Get those comments flowing; I wanna know what everyone thinks.
Say I want to marry my boyfriend. Has the government impinged on my freedom by not allowing me to do so? I think yes, it has. But oh, your religion thinks it's sinful for me to be a homosexual? Kindly get your religious beliefs out of my government.
I believe in a separation of church and state. It's alarming to me the number of religious people who don't. The Constitution, my supreme argumentative reference, even says this at the end of Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Catch that last bit? The Founding Fathers made sure that people of any religion could hold public office. Maybe they believed in a strong union of church and state but in fairness allowed people of any religion to hold public office and pass certain laws concerning religious issues. Maybe they agreed with me in thinking that church and state should be separated, the government not making any laws concerning religion. Is gay rights a religious issue? Sure. Is it a freedom issue? More so, in my opinion.
I think the Founders believed in a separation of church and state. The 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So Congress can't adopt a certain religion or stop you from practicing yours. The leads me to believe that the Founders wanted government do it's job completely separate from the church. Then why are all the religious people shouting at the government to outlaw gay marriage? Because they don't understand this.
I've got more thoughts about this topic than I thought. I might write more about it later. Get those comments flowing; I wanna know what everyone thinks.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Thoughts on Capital Punishment
If you wrong someone, you deserve to be wronged back. This is just the way I think; it's only fair. You hit me, I hit you. You take my bread, I take yours. You willfully kill someone, you get killed. People will argue about this on a moral level, but fact is that if the punishment imposed on an offender is not as substantial as the initial offense, we create a small 'window of forgiveness' where the offender comes out on top. However, the most forgiving and noble of us will cry "The taking of a person's life is never justified, even in reparation for the worst of offenses." I disagree. If you do something so morally reprehensible as murdering someone, then you deserve to die. I can't explain this any further without beating it to death. If you disagree on this moral ground, please try to explain to me how the killing of a murderer is anything less than just.
But that argument is based on moral/ethical grounds. Let's speak now about more practical matters, such as specific states killing convicted murderers. I believe it is indeed a state's right to decide how to deal with its criminals. I have not found a phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to decide how to treat criminals so by the 10th Amendment, it is a power reserved for the states.
That could be the end of it right there. Let each state decide to enforce the death penalty or not. Got to love that federalism. If I was home and voting in North Carolina, I think I would vote for a candidate that supported the use of the death penalty for convicted murderers. But some people have told me that it costs more for the state to kill a person than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. That sounds ridiculous to me. Can't the state just shoot them? That must cost as much as a bullet. So I did a little research on how much it costs to kill someone or to keep them in prison.
It turns out, at least according to Philip Cook at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy, that most of the cost of a system with the possibility of capital punishment lies in the legal proceedings that decide the fate of the offender. He has a beautiful paper called "Potential Savings from Abolition of the Death Penalty in North Carolina" that I got all of my information from. Please refer to it if you find my explanation insufficient.
Anyways, in North Carolina much more money is spent defending the accused when the prosecutors attempt to obtain a death penalty sentence. Cook says that if the death penalty was abolished, these long and expensive trials would disappear resulting in a more fiscally responsible state. In the paper I mentioned before, he cites a very relevant statistic that he got from the NC Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS). First, he looks at nearly all the murder cases in FY's 2005 and 2006 in NC (excluding the weakest cases resulting in dismissal or conviction of a crime less than second degree murder). He then compares the cases in which the prosecution attempted to get a death penalty versus those that did not. He found that on average, IDS pays $56,900 to help a defendant in a case that was at any point declared capital and $12,600 for a case that was never declared as capital. Isn't that nuts?!
So basically, the murderers are going to be the ones that have to defend themselves against the death penalty. They are often too poor to get their own attorney so the state provides them with one. If the prosecution decides to just push for life without parole, the state pays a small amount of money compared to when the prosecution tries to convict the offender of first degree murder and sentence him to death. The difference that lands on NC taxpayers is a whopping $44,300 per case. If we didn't have the death penalty (i.e. it wasn't an option for prosecutors to shoot for), the prosecutors could only go for life in prison which results in a much cheaper and speedier trial. Cook claims that this aspect of a more expensive legal process for capital cases alone cost NC over $9.5 million dollars during the 2 years he studied. That's a lot of money.
Cook goes on to explain several other aspects of capital cases that incur massive costs on the NC government. These include expensive appeals and re-sentencings that occur after the offender is convicted, court time spent on long trials, and government funding of offices that deal exclusively with capital punishment. He does a very thorough job and I don't have the energy to try to disprove any of his data. In the end, he estimates that it costs NC almost $11 million per year to keep the death penalty as a lawful punishment for first degree murder.
After realizing this, I would vote for a politician who campaigned for the abolition of the death penalty. I can't believe that we as North Carolinians are paying $11 million a year just to have the ability to execute someone. How many people do we execute, just so we know we're getting some bang for our buck? In the years that were analyzed by Cook, we executed 9 people. To me, it's not worth the price.
Now realize that I still encourage the death penalty for murderers on a moral level, but I realize that in practice it's not quite so easy. With all the costs of the trial and the appeals and time lost, it is simply not worth it to occasionally kill someone who was convicted of murder. In an ideal world, the murderer would be convicted (even after a somewhat more expensive and lengthy trial) and there would be no appeals because the jury just made a decision and the state would then take him outside and shoot him immediately. Simple, right? But given the massive bureaucratic system in which this process now takes place, the cost has risen to a level at which the benefits of abolishing the death penalty outweighs the moral reasoning behind it.
Sure, if you really want justice for the murderers you will still endorse the death penalty, no matter what the cost. I really want justice for the murderers too, but given the massive bill I get, I think it's easier to just put them in prison for life without the possibility of parole. It's cheaper and now all those noble and forgiving people have shut up.
If you are against the death penalty for a moral reason, please message me or comment below explaining your reasoning; I would like to be convinced. I know I skipped over many issues with capital punishment in this post so please talk about the most relevant of them. If I find some more time soon, I will most definitely address them. I'm including some information about Cook's paper at the bottom so you can read it for yourself. Please do it; it's quite interesting. In the meantime I'll be reading more papers on the topic to see if anyone poses a vastly different view. Thanks for reading.
Reference: Cook, Philip J. 2009. "Potential Savings from Abolition of the Death Penalty in North Carolina," 11 American Law and Economics Review 498-529.
But that argument is based on moral/ethical grounds. Let's speak now about more practical matters, such as specific states killing convicted murderers. I believe it is indeed a state's right to decide how to deal with its criminals. I have not found a phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to decide how to treat criminals so by the 10th Amendment, it is a power reserved for the states.
That could be the end of it right there. Let each state decide to enforce the death penalty or not. Got to love that federalism. If I was home and voting in North Carolina, I think I would vote for a candidate that supported the use of the death penalty for convicted murderers. But some people have told me that it costs more for the state to kill a person than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. That sounds ridiculous to me. Can't the state just shoot them? That must cost as much as a bullet. So I did a little research on how much it costs to kill someone or to keep them in prison.
It turns out, at least according to Philip Cook at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy, that most of the cost of a system with the possibility of capital punishment lies in the legal proceedings that decide the fate of the offender. He has a beautiful paper called "Potential Savings from Abolition of the Death Penalty in North Carolina" that I got all of my information from. Please refer to it if you find my explanation insufficient.
Anyways, in North Carolina much more money is spent defending the accused when the prosecutors attempt to obtain a death penalty sentence. Cook says that if the death penalty was abolished, these long and expensive trials would disappear resulting in a more fiscally responsible state. In the paper I mentioned before, he cites a very relevant statistic that he got from the NC Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS). First, he looks at nearly all the murder cases in FY's 2005 and 2006 in NC (excluding the weakest cases resulting in dismissal or conviction of a crime less than second degree murder). He then compares the cases in which the prosecution attempted to get a death penalty versus those that did not. He found that on average, IDS pays $56,900 to help a defendant in a case that was at any point declared capital and $12,600 for a case that was never declared as capital. Isn't that nuts?!
So basically, the murderers are going to be the ones that have to defend themselves against the death penalty. They are often too poor to get their own attorney so the state provides them with one. If the prosecution decides to just push for life without parole, the state pays a small amount of money compared to when the prosecution tries to convict the offender of first degree murder and sentence him to death. The difference that lands on NC taxpayers is a whopping $44,300 per case. If we didn't have the death penalty (i.e. it wasn't an option for prosecutors to shoot for), the prosecutors could only go for life in prison which results in a much cheaper and speedier trial. Cook claims that this aspect of a more expensive legal process for capital cases alone cost NC over $9.5 million dollars during the 2 years he studied. That's a lot of money.
Cook goes on to explain several other aspects of capital cases that incur massive costs on the NC government. These include expensive appeals and re-sentencings that occur after the offender is convicted, court time spent on long trials, and government funding of offices that deal exclusively with capital punishment. He does a very thorough job and I don't have the energy to try to disprove any of his data. In the end, he estimates that it costs NC almost $11 million per year to keep the death penalty as a lawful punishment for first degree murder.
After realizing this, I would vote for a politician who campaigned for the abolition of the death penalty. I can't believe that we as North Carolinians are paying $11 million a year just to have the ability to execute someone. How many people do we execute, just so we know we're getting some bang for our buck? In the years that were analyzed by Cook, we executed 9 people. To me, it's not worth the price.
Now realize that I still encourage the death penalty for murderers on a moral level, but I realize that in practice it's not quite so easy. With all the costs of the trial and the appeals and time lost, it is simply not worth it to occasionally kill someone who was convicted of murder. In an ideal world, the murderer would be convicted (even after a somewhat more expensive and lengthy trial) and there would be no appeals because the jury just made a decision and the state would then take him outside and shoot him immediately. Simple, right? But given the massive bureaucratic system in which this process now takes place, the cost has risen to a level at which the benefits of abolishing the death penalty outweighs the moral reasoning behind it.
Sure, if you really want justice for the murderers you will still endorse the death penalty, no matter what the cost. I really want justice for the murderers too, but given the massive bill I get, I think it's easier to just put them in prison for life without the possibility of parole. It's cheaper and now all those noble and forgiving people have shut up.
If you are against the death penalty for a moral reason, please message me or comment below explaining your reasoning; I would like to be convinced. I know I skipped over many issues with capital punishment in this post so please talk about the most relevant of them. If I find some more time soon, I will most definitely address them. I'm including some information about Cook's paper at the bottom so you can read it for yourself. Please do it; it's quite interesting. In the meantime I'll be reading more papers on the topic to see if anyone poses a vastly different view. Thanks for reading.
Reference: Cook, Philip J. 2009. "Potential Savings from Abolition of the Death Penalty in North Carolina," 11 American Law and Economics Review 498-529.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
ObamaCare Back & Forth, Part Two
The second installment of my conversation with Josh. Enjoy!
Me:
So if the mandate penalty is a tax, it's constitutional. Obama, who made the bill, says it's not a tax. The Supreme Court said it could be "construed" as a tax. If we believe Obama, then it's unconstitutional. If we believe the Court, it's constitutional.
I don't even know what I think it is anymore. On one hand, I think it's a tax. It's a tax imposed on people who choose to not buy health insurance. People are free to either buy health insurance and avoid the tax or not buy the health insurance and pay the tax. This is similar to the way a person chooses to buy a loaf of bread and pay the tax, or not buy the loaf of bread and not pay the tax.
On the other hand, I think it's a penalty. The government wants everyone to do something, in this case buy health insurance, and is convincing everyone to do so by imposing a penalty on those who don't. This oversteps the governments constitutional rights. The constitution lists a bunch of powers that our government can do, including things like levy taxes, create a military, stuff like that. At the very end of the constitution they put the 10th Ammendment, which makes this law unconstitutional. This is what it says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
No where in the constitution does it give the government the power to fine people for not buying health insurance. Thus, unconstitutional.
You misunderstood my example of the "Inactive Man" as I'll call him. I'm not gonna dig that one up again though, as I feel it will only confuse things more. I guess I did not explain the example very well, although it remains at the heart of my disagreement with this law.
Now I believe we are getting down to the fundamental difference between our two positions on this law. In your message you say,
"My personal opinion is that this is a very small price to pay for a very small amount of the population (that is kind of doing them a favor anyways) to expand health care coverage to millions who couldn't afford or didn't qualify for it before."
If we're on the same
page, the price we're paying is the infringement on freedom (now being
penalized, or taxed, for not having health insurance). I disagree. I
think this price is huge because I value my freedom highly. Any solution
to the health care problem in the US that substantially infringes upon
an individual's freedom I will not support.
