The General Welfare Clause

The “General Welfare” clause
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
– Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

This posting covers many areas spanning from the original institution through the beginning of the subversion of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This document relies on vetted on-line information, books, and other available materials from institutes of higher education. Credit will be given to the best of the ability of this writer. Spelling will contain the spelling of the time of publication. I can only hope this post can lead to further discussion of the subject matter.

Article 1 [Legislative Branch] Section 8 [Powers of Congress] of the US Constitution defines what the enumerated duties of the Federal Government are while Amendment 10 [ratified December 15, 1791], which is also known as the States’ Rights Amendment, reinforces what is inside and outside the purview of the Federal government. The Constitution was written and ratified to both authorize and limit the powers of the Federal government listing those enumerated duties which, in part, were reaffirmed with the Tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights two years later.

Renderings of the exact enumerated duties are commonplace in the age of the internet; however, this post will look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about the Constitution in general and the “general welfare clause” in particular. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one …” Madison also said, “With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” Reiterating, Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

Reaffirmation comes as part of the Bill of Rights, and in particular, the 10th Amendment which embodies the general principles of Federalism in a republican form of government. The Constitution specifies the parameters of authority that may be exercised by the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative, and judicial while the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising.

With consideration that the Framers were wary of a centralized government, they created a novel system of mixed sovereignty between duties of the national (Federal) government and those of the States. Noted in The Federalist No. 39, the new government was “in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.” Critical to this system was the enumerated federal powers, which allows the federal government to operate only within defined areas where the States individually could not. Federalist No. 33 states that a congressional act beyond its enumerated powers is “merely [an] act of usurpation” which “deserves to be treated as such.” Additionally, in Federalist No. 45, Madison explained: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Governments control people–constitutions control governments

Article I of the Constitution elaborates the most careful delineation of powers and principles of representation. The list of legislative powers in Article I, Section 8 serves as a template by which we may assess the charges against the King. This same pattern is evinced in the Bill of Rights, which opens with the powerful stricture, “Congress shall make no law…” One needs to look no further than President Lincoln who referred to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as “An Apple of Gold In a Silver Frame.” Additionally, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising.

With the many writings and comments of the Founders one can realize the general substance with respect towards the federal government was one not one of ever expansive powers but rather one of restriction on both power and scope. The federal government was one not one of ever expansive powers but rather one of restriction on both power and scope. According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

For example, nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents. Known as ‘Police Powers’, such authority is reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, no State may enter into a treaty with a foreign government because such agreements are prohibited by the plain language of Article I to the Constitution.

On the subject of plain language, one must review the language structure as another aid in deciphering the original intent of this clause. Perhaps no phrase found in the Constitution has been more distorted in actual use and application than the provision that one broad purpose of our government is to promote the general welfare throughout the United States. To quickly dismiss the grammatical naysayers; this can be quickly answered by many sites like ”Understanding the Constitution”, and “What Does the General Welfare Clause Really Mean?” or many others. What one will find is that our Founders only listed the enumerated duties and “General Welfare” was not one of them. The rest of this post will point towards the Founder’s vision and not one of the Progressive’s convoluted view towards redistribution of wealth and property in this modern era.

Where does this leave us—the current occupants of America? One needs to review the history ‘of us’ to understand. What happened? Starting with Woodrow Wilson and his transformation of Constitutional Law into the study Supreme Court opinions (Constitutional Law v. Case Law) destroyed Constitutional Law as we knew it. The second great push of Socialism came, in particular, under FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt), with the country coming out of a government-imposed depression (1935), his request for extraordinary “powers similar to those necessary in time of war”, and poorly crafted legislation–we, as a nation, ended up with 8 of 10 rebukes of the “New Deal” legislation as unconstitutional; however, as FDR stated “we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.”

Revolution of 1937

Constitutional historians refer to what happened next as the “Revolution of 1937.” The President proposed that for each sitting justice over the age of seventy there be appointed one new Justice to “help them with their case load.” In reality, FDR wanted to pack the court with six additional justices willing to declare all of his “must legislation” Constitutional. What was about to happen would ultimately lead our country to the clear and present danger of economic insolvency. The Supreme Court at the time consisted of four conservatives, three liberals, one moderate, and one swing.

With the “packed” Federal courts, we have United States v. Butler (1936) and Helvering v. Davis (1937). In Butler, the Court struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which taxed processors in order to pay farmers to reduce production. Although invalidating the statute, the Court adopted the Hamiltonian view (almost in passing) that the General Welfare Clause is a separate grant of congressional authority, linked to and qualified by the spending power.

Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: “Nor is the concept of the general welfare static…. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.”

Nevertheless, the American population was forced into a Ponzi scheme called Social Security and an equally reprehensible health care system forever dividing classes of people known as Medicare and Medicaid. Not to mention what affronts the population today. Following FDR, we have Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) with the “War on Poverty”, and the continuing onslaught of other Progressive schemes. This takes us to 1969 and the additional misconceptions pushed forward by the Liberals and Progressives ever since. The one thing you will note is none of these were won in a fair contest but always after ramming through the unpopular under a guise of “People’s needs”, “the War on Poverty”, or something else sounding noble with socialist intents.