This substantially infringes on my freedom. And for what? So other people can have health care? How about everyone go and live their own life and I'll live mine. You get health insurance if you want, and I'll get it if I want. Quit making rules that take away my freedom. Anything that threatens my freedom is the biggest threat out there. Give the government more power to tell us what to do, and we're a few steps from a socialist state. It scares me. A more powerful government is the most threatening thing to my freedom. I don't want to let them dictate if I get health insurance or not, even if it helps a lot of people get health care. Not worth it. The price is too high. My freedom is supreme.
Josh:
So the article Emilio put on facebook does a pretty good job of explaining this, definitely be sure to read that. http://www.politico.com/news/
"Any solution to the health care problem in the US that substantially infringes upon an individual's freedom I will not support." Infringing on one's freedom to be a free rider on the health care system of this country they have agreed to live in and abide by the rules of is very hard for me to realistically consider as a substantial infringement. In our society as it stands, freedom more closely means having the ability to set foot on an a level playing field as everyone else.
Also, with this individual mandate, if you are in a position in which you have to pay the tax or penalty or whatever you want to call it, you paying that gives you the base health coverage. So if this is a penalty it is not a penalty like a parking ticket where all you get for paying it is that you're no longer in trouble, you actually get a service for paying it. I don't find this radically different from the school voucher program the christian community wanted a while back, where they wanted to take the money they pay in taxes that go towards public schools and have it as a voucher they can put towards paying for their kids' private schools. In this analogy, the public schools would be the base service required by the government, and the private schools would be the private health care plans. That plan of theirs in particular wasn't very well thought out, as the base service had rather inadequate funding even before they wanted to take funds out of it, but you get the idea. On that note, where in the Constitution does it say kids have to go to school until a certain age? (even with home school kids if they aren't actually being home schooled then child services gets called, so let's just nevermind that exception) Health care is just another thing that society has decided should be available to all, and so all should pay for it - if anything you should be more mad about the infringed freedom of those that have to pay towards public schools that have no kids.
"And for what? So other people can have health care? How about everyone go and live their own life and I'll live mine. You get health insurance if you want, and I'll get it if I want."
That's not how
society works, that's why there are so many other taxes you pay that you
won't always see a direct benefit from. If you're going to live here
then no man is an island definitely applies and having this to provide a
level playing field to a larger portion of the population, which as I
said is a better functional definition of freedom in our society (think
civil rights and all that), then this is something we should have done a
long time ago and will end up being a net positive for the country and
the economy, as hard as that is for some to believe. Saying everyone
should have health care is a faaaarr cry from a socialist state.
Me:
Do you understand the idea of federalism? It is the idea upon which our nation was founded. It is the idea that states have the ability to either adhere to the constitution and then adopt its conditions or to reject the constitution and be considered something separate from the US. As a well informed and intelligent American (I try not to boast, though I will not slight myself), please understand that I (and our Founding Fathers) adhere to this notion.
Ultimately, people are sovereign over government. In practice, States are sovereign over the federal government. Do you believe this? Do you believe that States have the right to remain in the United States or to be remove themselves from the United States if they want to? Do you want a strong federal government or a weak one? These questions, though seemingly unrelated, are in fact very relevant to (and indeed at the heart of) our current subject of conversation.
So you and Emilio bring up the fact that Romney imposed something similar to ObamaCare in Massachusetts. Did it work? I don't know because I've neglected to do the research myself and don't want to go fact digging right now. But I have heard that it worked in MA. So good for Romney! The people in his state voted for him and he went about installing a health insurance program similar to ObamaCare. If citizens in MA thought it too much of a infringement of freedom, they could move to another state. Romney can endorse ObamaCare in his own State and citizens in his state can vote to support or oppose it. In this case, they supported it. Good for States' rights.
You say in your statement that in no way is Obama my problem. Obama is exactly my problem, endorsing a policy that mandates nation-wide health insurance. If you believe in federalism and States' rights you understand the difference between Romney's Statewide health care statutes and Obama's nationwide statutes.
See what I'm getting at? I have a view of how our country should function that is based on individual freedom, federalism, and the constitution. If you have a different one, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to even try to give it some merit. But it seems that with the logic you've presented up to this point, you're in favor of a more government-controlled, socialized country. I could never encourage the slightest movement to what you tout would be a more "caring" society. Again, the cost is too high.
It's the idea of being told what to do. I hate it. I personally probably would not be substantially effected by the implement of ObamaCare, but I oppose it in principle. The idea of a government infringing on my freedom, no matter how trivial, makes my stomach turn. The federal government does not get to tell me how my healthcare works.
So now everyone must have health insurance. If you don't, you get fined and the most basic coverage. Who gave the government the right to make everyone get health care? Unconstitutional. That even sounds a bit like socialism, doesn't it? A government mandating something to its citizens and controlling part of the market. We're obviously a long way from socialism, but this is definitely a step towards it. A step I wish we wouldn't take.
You bring up the people who have no kids but still pay taxes that end up funding public schools. Yeah, that's not fair. Maybe I should run for office to get them to change the policy. I totally would, but I don't care about it that much. Evidently these people don't either, or someone would be talking about it. It seems the system we have currently is working without substantial detriment to those with no kids in public schools. Also, congress has the power to tax, so it's constitutional.
I believe everyone should be able to have health care. I don't believe that everyone should be forced to have it.
Sorry for the response delay. It's been a busy weekend over here.
Josh:
First, if you think states actually have a choice when it comes to adhering to the Constitution, I would like to refer you to the Civil War as to the country's actual stance on states trying to leave. There are certain states I'd be more than happy to see go, but in practice that's not how it really works.
As to the strong or weak federal government, I feel that attending to the well-being of the country's citizens, especially the least fortunate, is a noble and desirable goal for the federal government to pursue, and I'm more than happy to let it do so. We are among the last industrialized countries to address health care on a national level like this. This is not an odd thing to do, and it is by no means the socialistic mark of death that signals the end of our economy or the free market or whatever it is the talking heads can't stop barking about.
If you want to discuss the strength of the federal government, I'd like to once again point out that we could cut our military spending in half and still have by far the largest military force in the world, and the societal problems we could address with that amount of funding aren't even worth attempting to count. Needing a military that vastly overpowers any competition to feel secure is an issue I'd rather not address, I would feel fine with a fraction of what we have.
Let me frame it this way: poverty and illness are evils that claim the lives of far more American citizens than terrorism ever has or will, and the federal government spending tax dollars to combat those make all the sense in the world to me. Just because these are issues that we are well off enough that we have no reason to fear them, does not mean they are very real threats to large portions of the country's population, much more so than anything our military is there to protect us from.
As for state rights, an excerpt from that reddit piece I directed you towards:
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA(Obamacare), they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
http://housedocs.house.gov/
That is the actual bill, and sec.1332 on numbered page 98 (actually the 117th page of the document) this is explained in detail. So this completely adheres to state rights, as any state can come up with their own system to replace this, as long as it achieves the same coverage. If any state can figure out how to do this without the mandate and provide an alternative that people can move to the state to find, more power to them.
As to how you don't care about the people with no kids paying for schools, chances are that once this has been in place for a while and everyone having health insurance becomes the accepted status quo here as it is in almost every other industrialized country, nobody will really care about this either. This whole thing has mostly just been political posturing in an election year, so much so that now pretty much every Republican is also calling this a tax and saying that what Obama has really done has levied a tax increase against the middle class (even though it doesn't really do much if anything to their taxes). See? Whatever message can be used as an attack will be adopted, the rest is moot in time.
Being "told" to get health insurance is something most places find as common sense, and the same will be true here in time. When it comes to things the government is doing that threatens my freedom, I'd much rather spend my time worrying about things like the Patriot Act. Invading my privacy without (or with a very questionable) warrant is an actual infringement on my freedom that I believe needs to be fixed.
Me:
I think states have a choice when it comes to adhering to the Constitution. They can adhere to it and be a state in the Union or they cannot adhere and not be in the Union. Now and practically, States should be able to choose whether or not they want to be in the US. But if they want to be in the US, they must abide by the Constitution. In the War Between the States, the South simply wanted to leave the Union, not to overthrow it (which is why I do not call it a civil war). But Lincoln said no, the South must remain in the Union. And then a horrible, nasty war which could have been avoided if Lincoln had just let the South be their own country. But he didn't believe in a state's right to secede from the US. I do.
Would you agree that this is a step towards a more socialist system? I personally think we're the best country in the world (I'm biased, of course) and I believe that it stems from the fact that while other industrialized countries like those in Europe have become more socialistic in nature, America's Founding Fathers created a style of government that could not become powerful enough to impose detrimental, government-empowering policies in order to inhibit this socialistic drift. Whew, that was a mouthfull. Europe holds the majority of the other industrialized nations and they're not having a hell of a time over there right now, what with that crisis and all.
Ok ok, we could spend less on the military and more on social programs within the US. I'm with you there, but I'm still failing to understand your position on how much strength the federal government should have.
So because no state has come up with a better solution to the health care problem, we should all just accept that this is the best one out there and accept the impingement of freedom? I disagree, my friend. Because Obama and the democrats passed this law in a perfectly legal manner, all law-abiding citizens in the US will be either buying health insurance or paying extra "taxes," myself included. But just because I will comply with the law does not mean I support the law. I only brought up the issues of States' Rights vs Federal Rights to see where you stood on those more general topics. Could you maybe speak a little more on those, how you believe our government should function in relation to both?
I refuse to support this law simply because over time it will become the status quo. That doesn't make it more appealing or more constitutional. I realize that at some point in our nation's history there was probably a similar debate about funding schools. I'm not sure where I would have stood on that debate at the time, but I know where I stand on this one that's happening right now. Maybe when I get an extra few minutes I'll propose a massively different education system (but probably not).
"...it doesn't really do much if anything to their taxes.."
I'd love to hear how that works. Take a look at page 146 in that PPACA document you sent me (it's page 165 according the pdf reader). Also, this leads me to believe that we are straying slightly from the main topic of our argument. I oppose this law because it restricts my freedom to buy or not buy a certain service. The government should not be able to do that. Do you agree? Just in general, do you agree? Say the government told you that you had to get your car washed every week. Their justification is that it helps a significant part of the population. Would you support that law?
It doesn't matter how much the penalty (or tax; I can't even make up my mind at this point) costs the American who doesn't want health insurance. It's the fact that the government is telling the American what to do.
"Being "told" to get health insurance is something most places find as common sense..."
I don't want to be like most places. America is the freest country on Earth. I don't want to adopt policies that give our government more control, restrict our freedom, and make us more like "most places." I don't like being told by my government to do anything. If you love freedom like I do, then this is as abhorrent to you as it is to me.
End of emails.
And with that, we wished eachother a happy 4th of July and reveled in the fact that we still live in the greatest country on Earth. It's hard sometimes, when we argue so passionately about the future of our nation, to remember that we're all on the same team. I enjoy exercising my freedom of speech in conversation with Josh. Quick shout to him if he's reading. Thanks for keeping it interesting and allowing me to share this, man. It's real nice of you.
Please keep in mind that the writing in my emails might be less informed or less clear. I thought they would only be viewed by Josh and not put on a public website. Hopefully I didn't make any incredulous or ridiculous statements. Please let me know if I did. I hope you enjoyed reading. Comment below with thoughts and questions. Happy 4th everybody!
Me:
So if the mandate penalty is a tax, it's constitutional. Obama, who made the bill, says it's not a tax. The Supreme Court said it could be "construed" as a tax. If we believe Obama, then it's unconstitutional. If we believe the Court, it's constitutional.
I don't even know what I think it is anymore. On one hand, I think it's a tax. It's a tax imposed on people who choose to not buy health insurance. People are free to either buy health insurance and avoid the tax or not buy the health insurance and pay the tax. This is similar to the way a person chooses to buy a loaf of bread and pay the tax, or not buy the loaf of bread and not pay the tax.
On the other hand, I think it's a penalty. The government wants everyone to do something, in this case buy health insurance, and is convincing everyone to do so by imposing a penalty on those who don't. This oversteps the governments constitutional rights. The constitution lists a bunch of powers that our government can do, including things like levy taxes, create a military, stuff like that. At the very end of the constitution they put the 10th Ammendment, which makes this law unconstitutional. This is what it says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
No where in the constitution does it give the government the power to fine people for not buying health insurance. Thus, unconstitutional.
You misunderstood my example of the "Inactive Man" as I'll call him. I'm not gonna dig that one up again though, as I feel it will only confuse things more. I guess I did not explain the example very well, although it remains at the heart of my disagreement with this law.
Now I believe we are getting down to the fundamental difference between our two positions on this law. In your message you say,
"My personal opinion is that this is a very small price to pay for a very small amount of the population (that is kind of doing them a favor anyways) to expand health care coverage to millions who couldn't afford or didn't qualify for it before."
This substantially infringes on my freedom. And for what? So other people can have health care? How about everyone go and live their own life and I'll live mine. You get health insurance if you want, and I'll get it if I want. Quit making rules that take away my freedom. Anything that threatens my freedom is the biggest threat out there. Give the government more power to tell us what to do, and we're a few steps from a socialist state. It scares me. A more powerful government is the most threatening thing to my freedom. I don't want to let them dictate if I get health insurance or not, even if it helps a lot of people get health care. Not worth it. The price is too high. My freedom is supreme.
Josh:
So the article Emilio put on facebook does a pretty good job of explaining this, definitely be sure to read that. http://www.politico.com/news/
"Any solution to the health care problem in the US that substantially infringes upon an individual's freedom I will not support." Infringing on one's freedom to be a free rider on the health care system of this country they have agreed to live in and abide by the rules of is very hard for me to realistically consider as a substantial infringement. In our society as it stands, freedom more closely means having the ability to set foot on an a level playing field as everyone else.
Also, with this individual mandate, if you are in a position in which you have to pay the tax or penalty or whatever you want to call it, you paying that gives you the base health coverage. So if this is a penalty it is not a penalty like a parking ticket where all you get for paying it is that you're no longer in trouble, you actually get a service for paying it. I don't find this radically different from the school voucher program the christian community wanted a while back, where they wanted to take the money they pay in taxes that go towards public schools and have it as a voucher they can put towards paying for their kids' private schools. In this analogy, the public schools would be the base service required by the government, and the private schools would be the private health care plans. That plan of theirs in particular wasn't very well thought out, as the base service had rather inadequate funding even before they wanted to take funds out of it, but you get the idea. On that note, where in the Constitution does it say kids have to go to school until a certain age? (even with home school kids if they aren't actually being home schooled then child services gets called, so let's just nevermind that exception) Health care is just another thing that society has decided should be available to all, and so all should pay for it - if anything you should be more mad about the infringed freedom of those that have to pay towards public schools that have no kids.
"And for what? So other people can have health care? How about everyone go and live their own life and I'll live mine. You get health insurance if you want, and I'll get it if I want."
Me:
"One of the most potent points is that regardless of whether it is a
penalty or a tax, what Romney set up here in MA is exactly the same, so
in no way is Obama your problem here."
-YouDo you understand the idea of federalism? It is the idea upon which our nation was founded. It is the idea that states have the ability to either adhere to the constitution and then adopt its conditions or to reject the constitution and be considered something separate from the US. As a well informed and intelligent American (I try not to boast, though I will not slight myself), please understand that I (and our Founding Fathers) adhere to this notion.
Ultimately, people are sovereign over government. In practice, States are sovereign over the federal government. Do you believe this? Do you believe that States have the right to remain in the United States or to be remove themselves from the United States if they want to? Do you want a strong federal government or a weak one? These questions, though seemingly unrelated, are in fact very relevant to (and indeed at the heart of) our current subject of conversation.
So you and Emilio bring up the fact that Romney imposed something similar to ObamaCare in Massachusetts. Did it work? I don't know because I've neglected to do the research myself and don't want to go fact digging right now. But I have heard that it worked in MA. So good for Romney! The people in his state voted for him and he went about installing a health insurance program similar to ObamaCare. If citizens in MA thought it too much of a infringement of freedom, they could move to another state. Romney can endorse ObamaCare in his own State and citizens in his state can vote to support or oppose it. In this case, they supported it. Good for States' rights.
You say in your statement that in no way is Obama my problem. Obama is exactly my problem, endorsing a policy that mandates nation-wide health insurance. If you believe in federalism and States' rights you understand the difference between Romney's Statewide health care statutes and Obama's nationwide statutes.
See what I'm getting at? I have a view of how our country should function that is based on individual freedom, federalism, and the constitution. If you have a different one, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to even try to give it some merit. But it seems that with the logic you've presented up to this point, you're in favor of a more government-controlled, socialized country. I could never encourage the slightest movement to what you tout would be a more "caring" society. Again, the cost is too high.
It's the idea of being told what to do. I hate it. I personally probably would not be substantially effected by the implement of ObamaCare, but I oppose it in principle. The idea of a government infringing on my freedom, no matter how trivial, makes my stomach turn. The federal government does not get to tell me how my healthcare works.
So now everyone must have health insurance. If you don't, you get fined and the most basic coverage. Who gave the government the right to make everyone get health care? Unconstitutional. That even sounds a bit like socialism, doesn't it? A government mandating something to its citizens and controlling part of the market. We're obviously a long way from socialism, but this is definitely a step towards it. A step I wish we wouldn't take.
You bring up the people who have no kids but still pay taxes that end up funding public schools. Yeah, that's not fair. Maybe I should run for office to get them to change the policy. I totally would, but I don't care about it that much. Evidently these people don't either, or someone would be talking about it. It seems the system we have currently is working without substantial detriment to those with no kids in public schools. Also, congress has the power to tax, so it's constitutional.
I believe everyone should be able to have health care. I don't believe that everyone should be forced to have it.
Sorry for the response delay. It's been a busy weekend over here.
Josh:
First, if you think states actually have a choice when it comes to adhering to the Constitution, I would like to refer you to the Civil War as to the country's actual stance on states trying to leave. There are certain states I'd be more than happy to see go, but in practice that's not how it really works.
As to the strong or weak federal government, I feel that attending to the well-being of the country's citizens, especially the least fortunate, is a noble and desirable goal for the federal government to pursue, and I'm more than happy to let it do so. We are among the last industrialized countries to address health care on a national level like this. This is not an odd thing to do, and it is by no means the socialistic mark of death that signals the end of our economy or the free market or whatever it is the talking heads can't stop barking about.
If you want to discuss the strength of the federal government, I'd like to once again point out that we could cut our military spending in half and still have by far the largest military force in the world, and the societal problems we could address with that amount of funding aren't even worth attempting to count. Needing a military that vastly overpowers any competition to feel secure is an issue I'd rather not address, I would feel fine with a fraction of what we have.
Let me frame it this way: poverty and illness are evils that claim the lives of far more American citizens than terrorism ever has or will, and the federal government spending tax dollars to combat those make all the sense in the world to me. Just because these are issues that we are well off enough that we have no reason to fear them, does not mean they are very real threats to large portions of the country's population, much more so than anything our military is there to protect us from.
As for state rights, an excerpt from that reddit piece I directed you towards:
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA(Obamacare), they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
http://housedocs.house.gov/
That is the actual bill, and sec.1332 on numbered page 98 (actually the 117th page of the document) this is explained in detail. So this completely adheres to state rights, as any state can come up with their own system to replace this, as long as it achieves the same coverage. If any state can figure out how to do this without the mandate and provide an alternative that people can move to the state to find, more power to them.
As to how you don't care about the people with no kids paying for schools, chances are that once this has been in place for a while and everyone having health insurance becomes the accepted status quo here as it is in almost every other industrialized country, nobody will really care about this either. This whole thing has mostly just been political posturing in an election year, so much so that now pretty much every Republican is also calling this a tax and saying that what Obama has really done has levied a tax increase against the middle class (even though it doesn't really do much if anything to their taxes). See? Whatever message can be used as an attack will be adopted, the rest is moot in time.
Being "told" to get health insurance is something most places find as common sense, and the same will be true here in time. When it comes to things the government is doing that threatens my freedom, I'd much rather spend my time worrying about things like the Patriot Act. Invading my privacy without (or with a very questionable) warrant is an actual infringement on my freedom that I believe needs to be fixed.
Me:
I think states have a choice when it comes to adhering to the Constitution. They can adhere to it and be a state in the Union or they cannot adhere and not be in the Union. Now and practically, States should be able to choose whether or not they want to be in the US. But if they want to be in the US, they must abide by the Constitution. In the War Between the States, the South simply wanted to leave the Union, not to overthrow it (which is why I do not call it a civil war). But Lincoln said no, the South must remain in the Union. And then a horrible, nasty war which could have been avoided if Lincoln had just let the South be their own country. But he didn't believe in a state's right to secede from the US. I do.
Would you agree that this is a step towards a more socialist system? I personally think we're the best country in the world (I'm biased, of course) and I believe that it stems from the fact that while other industrialized countries like those in Europe have become more socialistic in nature, America's Founding Fathers created a style of government that could not become powerful enough to impose detrimental, government-empowering policies in order to inhibit this socialistic drift. Whew, that was a mouthfull. Europe holds the majority of the other industrialized nations and they're not having a hell of a time over there right now, what with that crisis and all.
Ok ok, we could spend less on the military and more on social programs within the US. I'm with you there, but I'm still failing to understand your position on how much strength the federal government should have.
So because no state has come up with a better solution to the health care problem, we should all just accept that this is the best one out there and accept the impingement of freedom? I disagree, my friend. Because Obama and the democrats passed this law in a perfectly legal manner, all law-abiding citizens in the US will be either buying health insurance or paying extra "taxes," myself included. But just because I will comply with the law does not mean I support the law. I only brought up the issues of States' Rights vs Federal Rights to see where you stood on those more general topics. Could you maybe speak a little more on those, how you believe our government should function in relation to both?
I refuse to support this law simply because over time it will become the status quo. That doesn't make it more appealing or more constitutional. I realize that at some point in our nation's history there was probably a similar debate about funding schools. I'm not sure where I would have stood on that debate at the time, but I know where I stand on this one that's happening right now. Maybe when I get an extra few minutes I'll propose a massively different education system (but probably not).
"...it doesn't really do much if anything to their taxes.."
I'd love to hear how that works. Take a look at page 146 in that PPACA document you sent me (it's page 165 according the pdf reader). Also, this leads me to believe that we are straying slightly from the main topic of our argument. I oppose this law because it restricts my freedom to buy or not buy a certain service. The government should not be able to do that. Do you agree? Just in general, do you agree? Say the government told you that you had to get your car washed every week. Their justification is that it helps a significant part of the population. Would you support that law?
It doesn't matter how much the penalty (or tax; I can't even make up my mind at this point) costs the American who doesn't want health insurance. It's the fact that the government is telling the American what to do.
"Being "told" to get health insurance is something most places find as common sense..."
I don't want to be like most places. America is the freest country on Earth. I don't want to adopt policies that give our government more control, restrict our freedom, and make us more like "most places." I don't like being told by my government to do anything. If you love freedom like I do, then this is as abhorrent to you as it is to me.
End of emails.
And with that, we wished eachother a happy 4th of July and reveled in the fact that we still live in the greatest country on Earth. It's hard sometimes, when we argue so passionately about the future of our nation, to remember that we're all on the same team. I enjoy exercising my freedom of speech in conversation with Josh. Quick shout to him if he's reading. Thanks for keeping it interesting and allowing me to share this, man. It's real nice of you.
Please keep in mind that the writing in my emails might be less informed or less clear. I thought they would only be viewed by Josh and not put on a public website. Hopefully I didn't make any incredulous or ridiculous statements. Please let me know if I did. I hope you enjoyed reading. Comment below with thoughts and questions. Happy 4th everybody!
ObamaCare Back & Forth, Part One
About a week ago, I noticed that my good friend, Josh Bails, had posted a facebook status supporting the Supreme Court's decision that largely upheld the controversial health care law known as ObamaCare. I indicated that I was not quite as thrilled about the Court's decision. He then asked me to explain why I opposed the bill. This was what sparked what has been an intense and thoroughly enjoyable thread of emails between the two of us. I recently asked him if he would mind me posting them here and he was kind enough to encourage it.
It's pretty long, so I think I'll post it in 2 installments. The second one will be up as quickly as I can get it ready.
Let me give you a little background. "Me:" means I am writing and "Josh:" means Josh is writing. The first email in this thread is me responding to Josh's request on facebook for a well thought-out argument against ObamaCare. The subject like of my email simply said "Freedom."
Me:
That's mainly why I oppose the individual mandate. I don't want the government making me do things, even if they're making me do things that are good for my health. If I own a company, I don't want the government telling me how to run it. If I don't want healthcare, I shouldn't have to buy it.