In Closing I have two quotes for the readers to contemplate before response:

Former slave Frederick Douglass advised: “Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. … The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

-and-

‘If you compare the vision of our nation’s founders to the behavior of today’s Congress, White House and U.S. Supreme Court, you would have to conclude that there is no longer rule of law where there is a set of general rules applicable to all persons. Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs who, with Supreme Court sanction, issue orders commanding particular people to do particular things. Most Americans neither understand nor appreciate the spirit and letter of the Constitution and accept Congress’ arbitrary orders and privileges based upon status.’
–Walter E. Williams

Advertisements

145 thoughts on “The General Welfare Clause

  1. GMB January 9, 2013 / 4:11 am

    “Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs…” Why yes we are. And those that co-operate with them for whatever reason. You can comfort yourself with the knowledge, that these men and women, who sit in the halls of power, were absolutely the best that be put there.

    Even now that the common person is paying the price for not opposing progressivism, you are still looking for an easy way out.

    Keep looking.

    • neocon01 January 9, 2013 / 4:38 am

      “Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs

      we are faced with liberals = socialists = marxists = communists in high government places who hate the constitution and want to tear it to shreds, from the marxist muslim usurper, to congress, senate, to our schools.
      ————————————————————————————–
      You can comfort yourself with the knowledge, that these men and women, who sit in the halls of power, were absolutely the best that be put there.

      the kenyan? bwany fwank? bite me? the coward JFnK? piglowsey? reidtard?
      IF so, then we are sooooo screwed

      • neocon01 January 9, 2013 / 4:41 am

        Constitution??????
        We don needs no steeenkin Konstitution

        EXCLUSIVE: Cuomo Close To Announcing Sweeping New Gun Control Laws
        Governor Working On Deal That Would Go After Assault Weapons, Magazines

      • neocon01 January 9, 2013 / 4:50 am

        Little Canada man videotaped sheriff’s deputies, and got charged for it

        He had been filming from about 30 feet away, he said. Henderson said deputies gave him no warning before Muellner took his camera.

        The deputy wrote on the citation, “While handling a medical/check the welfare (call), (Henderson) was filming it. Data privacy HIPAA violation. Refused to identify self. Had to stop dealing with sit(uation) to deal w/Henderson.”

  2. Cluster January 9, 2013 / 8:12 am

    Very good analysis. The push towards socialism that started to find its legs in the 30’s was achieved by promoting the noble intent of the cause. Who doesn’t want to “promote the general welfare”? And through that prism of noble intent, the government found out exactly what people are willing to submit to – just as Frederick Douglas so brilliantly warned against.

    However since then, the continued push towards socialism has taken on a “divide and conquer” strategy. LBJ started to build that coalition of “us against them” via his war on poverty and “great society” ideals, leading a segment of the population to believe that their plight was dependent on the actions of others.

    Today, the Democrats have embarked on a scorched earth policy. Anyone who opposes their policies are radical and extreme, and they use their politics as a club to punish those who oppose them. In just 80 short years, we have seen a well intended departure from the Constitution devolve into a tyrannical-like movement that demands uniformity and submission.

    • neocon01 January 9, 2013 / 5:34 pm

      the kenyan muslim usurper wipes azz with this and we beg for more…….

      Reaffirmation comes as part of the Bill of Rights, and in particular, the 10th Amendment which embodies the general principles of Federalism in a republican form of government. The Constitution specifies the parameters of authority that may be exercised by the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative, and judicial while the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising.

      WHO is STOPPING HIM???

      Biden: Obama May Use ‘Executive Orders’ to Crack Down on
      Guns

      so now EO’s OVER RIDE the US Constitution? congress? the courts?

      there are no tanks on the white hut lawn with arrest orders WHY?

  3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 9, 2013 / 5:38 pm

    Madison posed the question in his letter to Andrew Stevenson why the term “common defense and general welfare” was used if not meant to convey a broad and expansive power to enjoin in all things these terms could possible imply. Madison answered himself,

    The obvious conclusion to which we are brought is, that these terms, copied from the Articles of Confederation, were regarded in the new as in the old instrument, merely as general terms, explained and limited by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention or studied precaution. Viewed (and read) with the subjoined specifications; lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare in the context of the time.

    Madison went on to explain,

    “That the terms in question were not suspected in the Convention which formed the Constitution of any such meaning as has been constructively applied to them, may be pronounced with entire confidence; for it exceeds the possibility of belief, that the known advocates in the Convention for a jealous grant and cautious definition of Federal powers should have silently permitted the introduction of words or phrases in a sense rendering fruitless the restrictions and definitions elaborated by them.”(emphasis mine)

    that the Framers never intended the overreaching authority to disregard the constraints of the Constitution for an all-encompassing ability to tax to their hearts’ delight then spend on things for the good of all, no matter how noble or how altruistic those goals seemed; they were not/are not sanctioned by the Constitution.

      • neocon01 January 10, 2013 / 2:19 pm

        waspstooge

        watty watty watty…….dumb as a ock

        “As I’ve said before, there isn’t a one of you that could depend on yourselves for health care in your old age. If you claim you can, then
        put your money where your mouth is and pay for your care out of your own pocket. And that’s just one example.