Simple as that. Let me get my own healthcare if I want it. Let me not get healthcare if I don't want it. Let me be free.
I understand that it helps alot of people get insurance and that it attempts to stop insurance companies from "bad" policies. Those are all good and nice things, but the price is too high. Freedom is more important.
Thoughts?
Josh:
I understand the argument, but I feel a lot of it is refuted in the Supreme Court's own explanation - the individual mandate is legal *as a tax*.
Which makes perfect sense to me - it might be something you disagree with, but if it's something we've decided to provide the country with then so it goes. We get taxed for all kinds of things not just what we agree with. If it worked that way, I'd happily ask to get the part of my paycheck back that went towards making our military larger than the next 14 largest militaries combined.
When it comes to things like the government telling people how to run companies and whatnot, the majority of that is things that protect the population like health and pollution regulations, which I'm very happy are in place. I don't think any of these things are compromising our freedoms. I just see this as society finally deciding to cover the ambulance along with the cop car and the fire truck (overly simplified, but you get what i mean).
Me:
Well first, it's not a tax. A tax applies to everyone who buys a certain good. I buy a fridge, I pay a tax. I buy a sandwich, I pay a tax. Say I don't want to pay the tax on the sandwich then I am free to not buy it and not pay the tax.
This is a fine. I commit an offense, I pay a fine. Too long at the parking meter, I pay a fine. Drunk and urinate in the street (which kinda does sound like me), I pay a fine. Now it is an offense for me to not buy health care and now I must pay a fine. This bill defines not having healthcare as an offense (or crime or misbehavior or whatever word sounds better there) which incurs a fine.
You could ask here, "Well, you agree that people who stay too long at the meter deserve a fine. You agree that if you get drunk and urinate in the street you deserve a fine. Don't you think that you should be fined for not having health care?"
No. With the parking meter, I made a type of 'agreement' with the meter to stay only as long as I paid for. If I go over that time, I should be fined. With the peeing in the street, I most likely disturbed some passerby and affected them negatively and I should be fined. In the health care case, I have done nothing wrong. I simply don't want health insurance for some irrelevant reason. Now the government can fine me for choosing to not have healthcare? This is why I oppose the individual mandate.
The way in which the government spends its money is the subject a different and much lengthier email. I generally endorse military spending; makes me feel safe.
There are certain regulations that I support the government in enforcing, specifically those regarding pollution. A company should not be allowed to pollute the air or the water because that adversely affects nearby citizens. I as well am happy that those regulations are in place. With regard to health regulations, I'm not sure I know specifically what you're talking about. I most likely would not endorse them. I like my government small, with as little interaction in the market as possible.
tl:dr With regard to the individual mandate: it's not a tax, it's a fine on an offense that they create in the bill. It infringes on the freedom of US citizens.
I endorse some government regulations (pollution) but like to keep it as small and uninvolved as possible.
Make sense?
Josh:
While you can debate the semantics of it, the Supreme Court ruling is that it is a tax. That is therefore the new definition, so it is a tax. The reason it is there in the first place is so that no one can decide to just not have health insurance until right when they get sick, since the health care law doesn't let health insurance companies deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions. There are very few people that would seriously want to intentionally not have health insurance in the first place, and I doubt you are one of them.
By health regulations I meant things like what the FDA is there for, I doubt you want things to return to how they're described in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
Me:
What?! That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has no legislative power. It cannot say that something is a tax or is not a tax. Its only power lies in determining if laws are constitutional or not. In this case, they ruled the individual mandate constitutional because they think that the fines imposed on individuals without health insurance can be "construed" as taxes. But it does not make these fines taxes because the Supreme Court said so. Not at all. Here is Roberts' statement:
"It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’ power to tax."
So the Supreme Court says it's a tax thus making it constitutional, but not making it a tax by simply calling it one. They cannot define it to be a tax.
You bring up the example of a person not having insurance and then purchasing health insurance right when they get sick. If this were a free country, health insurers could refuse coverage to whoever they wanted, preexisting conditions or not. People would also be free to buy health insurance or not. If I choose to buy health insurance and then subsequently get sick, I'm covered. If I don't choose to buy health insurance and subsequently get sick, I'm fucked, but it was my choice to not buy health care and I'm a grown up and must deal with the consequences of my decisions. There's no need for government here. This way, if someone gets sick and then immediately tries to get health care, no care provider will take them. In regard to people with preexisting conditions, what happened to their previous health care provider? Or are they just an example of people who didn't get health insurance, got sick, and subsequently want it?
I want and have health insurance because I like having that security. If I get sick, my provider will be paying my medical bills. But who am I to mandate that everyone gets it?
I've never read The Jungle but I imagine I'm behind most of what the FDA does (I'd have to do a little research to make a definitive statement).
Josh:
So I was perhaps a bit hasty in my explanation of how it is a tax, but as you said it falls under congressional taxing power in their decision which is what I was getting at. I don't see letting someone not have health insurance and then getting fucked when they get sick as a very good example of freedom, if we've decided that everyone should be provided with basic care I really don't see how that constitutes a major infringement of freedom. That's like debating whether or not someone should be forced to pay for the fire department, and if they decide not to and get fucked when their house burns down then that's them exercising their freedom.
I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of the principle behind the individual mandate, but i see its necessity in provided much needed care and services to the rest of the population. I'm sorry, but I really think calling that a threat to any freedom as pretty blatant hyperbole.
Me:
From your last email:
"I don't see letting someone not have health insurance and then getting fucked when they get sick as a very good example of freedom..."
It might not be a pretty example of freedom because one person gets sick and then gets fucked, but it is nonetheless an example of freedom. It is an example of a freedom that this law would take away. Later in your last message, you say
"...I really think calling that a threat to any freedom as pretty blatant hyperbole."
when you are referring to the individual mandate. But by making it a crime to be uninsured, the government has not just threatened the individual's freedom, it has taken it away. I don't think calling a law out on what it does (takes away my right to be uninsured under penalty of a fine) is hyperbole at all.
You make a good point in the analogy with the fire department. However, there is a key difference between the two cases. It comes down to one being a federal law and one being a local law. I should be able to choose whether or not to pay for the fire department and, like you said, reap the consequences of my decision if my house burns down. But I am forced by my city (or state) to pay taxes to fund the fire department, potentially against my will. By my logic this is an infringement of freedom. But nothing is stopping me from moving to another state if I find this infringement unbearable. This is the beauty of the US. Our system of federalism allows for different state governments with different rules, laws, and taxes. If I find one not to my liking, I can move to another that I like more. The problem with imposing laws that infringe on citizens rights at the federal level is that I can no longer move to a different state. My ability to find a free state is gone.
See the difference? Understand the logic? Still reading? Wanna punch the obnoxious, capitalist, insensitive, uncaring ginger in the nose yet? Haha. I appreciate the conversation man.
Josh:
Well the first thing I see is no matter what state you move to you're still paying for a fire department, I didn't exactly get the reasoning there. And if you consider that an infringement of freedom and the individual mandate an infringement on a similar level then that's kind of unrealistic given how this country has been set up for quite some time.
And it's not a crime to not have health care, just if you don't you'll get taxed one percent and receive the most base care possible. Just as the police station paid for in your taxes is the base level of that service the country allows while you can choose to pay for a private security company as well.
Haha I get the logic, I'm just not sure how well informed it is :P
Me:
Ok, so if all the states make me pay for a fire department and it's that big of a deal to me, I call my state legislature and voice my opinions or I run for office myself on the platform of "No Public Fire Departments." Another beauty of our system is allowing anyone to run for office to change the issues that are important to them. I feel like the fire department tax is a significant infringement on my freedom (I don't in actuality, but for the sake of the argument) then I can run for office, convince people that I am right, and eventually change it. The only difference between the individual mandate and the fire department tax is that there are already prominent politicians in Washington declaring it's infringement of freedom, so I just support them. See the reasoning now?
Do I consider infringement of freedom in the form of a fire department tax to be on a similar level as infringement of freedom in the form of the individual mandate? Of course not. I support the fire department tax. Maybe I wouldn't have if it were just beginning right now, but its been long established and is relatively inexpensive. But you know how I feel about the individual mandate. So no, I don't think these two examples of freedom infringement are on the same analytical level.
The federal government is mandating that I get health care. If I don't, I have to give them money. It is NOT similar to a situation in which I'm funding a local police station and also paying for private security.
I think that should clear up some of the logic. I tried to keep it simple, well-informed.
Josh:
It isn't mandating any more than it is mandated that you get fire department service and police service. The money you have to give them if you don't is just a tax for which you will receive the base level of care. In any case yeah you can support people who think something is an infringement of a freedom, and where does that argument ultimately end up? In the Supreme Court. Who just made the ruling, and set the precedent, despite being empirically very conservative in most of its decisions in the past few years so the argument of rigged court doesn't hold much water either. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.
Me:
You keep calling it a tax. Did you understand my paragraph explaining how it's not a tax? It's a penalty, a fine, a punishment. I'm not doing what the government says, and I'm being punished.
They are mandating that I have insurance. This is an infringement of freedom similar to being forced to pay for a fire department. In my opinion, a fire department tax is necessary and does not substantially infringe on my freedom (see also the paragraph describing the difference between local law and federal law). Again, in my opinion, a mandate to buy health care does substantially infringe on my freedom. This is why I believe it to be unconstitutional and should be struck down. Now do you see the difference between funding the fire department and being forced to buy insurance? I've beat it to death at this point.
Considering our tax/fine discussion, maybe this argument will be more comprehensible for you. A tax stems from some sort of action. I actively buy a loaf of bread, I pay the tax. I own a property, I pay a tax. But what you refer to as the individual mandate "tax" stems from inaction (not having actively bought health insurance). This is an extreme example, but say I do nothing with my life. I've somehow managed to never buy things, not need food, not need property, clothes, etc. In all senses of the word, I am inactive. Thus I pay no tax, right? Not anymore. Obama wants to make me pay a fine for being inactive, not having health insurance. I would have lived happily ever after in my make believe world being inactive all the time, but now I'm being punished. This is unconstitutional.
Basically, a tax is a portion of my income or a portion of the price of a good/service that I pay for. I'm active in both endeavors. But now I'm being "taxed" for being passive, not buying a certain service. I consider this not a tax at all but a penalty, a fine. If I had decided to buy the health insurance and was forced to pay extra money to the government when I bought it, then you could call that a tax. But this is a penalty for being passive, not a tax at all.
I can see how you think of it as a tax. Can you see how I think of it as a fine?
So this is why ObamaCare ended up in the Supreme Court; some people thought it was an infringement of freedom that was unconstitutional and made an appeal. The Supreme Court, despite being quite conservative, ruled that the law was constitutional. Fair enough. This is the way in which our government works; I might not have agreed with the decision but I'm mature enough to realize the legitimacy of the process by which it was created, passed, and recently analyzed. However, just because the Supreme Court ruled the law as constitutional does not mean that I immediately take them at their word and implicitly believe them. Yes, they get to make the decision, but I am not obligated to adopt the same one. I don't really understand why you bring up the political leaning of the court. It's informative, but is not relevant if we're discussing the legitimacy of the individual mandate.
I think this is a pretty strong and well-explained argument. You understand my thinking now? Agree that it is a fine? Unconstitutional? Put all the benefits of the law aside for a moment and ask yourself if you think it's constitutional. You will find that it is not.
Please be open-minded, for the sake of a naive, aspiring, sincere youngster.
Me again:
Relevant:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/
Josh:
So I get your and Obama's points of it not being a tax in the traditional sense, but you also have to realize the last thing a politician wants to admit to is levying a new tax so of course he's going to do everything he can to talk it out of that definition. But honestly, Obama presents a much better argument than I do. If you have a car you're already required to get car insurance, and of course you have a body so now you're required to have health insurance too.
As to your hypothetical situation where you don't do anything to require any taxes whatsoever, then it that case you would most likely be broke, putting you under 133% of the poverty line, which waives the mandate for you, and most likely qualifies you for some sort of free health care through your state's Human and Health Services Department. And for anyone between 133% and 400% of the poverty line, they qualify for government subsidies be it on the mandated base care or a plan they choose. The only people being "forced" into anything are those that can afford health care but don't want to buy it until they need it. My personal opinion is that this is a very small price to pay for a very small amount of the population (that is kind of doing them a favor anyways) to expand health care coverage to millions who couldn't afford or didn't qualify for it before. This was no one's first choice as to how to make health care reform work, but it's a compromise that is worth it for what society gains in return. Also, if you have a certain part of the Constitution this violates when you call it unconstitutional I'd be interested to hear it.
Now please don't take this as me being someone who doesn't worry about the government overreaching their bounds and infringing on freedoms, I just think there are much more significant battles to be fought that present much worse threats than "forcing" everyone to have health care. For instance, bills like SOPA that want to put significant controls, restrictions, and possible censorship on the open web continue to show up in Congress and would cause much more troubling infringements on our freedoms. Things like this scare me much more than the individual mandate, and personally I find the mandate a lot lighter compromise for security over freedom than, say, what the TSA puts you through to get on an airplane when that system hasn't been very effective at achieving its goal.
There will always be an argument that this or any other law is in someway an infringement on your freedoms and involves putting one value over another to some degree (such as security/health over freedom/autonomy or vice versa when it comes to laws allowing certain levels or unrestricted levels of industrial pollution), and the individual mandate seems to be a rather insignificant one that provides a great service to be provided to even more of our population and I would find kind of a stretch to consider it a slippery slope towards more "fines" or even more socialistic policies, as this is still far from universal health care.
End of this installment.
So I'm not sure how links work in blogger. Maybe they still work? Comment below if you have problems. Installment 2 is coming soon so stay tuned!
It's pretty long, so I think I'll post it in 2 installments. The second one will be up as quickly as I can get it ready.
Let me give you a little background. "Me:" means I am writing and "Josh:" means Josh is writing. The first email in this thread is me responding to Josh's request on facebook for a well thought-out argument against ObamaCare. The subject like of my email simply said "Freedom."
Me:
That's mainly why I oppose the individual mandate. I don't want the government making me do things, even if they're making me do things that are good for my health. If I own a company, I don't want the government telling me how to run it. If I don't want healthcare, I shouldn't have to buy it.
Simple as that. Let me get my own healthcare if I want it. Let me not get healthcare if I don't want it. Let me be free.
I understand that it helps alot of people get insurance and that it attempts to stop insurance companies from "bad" policies. Those are all good and nice things, but the price is too high. Freedom is more important.
Thoughts?
Josh:
I understand the argument, but I feel a lot of it is refuted in the Supreme Court's own explanation - the individual mandate is legal *as a tax*.
Which makes perfect sense to me - it might be something you disagree with, but if it's something we've decided to provide the country with then so it goes. We get taxed for all kinds of things not just what we agree with. If it worked that way, I'd happily ask to get the part of my paycheck back that went towards making our military larger than the next 14 largest militaries combined.
When it comes to things like the government telling people how to run companies and whatnot, the majority of that is things that protect the population like health and pollution regulations, which I'm very happy are in place. I don't think any of these things are compromising our freedoms. I just see this as society finally deciding to cover the ambulance along with the cop car and the fire truck (overly simplified, but you get what i mean).
Me:
Well first, it's not a tax. A tax applies to everyone who buys a certain good. I buy a fridge, I pay a tax. I buy a sandwich, I pay a tax. Say I don't want to pay the tax on the sandwich then I am free to not buy it and not pay the tax.
This is a fine. I commit an offense, I pay a fine. Too long at the parking meter, I pay a fine. Drunk and urinate in the street (which kinda does sound like me), I pay a fine. Now it is an offense for me to not buy health care and now I must pay a fine. This bill defines not having healthcare as an offense (or crime or misbehavior or whatever word sounds better there) which incurs a fine.
You could ask here, "Well, you agree that people who stay too long at the meter deserve a fine. You agree that if you get drunk and urinate in the street you deserve a fine. Don't you think that you should be fined for not having health care?"
No. With the parking meter, I made a type of 'agreement' with the meter to stay only as long as I paid for. If I go over that time, I should be fined. With the peeing in the street, I most likely disturbed some passerby and affected them negatively and I should be fined. In the health care case, I have done nothing wrong. I simply don't want health insurance for some irrelevant reason. Now the government can fine me for choosing to not have healthcare? This is why I oppose the individual mandate.
The way in which the government spends its money is the subject a different and much lengthier email. I generally endorse military spending; makes me feel safe.
There are certain regulations that I support the government in enforcing, specifically those regarding pollution. A company should not be allowed to pollute the air or the water because that adversely affects nearby citizens. I as well am happy that those regulations are in place. With regard to health regulations, I'm not sure I know specifically what you're talking about. I most likely would not endorse them. I like my government small, with as little interaction in the market as possible.
tl:dr With regard to the individual mandate: it's not a tax, it's a fine on an offense that they create in the bill. It infringes on the freedom of US citizens.
I endorse some government regulations (pollution) but like to keep it as small and uninvolved as possible.
Make sense?
Josh:
While you can debate the semantics of it, the Supreme Court ruling is that it is a tax. That is therefore the new definition, so it is a tax. The reason it is there in the first place is so that no one can decide to just not have health insurance until right when they get sick, since the health care law doesn't let health insurance companies deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions. There are very few people that would seriously want to intentionally not have health insurance in the first place, and I doubt you are one of them.
By health regulations I meant things like what the FDA is there for, I doubt you want things to return to how they're described in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
Me:
What?! That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has no legislative power. It cannot say that something is a tax or is not a tax. Its only power lies in determining if laws are constitutional or not. In this case, they ruled the individual mandate constitutional because they think that the fines imposed on individuals without health insurance can be "construed" as taxes. But it does not make these fines taxes because the Supreme Court said so. Not at all. Here is Roberts' statement:
"It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’ power to tax."
So the Supreme Court says it's a tax thus making it constitutional, but not making it a tax by simply calling it one. They cannot define it to be a tax.
You bring up the example of a person not having insurance and then purchasing health insurance right when they get sick. If this were a free country, health insurers could refuse coverage to whoever they wanted, preexisting conditions or not. People would also be free to buy health insurance or not. If I choose to buy health insurance and then subsequently get sick, I'm covered. If I don't choose to buy health insurance and subsequently get sick, I'm fucked, but it was my choice to not buy health care and I'm a grown up and must deal with the consequences of my decisions. There's no need for government here. This way, if someone gets sick and then immediately tries to get health care, no care provider will take them. In regard to people with preexisting conditions, what happened to their previous health care provider? Or are they just an example of people who didn't get health insurance, got sick, and subsequently want it?
I want and have health insurance because I like having that security. If I get sick, my provider will be paying my medical bills. But who am I to mandate that everyone gets it?
I've never read The Jungle but I imagine I'm behind most of what the FDA does (I'd have to do a little research to make a definitive statement).
Josh:
So I was perhaps a bit hasty in my explanation of how it is a tax, but as you said it falls under congressional taxing power in their decision which is what I was getting at. I don't see letting someone not have health insurance and then getting fucked when they get sick as a very good example of freedom, if we've decided that everyone should be provided with basic care I really don't see how that constitutes a major infringement of freedom. That's like debating whether or not someone should be forced to pay for the fire department, and if they decide not to and get fucked when their house burns down then that's them exercising their freedom.
I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of the principle behind the individual mandate, but i see its necessity in provided much needed care and services to the rest of the population. I'm sorry, but I really think calling that a threat to any freedom as pretty blatant hyperbole.
Me:
From your last email:
"I don't see letting someone not have health insurance and then getting fucked when they get sick as a very good example of freedom..."
It might not be a pretty example of freedom because one person gets sick and then gets fucked, but it is nonetheless an example of freedom. It is an example of a freedom that this law would take away. Later in your last message, you say
"...I really think calling that a threat to any freedom as pretty blatant hyperbole."
when you are referring to the individual mandate. But by making it a crime to be uninsured, the government has not just threatened the individual's freedom, it has taken it away. I don't think calling a law out on what it does (takes away my right to be uninsured under penalty of a fine) is hyperbole at all.
You make a good point in the analogy with the fire department. However, there is a key difference between the two cases. It comes down to one being a federal law and one being a local law. I should be able to choose whether or not to pay for the fire department and, like you said, reap the consequences of my decision if my house burns down. But I am forced by my city (or state) to pay taxes to fund the fire department, potentially against my will. By my logic this is an infringement of freedom. But nothing is stopping me from moving to another state if I find this infringement unbearable. This is the beauty of the US. Our system of federalism allows for different state governments with different rules, laws, and taxes. If I find one not to my liking, I can move to another that I like more. The problem with imposing laws that infringe on citizens rights at the federal level is that I can no longer move to a different state. My ability to find a free state is gone.
See the difference? Understand the logic? Still reading? Wanna punch the obnoxious, capitalist, insensitive, uncaring ginger in the nose yet? Haha. I appreciate the conversation man.
Josh:
Well the first thing I see is no matter what state you move to you're still paying for a fire department, I didn't exactly get the reasoning there. And if you consider that an infringement of freedom and the individual mandate an infringement on a similar level then that's kind of unrealistic given how this country has been set up for quite some time.
And it's not a crime to not have health care, just if you don't you'll get taxed one percent and receive the most base care possible. Just as the police station paid for in your taxes is the base level of that service the country allows while you can choose to pay for a private security company as well.
Haha I get the logic, I'm just not sure how well informed it is :P
Me:
Ok, so if all the states make me pay for a fire department and it's that big of a deal to me, I call my state legislature and voice my opinions or I run for office myself on the platform of "No Public Fire Departments." Another beauty of our system is allowing anyone to run for office to change the issues that are important to them. I feel like the fire department tax is a significant infringement on my freedom (I don't in actuality, but for the sake of the argument) then I can run for office, convince people that I am right, and eventually change it. The only difference between the individual mandate and the fire department tax is that there are already prominent politicians in Washington declaring it's infringement of freedom, so I just support them. See the reasoning now?
Do I consider infringement of freedom in the form of a fire department tax to be on a similar level as infringement of freedom in the form of the individual mandate? Of course not. I support the fire department tax. Maybe I wouldn't have if it were just beginning right now, but its been long established and is relatively inexpensive. But you know how I feel about the individual mandate. So no, I don't think these two examples of freedom infringement are on the same analytical level.
The federal government is mandating that I get health care. If I don't, I have to give them money. It is NOT similar to a situation in which I'm funding a local police station and also paying for private security.
I think that should clear up some of the logic. I tried to keep it simple, well-informed.
Josh:
It isn't mandating any more than it is mandated that you get fire department service and police service. The money you have to give them if you don't is just a tax for which you will receive the base level of care. In any case yeah you can support people who think something is an infringement of a freedom, and where does that argument ultimately end up? In the Supreme Court. Who just made the ruling, and set the precedent, despite being empirically very conservative in most of its decisions in the past few years so the argument of rigged court doesn't hold much water either. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.
Me:
You keep calling it a tax. Did you understand my paragraph explaining how it's not a tax? It's a penalty, a fine, a punishment. I'm not doing what the government says, and I'm being punished.
They are mandating that I have insurance. This is an infringement of freedom similar to being forced to pay for a fire department. In my opinion, a fire department tax is necessary and does not substantially infringe on my freedom (see also the paragraph describing the difference between local law and federal law). Again, in my opinion, a mandate to buy health care does substantially infringe on my freedom. This is why I believe it to be unconstitutional and should be struck down. Now do you see the difference between funding the fire department and being forced to buy insurance? I've beat it to death at this point.
Considering our tax/fine discussion, maybe this argument will be more comprehensible for you. A tax stems from some sort of action. I actively buy a loaf of bread, I pay the tax. I own a property, I pay a tax. But what you refer to as the individual mandate "tax" stems from inaction (not having actively bought health insurance). This is an extreme example, but say I do nothing with my life. I've somehow managed to never buy things, not need food, not need property, clothes, etc. In all senses of the word, I am inactive. Thus I pay no tax, right? Not anymore. Obama wants to make me pay a fine for being inactive, not having health insurance. I would have lived happily ever after in my make believe world being inactive all the time, but now I'm being punished. This is unconstitutional.
Basically, a tax is a portion of my income or a portion of the price of a good/service that I pay for. I'm active in both endeavors. But now I'm being "taxed" for being passive, not buying a certain service. I consider this not a tax at all but a penalty, a fine. If I had decided to buy the health insurance and was forced to pay extra money to the government when I bought it, then you could call that a tax. But this is a penalty for being passive, not a tax at all.
I can see how you think of it as a tax. Can you see how I think of it as a fine?
So this is why ObamaCare ended up in the Supreme Court; some people thought it was an infringement of freedom that was unconstitutional and made an appeal. The Supreme Court, despite being quite conservative, ruled that the law was constitutional. Fair enough. This is the way in which our government works; I might not have agreed with the decision but I'm mature enough to realize the legitimacy of the process by which it was created, passed, and recently analyzed. However, just because the Supreme Court ruled the law as constitutional does not mean that I immediately take them at their word and implicitly believe them. Yes, they get to make the decision, but I am not obligated to adopt the same one. I don't really understand why you bring up the political leaning of the court. It's informative, but is not relevant if we're discussing the legitimacy of the individual mandate.
I think this is a pretty strong and well-explained argument. You understand my thinking now? Agree that it is a fine? Unconstitutional? Put all the benefits of the law aside for a moment and ask yourself if you think it's constitutional. You will find that it is not.
Please be open-minded, for the sake of a naive, aspiring, sincere youngster.
Me again:
Relevant:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/
Josh:
So I get your and Obama's points of it not being a tax in the traditional sense, but you also have to realize the last thing a politician wants to admit to is levying a new tax so of course he's going to do everything he can to talk it out of that definition. But honestly, Obama presents a much better argument than I do. If you have a car you're already required to get car insurance, and of course you have a body so now you're required to have health insurance too.
As to your hypothetical situation where you don't do anything to require any taxes whatsoever, then it that case you would most likely be broke, putting you under 133% of the poverty line, which waives the mandate for you, and most likely qualifies you for some sort of free health care through your state's Human and Health Services Department. And for anyone between 133% and 400% of the poverty line, they qualify for government subsidies be it on the mandated base care or a plan they choose. The only people being "forced" into anything are those that can afford health care but don't want to buy it until they need it. My personal opinion is that this is a very small price to pay for a very small amount of the population (that is kind of doing them a favor anyways) to expand health care coverage to millions who couldn't afford or didn't qualify for it before. This was no one's first choice as to how to make health care reform work, but it's a compromise that is worth it for what society gains in return. Also, if you have a certain part of the Constitution this violates when you call it unconstitutional I'd be interested to hear it.
Now please don't take this as me being someone who doesn't worry about the government overreaching their bounds and infringing on freedoms, I just think there are much more significant battles to be fought that present much worse threats than "forcing" everyone to have health care. For instance, bills like SOPA that want to put significant controls, restrictions, and possible censorship on the open web continue to show up in Congress and would cause much more troubling infringements on our freedoms. Things like this scare me much more than the individual mandate, and personally I find the mandate a lot lighter compromise for security over freedom than, say, what the TSA puts you through to get on an airplane when that system hasn't been very effective at achieving its goal.
There will always be an argument that this or any other law is in someway an infringement on your freedoms and involves putting one value over another to some degree (such as security/health over freedom/autonomy or vice versa when it comes to laws allowing certain levels or unrestricted levels of industrial pollution), and the individual mandate seems to be a rather insignificant one that provides a great service to be provided to even more of our population and I would find kind of a stretch to consider it a slippery slope towards more "fines" or even more socialistic policies, as this is still far from universal health care.
End of this installment.
So I'm not sure how links work in blogger. Maybe they still work? Comment below if you have problems. Installment 2 is coming soon so stay tuned!
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Thoughts on Health Care
As a person who has never bought health insurance, I am really not qualified to talk about it. I don't know the details, such as the price and the type of coverage, that are agreed to when a person buys health insurance. I don't know how insurance companies operate in industry or about their relationship with hospitals. I've also never been seriously sick or injured (thank God) so I have only a vague idea of how hospitals work. I don't know about how they hire doctors and nurses or how they go about charging their patients.
So now that I've convinced you to immediately discount everything I say, let me begin. As far as I see it, I should be allowed to buy health insurance from a company if I want to. I should also be allowed to not buy health insurance if I don't want to. Free country, right? I make a choice and must live with the consequences. I should be free to choose to give a company money periodically with the reservation that if I fall ill or become injured, that company must now pay my medical bills. I like to think that I would do this if I could afford it. I like to feel secure and I imagine that this would give me peace of mind.
If it were to happen that I could not afford the health insurance, that's tough. Maybe I should work very hard at my job so I can eventually afford it. But does our free market economy work in this particular market? I see no reason as to why it shouldn't. The health insurance companies want to insure as many people as possible; more customers means more profit. This means that they will seek to offer the lowest prices they can (while still making a profit) in order to become more appealing to the consumer than the other health insurance companies. This mentality drives prices down to something that most people can afford. Also, if health insurance becomes too expensive, fewer people buy it which compels the company to reduce the price.
Now I know all the liberals will be up in arms at this point saying things like "But the poor deserve health insurance too!" and "The health care industry is horrible, denying coverage to the sick," and things like that. I agree that it is sad when a sick, poor person cannot get the health care they need. There should be certain cases in which the government steps in and pays for the health care of the sick, poor individual. But there are also cases when the government should not step in to foot the medical bill.
Let's imagine a man who had the means to buy health insurance, but enjoyed and exercised his freedom to not buy it. Then he got sick and had to pay for all of his medical bills on his own. Now he has no money but still needs more medical treatment. Should the government pay for his treatment? Ehhh, I don't think so. He made a choice to not have health insurance and now he's reaping the (incredibly dire) consequences. It's sad, but comes with no cost to the taxpayer.
Now let's imagine a man who does not have the ability to buy health insurance. What happens when he gets sick? Well, if he didn't have the means to buy health insurance because he was lazy and didn't work, then he's outta luck and the government should not pay for his treatment. But say he's poor because he honestly couldn't find a job. He'd been out of work for several years after losing his job. He tried applying everywhere: all the companies in his particular industry, in related industries, local restaurants, even McDonalds. Then he got sick and couldn't pay for his treatment.
Here I'm torn. Part of me says that life is tough and the average Joe American should not be forced to pay for the health care of this guy who can't pay for it himself. It sounds mean, but in a truly free country, I should not be mandated to help him out. Now if he came to me personally and asked for help, maybe I would. Maybe I wouldn't. But either way I should not be forced to pay for his treatment.
But then another part of me says that we, as a moral and civilized society, should be mandated to pay for his health care. This part of me says that I should not oppose a tax that goes to help this man pay his medical bills. If this man would die without the care, we are obligated to pay for it. In this scenario, I'm being forced to pay for his treatment (a negative, losing a small bit of freedom) but I've allowed him to be healthy and continue his life (a positive, hooray for humanity).
So where does the role of the government lie? Could the sick, poor people make appeals to their community instead, sincerely asking for help with their medical bills? Would the community help? Or do we need a federal mandate that makes us all be "good" citizens and help the sick and the poor? What if I'm an asshole and don't want to help? Does the government have the right to tell me that I have to? I am unsure of where I stand in the case of the poor person who never could afford health insurance and eventually got sick. Leave a comment and try to convince me either way.
In the end, I'm always wary of government intervention in the economy; I'm afraid of an overly powerful government.
Maybe instead of imposing a tax to care of sick, poor people we could do something that would lower the price of medical treatment. Is that possible? Someone with more expertise in the medical industry could chime in here. Is there any way, even through government intervention, to lower the number on the average patient's hospital bill? Maybe this way more people would be able to afford their own care. I don't know; I'm just thinking out loud.
So this post addresses a more theoretical topic in regards to a government's right to tax and to provide health care to its citizens. I imagine my next post talking about the real-life example of Obamacare, its constitutionality, states' rights, etc. I have had an ongoing conversation with a friend of mine in which we argue about these topics. I have asked him if he wouldn't mind me posting some of our emails to eachother that I think would enlighten the discussion. Hopefully he gets back to me soon. I'm also thinking of writing a post about this same topic but from a very different perspective; I have a close friend who takes a vastly difference stance on this topic than I do and I want to try her argument on for size. No matter what's next, I'm sure there will end up being many posts about health care, so get ready.
Please comment below with thoughts or questions. I wanna know if you think I'm crazy, rational, ignorant, informed, uncaring, right-on, or a mixture of several.
So now that I've convinced you to immediately discount everything I say, let me begin. As far as I see it, I should be allowed to buy health insurance from a company if I want to. I should also be allowed to not buy health insurance if I don't want to. Free country, right? I make a choice and must live with the consequences. I should be free to choose to give a company money periodically with the reservation that if I fall ill or become injured, that company must now pay my medical bills. I like to think that I would do this if I could afford it. I like to feel secure and I imagine that this would give me peace of mind.
If it were to happen that I could not afford the health insurance, that's tough. Maybe I should work very hard at my job so I can eventually afford it. But does our free market economy work in this particular market? I see no reason as to why it shouldn't. The health insurance companies want to insure as many people as possible; more customers means more profit. This means that they will seek to offer the lowest prices they can (while still making a profit) in order to become more appealing to the consumer than the other health insurance companies. This mentality drives prices down to something that most people can afford. Also, if health insurance becomes too expensive, fewer people buy it which compels the company to reduce the price.
Now I know all the liberals will be up in arms at this point saying things like "But the poor deserve health insurance too!" and "The health care industry is horrible, denying coverage to the sick," and things like that. I agree that it is sad when a sick, poor person cannot get the health care they need. There should be certain cases in which the government steps in and pays for the health care of the sick, poor individual. But there are also cases when the government should not step in to foot the medical bill.
Let's imagine a man who had the means to buy health insurance, but enjoyed and exercised his freedom to not buy it. Then he got sick and had to pay for all of his medical bills on his own. Now he has no money but still needs more medical treatment. Should the government pay for his treatment? Ehhh, I don't think so. He made a choice to not have health insurance and now he's reaping the (incredibly dire) consequences. It's sad, but comes with no cost to the taxpayer.
Now let's imagine a man who does not have the ability to buy health insurance. What happens when he gets sick? Well, if he didn't have the means to buy health insurance because he was lazy and didn't work, then he's outta luck and the government should not pay for his treatment. But say he's poor because he honestly couldn't find a job. He'd been out of work for several years after losing his job. He tried applying everywhere: all the companies in his particular industry, in related industries, local restaurants, even McDonalds. Then he got sick and couldn't pay for his treatment.
Here I'm torn. Part of me says that life is tough and the average Joe American should not be forced to pay for the health care of this guy who can't pay for it himself. It sounds mean, but in a truly free country, I should not be mandated to help him out. Now if he came to me personally and asked for help, maybe I would. Maybe I wouldn't. But either way I should not be forced to pay for his treatment.
But then another part of me says that we, as a moral and civilized society, should be mandated to pay for his health care. This part of me says that I should not oppose a tax that goes to help this man pay his medical bills. If this man would die without the care, we are obligated to pay for it. In this scenario, I'm being forced to pay for his treatment (a negative, losing a small bit of freedom) but I've allowed him to be healthy and continue his life (a positive, hooray for humanity).
So where does the role of the government lie? Could the sick, poor people make appeals to their community instead, sincerely asking for help with their medical bills? Would the community help? Or do we need a federal mandate that makes us all be "good" citizens and help the sick and the poor? What if I'm an asshole and don't want to help? Does the government have the right to tell me that I have to? I am unsure of where I stand in the case of the poor person who never could afford health insurance and eventually got sick. Leave a comment and try to convince me either way.
In the end, I'm always wary of government intervention in the economy; I'm afraid of an overly powerful government.
Maybe instead of imposing a tax to care of sick, poor people we could do something that would lower the price of medical treatment. Is that possible? Someone with more expertise in the medical industry could chime in here. Is there any way, even through government intervention, to lower the number on the average patient's hospital bill? Maybe this way more people would be able to afford their own care. I don't know; I'm just thinking out loud.
So this post addresses a more theoretical topic in regards to a government's right to tax and to provide health care to its citizens. I imagine my next post talking about the real-life example of Obamacare, its constitutionality, states' rights, etc. I have had an ongoing conversation with a friend of mine in which we argue about these topics. I have asked him if he wouldn't mind me posting some of our emails to eachother that I think would enlighten the discussion. Hopefully he gets back to me soon. I'm also thinking of writing a post about this same topic but from a very different perspective; I have a close friend who takes a vastly difference stance on this topic than I do and I want to try her argument on for size. No matter what's next, I'm sure there will end up being many posts about health care, so get ready.
Please comment below with thoughts or questions. I wanna know if you think I'm crazy, rational, ignorant, informed, uncaring, right-on, or a mixture of several.
Thoughts on Gun Control
So I am in Portugal this summer and love to talk about politics with the local kids. I work at a laboratory that employs people from all over Europe so I get a nice perspective. Tonight I was enjoying a nice bottle of Portuguese red wine when one of the Spanish guys brought up the topic of gun control. For once I wasn't the first person to bring up a somewhat controversial political/social topic so I jumped in immediately with the idea that any of the girls who generally oppose controversial conversation topics would blame him instead of me for bringing it up (normally I get blamed).
There were 2 other Spanish people hanging out with us, along with 2 other Portuguese and 1 American. The Europeans, as far as I understood them, all supported stronger restrictions on guns than I and the other American did. Let me first try to summarize their argument for stricter gun control, even the mandate that no-one should own a gun.
Our argument was often (I'll address the other arguments later) centered around a certain hypothetical situation in which a robber with a gun enters a law-abiding citizen's house with the objective of either robbing the house or of killing the individuals living there. Their argument was this: if everyone is allowed to have a gun, there is a higher probability that someone gets killed (the robber or the family members), even if the robber did not want to kill the family in the house. They said that in a country like the US, everyone is allowed to have a gun and that when the robber enters, the home-owner is likely to shoot him or vice versa because both are armed. There is a higher probability that someone loses their life if everyone is allowed to have a gun. To them, this argument (along with their other arguments that I will explain later), gave the federal government the right to mandate that no individuals could own a gun.
I disagree with this. I don't think that the federal government should be allowed to say that all citizens of the country do not have the right to own a gun. At least in the US, freedom is the principle that I hold supreme over everything. Certainly yet to the contrary, I give up certain freedoms in pursuance of the general well-being of the nation as a whole. Like paying for education or our military, I am taxed on my paycheck or when I buy something and that tax money goes to funding a program that benefits everyone in the country. I acknowledge this as an impingement of freedom, but I do not immediately oppose it because (1) it is not immediately a controversial topic that I am considering and (2) I might endorse the funding of this certain program even understanding the impingement of freedom that it requires. I realize that I must do must more research on policies that impinge upon the citizen's freedom for the benefit of the greater society, but I have a limited amount of time so for now I'm gonna talk about gun control.
Let's get back to this hypothetical situation we were talking about earlier where a robber (with murder potential) enters my house. The Europeans were saying that I should not be allowed to have a gun to defend myself because if I had one, there would be a higher probability that someone would get killed in the exchange. They said that if he is the only one with a gun, he will be able to put myself and my whole family in a room while he robs me of all my belongings. Then no-one gets hurt.
Does an armed intruder expect to get shot if he enters a random house? Well wait a second, if he knows that it is illegal to own a gun and he thinks that the people that live there are law-abiding citizens (unlike himself) and will not own a gun, what is stopping him from robbing every house on the street? He's the only one with a gun so he can rob all the law-abiding citizens who don't have guns. But according to the Europeans, this is fine because no-one gets shot. They say that this is what the police are for, arriving after the robbery and attempting to replace your belongings and attempting to catch the robber.
I think that every person should have the right to own a gun. Let's revisit this same situation slightly altered; let's say that the home-owner is allowed by his government to own a gun and has purchased one. Now the robber comes in. The homeowner hears something unusual and wakes up, slightly confused as to what the disturbance could be. He knows his children and wife are sound sleepers so he grabs his gun from his nightstand just in case a robber has entered his house. As he goes to investigate the disturbance, he realizes that it is not his wife nor his children in his house, but a stranger. He then realizes the intruder is armed.
Stop! Realize the difference between the two hypothetical situations I've described. In both instances, an armed robber has entered a law-abiding citizen's house. In one situation, the home-owner is defenseless (compared to a gun, your tae kwon do and baseball bat don't count) and in the other the playing field is equal (two people with guns). Now I agree that the probability that someone gets shot is higher in the situation in which both individuals have guns, but I also believe that in the situation in which only the robber has a gun, the robber gets away with the crime much more often. And who is to say the robber is not crazy enough to kill the home-owner and his family even if they are unarmed? If he is crazy enough to rob a house, he might be crazy enough to kill the people that live there.
This is why I think every citizen should be allowed to own a gun. If I had a family and an intruder with a gun came into my house, I should have the right to shoot him. Again, if I think someone is meaning to cause harm to my wife and children, I should have the right to incapacitate them. Otherwise, how am I supposed to protect my family? With the police? They don't live at my house. Do you know what would live at my house? A gun. I fully support the police coming to my house to make sure I didn't just murder someone who was harmless and happened to wander into my house, but I also fully support my right as a free person to own a gun and use it in the defense of myself and my family.
The other main argument that the Spanish and the Portuguese proposed concerned the misuse of guns such as in the Columbine massacre, VT shootings, etc. Though I agree that these happenings are absolutely horrible, I do not agree that they warrant a federal law that makes owning a gun illegal. If the federal government said that no-one could own a gun, would it have stopped these boys from massacring a bunch of their classmates? I don't think so. If they are crazy enough to murder a bunch of their classmates, they are crazy enough to bypass the federal law that says they cannot have a gun. Would the massacre have happened if we imposed federal law mandating that no-one can have guns? That is just speculation so I will refrain from offering an opinion on that certain question. I believe human life to be sacred. However, I believe that the misuse of guns in the US is not a sufficient argument to take away the right to own a gun.
During the course of my conversation with these seemingly more liberal Europeans, I became aware of an important and dangerous fact: I am ok with certain infringements on my freedom but not with others. It would become apparent when I said I live in a free country where we can own a gun if we want and they counter-argued that I don't live in a free country because we must be 21 to drink or because we must pay taxes to the government. This is a valid argument and it will only be resolved when I fully analyze all the laws that impinge on individual freedom, but that will take a few years I believe. For now, I would like to summarize my feelings about gun control.
I think the right to own a gun (or the general prominent weapon of the age) is important for each individual to protect their own life and assets. A gun may be used in improper ways, but the circumstances that result from its improper use do not validate its prohibition by the federal government. Tomorrow I hope to look into some statistics about gun control; hopefully I can find some numbers that are as easily comprehensible as those in the immigration post.
I thought health care was next but it turned out to be gun control. I'm definitely gonna get around to health care though, believe me. Hope you understand my reasoning here! I'd love some comments. Let's get some debate going!
There were 2 other Spanish people hanging out with us, along with 2 other Portuguese and 1 American. The Europeans, as far as I understood them, all supported stronger restrictions on guns than I and the other American did. Let me first try to summarize their argument for stricter gun control, even the mandate that no-one should own a gun.
Our argument was often (I'll address the other arguments later) centered around a certain hypothetical situation in which a robber with a gun enters a law-abiding citizen's house with the objective of either robbing the house or of killing the individuals living there. Their argument was this: if everyone is allowed to have a gun, there is a higher probability that someone gets killed (the robber or the family members), even if the robber did not want to kill the family in the house. They said that in a country like the US, everyone is allowed to have a gun and that when the robber enters, the home-owner is likely to shoot him or vice versa because both are armed. There is a higher probability that someone loses their life if everyone is allowed to have a gun. To them, this argument (along with their other arguments that I will explain later), gave the federal government the right to mandate that no individuals could own a gun.
I disagree with this. I don't think that the federal government should be allowed to say that all citizens of the country do not have the right to own a gun. At least in the US, freedom is the principle that I hold supreme over everything. Certainly yet to the contrary, I give up certain freedoms in pursuance of the general well-being of the nation as a whole. Like paying for education or our military, I am taxed on my paycheck or when I buy something and that tax money goes to funding a program that benefits everyone in the country. I acknowledge this as an impingement of freedom, but I do not immediately oppose it because (1) it is not immediately a controversial topic that I am considering and (2) I might endorse the funding of this certain program even understanding the impingement of freedom that it requires. I realize that I must do must more research on policies that impinge upon the citizen's freedom for the benefit of the greater society, but I have a limited amount of time so for now I'm gonna talk about gun control.
Let's get back to this hypothetical situation we were talking about earlier where a robber (with murder potential) enters my house. The Europeans were saying that I should not be allowed to have a gun to defend myself because if I had one, there would be a higher probability that someone would get killed in the exchange. They said that if he is the only one with a gun, he will be able to put myself and my whole family in a room while he robs me of all my belongings. Then no-one gets hurt.
Does an armed intruder expect to get shot if he enters a random house? Well wait a second, if he knows that it is illegal to own a gun and he thinks that the people that live there are law-abiding citizens (unlike himself) and will not own a gun, what is stopping him from robbing every house on the street? He's the only one with a gun so he can rob all the law-abiding citizens who don't have guns. But according to the Europeans, this is fine because no-one gets shot. They say that this is what the police are for, arriving after the robbery and attempting to replace your belongings and attempting to catch the robber.
I think that every person should have the right to own a gun. Let's revisit this same situation slightly altered; let's say that the home-owner is allowed by his government to own a gun and has purchased one. Now the robber comes in. The homeowner hears something unusual and wakes up, slightly confused as to what the disturbance could be. He knows his children and wife are sound sleepers so he grabs his gun from his nightstand just in case a robber has entered his house. As he goes to investigate the disturbance, he realizes that it is not his wife nor his children in his house, but a stranger. He then realizes the intruder is armed.
Stop! Realize the difference between the two hypothetical situations I've described. In both instances, an armed robber has entered a law-abiding citizen's house. In one situation, the home-owner is defenseless (compared to a gun, your tae kwon do and baseball bat don't count) and in the other the playing field is equal (two people with guns). Now I agree that the probability that someone gets shot is higher in the situation in which both individuals have guns, but I also believe that in the situation in which only the robber has a gun, the robber gets away with the crime much more often. And who is to say the robber is not crazy enough to kill the home-owner and his family even if they are unarmed? If he is crazy enough to rob a house, he might be crazy enough to kill the people that live there.
This is why I think every citizen should be allowed to own a gun. If I had a family and an intruder with a gun came into my house, I should have the right to shoot him. Again, if I think someone is meaning to cause harm to my wife and children, I should have the right to incapacitate them. Otherwise, how am I supposed to protect my family? With the police? They don't live at my house. Do you know what would live at my house? A gun. I fully support the police coming to my house to make sure I didn't just murder someone who was harmless and happened to wander into my house, but I also fully support my right as a free person to own a gun and use it in the defense of myself and my family.
The other main argument that the Spanish and the Portuguese proposed concerned the misuse of guns such as in the Columbine massacre, VT shootings, etc. Though I agree that these happenings are absolutely horrible, I do not agree that they warrant a federal law that makes owning a gun illegal. If the federal government said that no-one could own a gun, would it have stopped these boys from massacring a bunch of their classmates? I don't think so. If they are crazy enough to murder a bunch of their classmates, they are crazy enough to bypass the federal law that says they cannot have a gun. Would the massacre have happened if we imposed federal law mandating that no-one can have guns? That is just speculation so I will refrain from offering an opinion on that certain question. I believe human life to be sacred. However, I believe that the misuse of guns in the US is not a sufficient argument to take away the right to own a gun.
During the course of my conversation with these seemingly more liberal Europeans, I became aware of an important and dangerous fact: I am ok with certain infringements on my freedom but not with others. It would become apparent when I said I live in a free country where we can own a gun if we want and they counter-argued that I don't live in a free country because we must be 21 to drink or because we must pay taxes to the government. This is a valid argument and it will only be resolved when I fully analyze all the laws that impinge on individual freedom, but that will take a few years I believe. For now, I would like to summarize my feelings about gun control.
I think the right to own a gun (or the general prominent weapon of the age) is important for each individual to protect their own life and assets. A gun may be used in improper ways, but the circumstances that result from its improper use do not validate its prohibition by the federal government. Tomorrow I hope to look into some statistics about gun control; hopefully I can find some numbers that are as easily comprehensible as those in the immigration post.
I thought health care was next but it turned out to be gun control. I'm definitely gonna get around to health care though, believe me. Hope you understand my reasoning here! I'd love some comments. Let's get some debate going!
Monday, July 2, 2012
Then What Do We Do About It?
My last post about illegal immigration was focused mainly on the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the controversial Arizona law. I'm gonna go in a very slightly different direction here. This post will be about some research I did and the conclusions I came to afterwards.
Let me preface this post by laying down my personal philosophy regarding treatment of illegal immigrants by the US government. I believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported from the US. If you come here illegally, we have the right, and I will contend that we have the duty, to remove you. But this is obviously more easily said than done. I ran into one big problem when I was considering how to remove all the illegal aliens currently living in the States: we don't have enough money. I did a little research and played with some numbers. This is what I found.
According to Kumar Kibble, deputy director at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), it costs $12,500 on average to deport an illegal immigrant, or at least it did in January of last year when he made the statement. (I have a PDF of the entire hearing where he stated this, if you want to verify; just email me. Also it's not hard to find online.) But according to the Center for American Progress, it costs between $23,000 and $24,000 to deport an illegal immigrant (got this from their article The Costs of Mass Deportation: Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective, Fitz and Martinez, 2010). Someone has to be wrong, but I don't know if it's Kumar or the Center for American Progress so I'm gonna keep both numbers around.
Also in Kumar's statement, he says that ICE has the ability to deport approximately 400,000 illegal aliens a year. Well, if I take a guess and say that there are 12 million illegal residents (that's about what everyone on the internet was saying) currently in the US, it's gonna take us a long time to get every single one out. But first let's do a little math and see how much we're spending on deporting illegal immigrants.
(400,000 deportations) x ($12,500) = $5 billion. Or
(400,000 deportations) x ($23,500) = $9.4 billion.
So we're spending either $5 billion or $9.4 billion deporting illegal aliens depending on whether you want to believe Kumar or the Center for American Progress. I looked into some historical tables at the OMB website to check out the funding of the Department of Homeland Security, the broader department that encompasses ICE. In 2010, they received about $44.5 billion. In 2011, they got $45.7 billion. What's weird is that in 2012, they're expected to get $60.4 billion. In any case, given the suspected increase in funding of the Department of Homeland Security (at least in 2012), I would expect more illegals to be deported.
In an idealized situation, no more illegals are entering the country. Let's make another stretch and say that with increased funding ICE can deport 500,000 illegals a year (it will also make our math prettier). Then it would take
(12 million illegal residents) / (500,000 deportations per year) = 24 years.
If we assume no immigrants are coming into the country illegally, it will take us 24 years to get all the illegal aliens out! 24 years!
But we would be ignorant to think that there is no illegal immigration currently happening. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 500,000 Mexicans emigrate to the US illegally each year. So at best we're just treading water! What does this tell me? It tells me that before we spend our money on deporting the illegals that are already here, we must secure our borders. If we don't, we'll never make any progress deporting these aliens. Has no-one figured this out? We need more fences or more guards or attack dogs or airplanes or night vision goggles or whatever the hell we use to protect our borders.
Before doing this research, I had no idea that the problem was this bad. We simply don't have enough money to deport all the illegal immigrants in the US. They're coming in, just from Mexico, as quickly as we can get them out. Our first priority should be the defense of our borders; only when they are secure will we be able to substantially reduce the number of illegal aliens in the US.
That's all I have on immigration for right now. Eventually I might look into some of Obama's amnesty programs. I think I'll be writing about health care and states' rights next. It might get ugly. (I hope it does.)
Let me preface this post by laying down my personal philosophy regarding treatment of illegal immigrants by the US government. I believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported from the US. If you come here illegally, we have the right, and I will contend that we have the duty, to remove you. But this is obviously more easily said than done. I ran into one big problem when I was considering how to remove all the illegal aliens currently living in the States: we don't have enough money. I did a little research and played with some numbers. This is what I found.
According to Kumar Kibble, deputy director at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), it costs $12,500 on average to deport an illegal immigrant, or at least it did in January of last year when he made the statement. (I have a PDF of the entire hearing where he stated this, if you want to verify; just email me. Also it's not hard to find online.) But according to the Center for American Progress, it costs between $23,000 and $24,000 to deport an illegal immigrant (got this from their article The Costs of Mass Deportation: Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective, Fitz and Martinez, 2010). Someone has to be wrong, but I don't know if it's Kumar or the Center for American Progress so I'm gonna keep both numbers around.
Also in Kumar's statement, he says that ICE has the ability to deport approximately 400,000 illegal aliens a year. Well, if I take a guess and say that there are 12 million illegal residents (that's about what everyone on the internet was saying) currently in the US, it's gonna take us a long time to get every single one out. But first let's do a little math and see how much we're spending on deporting illegal immigrants.
(400,000 deportations) x ($12,500) = $5 billion. Or
(400,000 deportations) x ($23,500) = $9.4 billion.
So we're spending either $5 billion or $9.4 billion deporting illegal aliens depending on whether you want to believe Kumar or the Center for American Progress. I looked into some historical tables at the OMB website to check out the funding of the Department of Homeland Security, the broader department that encompasses ICE. In 2010, they received about $44.5 billion. In 2011, they got $45.7 billion. What's weird is that in 2012, they're expected to get $60.4 billion. In any case, given the suspected increase in funding of the Department of Homeland Security (at least in 2012), I would expect more illegals to be deported.
In an idealized situation, no more illegals are entering the country. Let's make another stretch and say that with increased funding ICE can deport 500,000 illegals a year (it will also make our math prettier). Then it would take
(12 million illegal residents) / (500,000 deportations per year) = 24 years.
If we assume no immigrants are coming into the country illegally, it will take us 24 years to get all the illegal aliens out! 24 years!
But we would be ignorant to think that there is no illegal immigration currently happening. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 500,000 Mexicans emigrate to the US illegally each year. So at best we're just treading water! What does this tell me? It tells me that before we spend our money on deporting the illegals that are already here, we must secure our borders. If we don't, we'll never make any progress deporting these aliens. Has no-one figured this out? We need more fences or more guards or attack dogs or airplanes or night vision goggles or whatever the hell we use to protect our borders.
Before doing this research, I had no idea that the problem was this bad. We simply don't have enough money to deport all the illegal immigrants in the US. They're coming in, just from Mexico, as quickly as we can get them out. Our first priority should be the defense of our borders; only when they are secure will we be able to substantially reduce the number of illegal aliens in the US.
That's all I have on immigration for right now. Eventually I might look into some of Obama's amnesty programs. I think I'll be writing about health care and states' rights next. It might get ugly. (I hope it does.)
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Thoughts on Illegal Immigration
Arizona has a big problem with illegal immigrants. They recently tried to pass a law, Arizona Senate Bill 1070, that would help deport these illegal aliens. Good for them, right? States should be able to make and enforce their own laws provided they are constitutional.
As far as I understand it, the Arizona law had 4 main provisions. I have not read the bill, so I don't know the exact wording, but the main provisions go something like this.
1) Police are required to check the immigration status of the offender in any lawful stop.
The Department of Justice thought that this law was unconstitutional so it filed a challenge. Eventually, this case made its way to the Supreme Court. When it made its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the last 3 provisions were unconstitutional citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It says this:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
So I have never studied law but I don't see how this Arizona bill undermines the supremacy of federal law or the Constitution. What I think is happening is this. Immigration has generally been considered a federal government issue, not a state government issue. When Arizona wanted to make harsher penalties or create new restrictions in this bill, it was simply trying to solve it's illegal immigration problem. But the federal government usually deals with this problem so it got mad when Arizona tried to do it on its own. So the Court ruled in favor of federal law.
Basically, the Court said that federal laws trump (or in legal jargon, "pre-empt") states' laws. I am displeased with this. If Arizona had made a law that contradicted a federal law, then I could see the Supremacy Clause as legal grounds to discard the Arizona law. But it didn't do that! The Arizona law does not contradict any federal laws as far as I know. In my understanding, it just created some more restrictions (can't apply for work, must carry registration papers) and gave police more power to find illegal immigrants. That should be fine in Arizona if they vote to pass it, which they did.
Also, why did the Supreme Court leave the 1st provision and strike down the other 3? This I really don't understand. Doesn't the 1st provision violate the Supremacy Clause if the others do? Someone explain this to me.
I like the first 3 provisions of the bill. Requiring police to check the immigration status of everyone they stop eliminates racial profiling. Requiring illegal aliens to carry their papers is simple and I imagine gives some legal ground on which we can deport some illegals. Taking away the illegals' right to work allows Arizona to prosecute illegals who come here to find a job which I imagine is the vast majority.
But I don't support the last provision. It gives police the right to stop anyone they think has committed a crime that would make them removable from the US (presumably coming here illegally). In theory, this would be a great law. Police would think that a certain person is an illegal immigrant for some reason or another and then would have the ability to detain that person until they receive information on their immigration status. But I imagine this provision could quickly turn sour. Give police the ability to arrest people just because they have a hunch that they came here illegally. They could arrest me, if I happened to be driving through Arizona, and give no reason except that they think they have probable cause that I did something that would warrant my removal from the US. Then, only when they found that I have done nothing that warrants such action, they would have to let me go. Basically, my bone to pick with this last provision is that it gives too much power to police officers. I don't think they should be able to arrest someone simply because they think that person has done something warranting their removal from the US. Anyone well-versed in constitutional law want to give me a clause that I could cite that would make this provision unconstitutional? Please?
But then again, the Arizona state legislature passed the bill, the governor signed it into law, all by lawful process. I'm just mad that the Court ruled the way it did. I'm a fan of the individual states, not so much the federal government. Basically I wish they had ruled in favor of states' rights to make their own laws if the states feel the federal laws insufficient.
I did some more research on immigration to see if I could come up with a good solution to the problem. Expect another post about that soon. It's got more data and is pretty informative (at least it was for me). I'm gonna go see if I can find it. Thanks for reading! Comment below so we can get some good dialogue going!
As far as I understand it, the Arizona law had 4 main provisions. I have not read the bill, so I don't know the exact wording, but the main provisions go something like this.
1) Police are required to check the immigration status of the offender in any lawful stop.
2) Illegal immigrants must have their registration papers with them at all times.
3) Illegal immigrants cannot apply for work.
4) Police have permission to make warrantless arrests if they believe there is probable cause that the offence would make the offender removable from the US.The Department of Justice thought that this law was unconstitutional so it filed a challenge. Eventually, this case made its way to the Supreme Court. When it made its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the last 3 provisions were unconstitutional citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It says this:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
So I have never studied law but I don't see how this Arizona bill undermines the supremacy of federal law or the Constitution. What I think is happening is this. Immigration has generally been considered a federal government issue, not a state government issue. When Arizona wanted to make harsher penalties or create new restrictions in this bill, it was simply trying to solve it's illegal immigration problem. But the federal government usually deals with this problem so it got mad when Arizona tried to do it on its own. So the Court ruled in favor of federal law.
Basically, the Court said that federal laws trump (or in legal jargon, "pre-empt") states' laws. I am displeased with this. If Arizona had made a law that contradicted a federal law, then I could see the Supremacy Clause as legal grounds to discard the Arizona law. But it didn't do that! The Arizona law does not contradict any federal laws as far as I know. In my understanding, it just created some more restrictions (can't apply for work, must carry registration papers) and gave police more power to find illegal immigrants. That should be fine in Arizona if they vote to pass it, which they did.
Also, why did the Supreme Court leave the 1st provision and strike down the other 3? This I really don't understand. Doesn't the 1st provision violate the Supremacy Clause if the others do? Someone explain this to me.
I like the first 3 provisions of the bill. Requiring police to check the immigration status of everyone they stop eliminates racial profiling. Requiring illegal aliens to carry their papers is simple and I imagine gives some legal ground on which we can deport some illegals. Taking away the illegals' right to work allows Arizona to prosecute illegals who come here to find a job which I imagine is the vast majority.
But I don't support the last provision. It gives police the right to stop anyone they think has committed a crime that would make them removable from the US (presumably coming here illegally). In theory, this would be a great law. Police would think that a certain person is an illegal immigrant for some reason or another and then would have the ability to detain that person until they receive information on their immigration status. But I imagine this provision could quickly turn sour. Give police the ability to arrest people just because they have a hunch that they came here illegally. They could arrest me, if I happened to be driving through Arizona, and give no reason except that they think they have probable cause that I did something that would warrant my removal from the US. Then, only when they found that I have done nothing that warrants such action, they would have to let me go. Basically, my bone to pick with this last provision is that it gives too much power to police officers. I don't think they should be able to arrest someone simply because they think that person has done something warranting their removal from the US. Anyone well-versed in constitutional law want to give me a clause that I could cite that would make this provision unconstitutional? Please?
But then again, the Arizona state legislature passed the bill, the governor signed it into law, all by lawful process. I'm just mad that the Court ruled the way it did. I'm a fan of the individual states, not so much the federal government. Basically I wish they had ruled in favor of states' rights to make their own laws if the states feel the federal laws insufficient.
I did some more research on immigration to see if I could come up with a good solution to the problem. Expect another post about that soon. It's got more data and is pretty informative (at least it was for me). I'm gonna go see if I can find it. Thanks for reading! Comment below so we can get some good dialogue going!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)