        I had health care, paid partially by my pension and partially out of my own pocket.
        Upon reaching the age of 65…..I was FORCED by the government to drop my private insurance and go on medicare.
        that is just ONE example.

        liberalism is a mental disorder (Dr. Michael Savage)

      • neocon01 January 10, 2013 / 5:19 pm

        Bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!

        Bill Clinton Named ‘Father of the Year’…

        by who? bwany fwank???

      • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 11:21 pm

        To. many comments to get to them all, but let me get to some of them.

        Little Amy said:

        I am amused by watson’s frantic effort to shift the discussion away from the intent of the General Welfare Clause, which is so often cited by the low-information emoters as the justification for their social engineering experiments, and into one specific issue, where he can invent motives for others and hurl insults and generally pretend to be part of a discussion while avoiding the actual topic.

        No, Little Amy. I was responding to tired’s post about the woman with 15 children. That diverted the discussion off course. Nevertheless, it succinctly summed up the conservative mind. Congratulations to tired for that.

        I, for example, have no problem with a government deciding to provide a safety net for people whose personal health care planning has fallen short. I just believe that, first, it should always be the responsibility of the individual to do his own planning, and second that any safety net has to be accomplished within the boundaries of the law of the land—the Constitution of the United States.

        I completely agree. Unfortunately for you, the highest courts in the land have ruled that Social Security and Medicare are constitutional, not to mention ObamaCare. Hence they are within the boundaries of the law of the land. So what’s the problem?

        Well, congratulations, wattle, for admitting that you disdain the Constitution and have no problem with advocating its subversion if you personally happen to approve of the reason for breaking a particular law.

        Wrong. My saying most of you are inherently dishonest about this issue is not the same as expressing disdain for the Constitution. That’s just another one of your ridiculous leaps of logic that you constantly employ here.

        DB said:

        Third, I have no problem with the federal government providing a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care–Watson

        Actually, I do as it is not an enumerated duty of the Federal Government. That does not mean I am against health care but at best it should be a State issue. That is the part most Liberals fail to realize–what is and is not in the purview of the FEDERAL government.

        And we obviously disagree.

        Cluster said:

        Despite countless times, over the past several years of conservatives calling for means testing of Medicare, and social security, in addition to the sought after “opt out” option, Watson continues to use those programs as a political club thinking that he has us in a corner, when in fact all he does is expose his incredible thick headed ignorance.

        I’ve said before here at B4V that he support means testing of Medicare and Social Security. I absolutely think that people like NeoClown and Spook, for example, with their thriving businesses, should be means tested and pay higher Medicare premiums and receive less in Social Security. One of your favorite “political clubs” is that we don’t have the money to pay for all these benefits. Great. Everyone needs to sacrifice.

        Cluster said:

        Means testing is a plan that wouldn’t exempt the current generation. Just another inconvenient truth not allowed inside the hyper sensitive melodramatic liberal works of Watson.

        And I’m all for it. Call your Congressman.

        Cluster said:

        Watson, there is no difference between the deferred benefit programs of SS and Medicare.

        You are basically right. They are both pay-as-you-go systems. That is, the current taxpayers fund the benefits of the current retirees. The difference is that Social Security has a trust fund. But since they are pay-as-you-go systems, current retirees didn’t pay for their benefits; they paid for the previous generation of retirees. It’s as simple as that. Now, you can claim that because you paid for someone else’s retirement, then dammit, someone else will have to pay for yours. Fine. Just admit it. Admit that you expect the taxpayers to take care of you in old age.

        Count said it is not possible to opt out of Medicare, nor is it possible to even investigate alternatives. That is not true. Although you are enrolled in Medicare, you can completely pay for your health care without resorting to Medicare at all. Many wealthy retirees do exactly that, right now.

      • Amazona January 11, 2013 / 12:29 am

        wattle, you made a statement: “… I have no problem with the federal government providing a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care.”

        I responded that a more accurate way to state this would be ““…… I have no problem with subverting the Constitution of the United States of America to implement a program not constitutionally allowed to the federal government, to provide a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care. ”

        To which you replied:

        “Right.”

        Then you went on to claim, for some bizarre reason, ” And I think most of you are inherently dishonest about it.” And then you said “Have I not made myself clear on that point?”

        This was a clear admission that you agreed that my restatement of your comment was accurate. You call taking you at your word a “ridiculous leap of logic” and you do have a point there, as the only way to take you at your word is to suspend logic. I merely quoted you.

        You assert “…. the highest courts in the land have ruled that Social Security and Medicare are constitutional, not to mention ObamaCare. ..” yet the Supreme Court has NOT ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. The Court ruled on one thing and one thing only, which is whether or not a penalty for failing to enter into a private contract with a private company is constitutional, saying it is if the penalty is considered a tax. The Court ruled on no other aspect of the bill or on the bill itself.

        And you can say you disagree all you want, the simple fact is that you cannot find a single thing within the enumerated duties of the federal government that allows the federal government to engage in these activities. Our discussion here is about the General Welfare Clause and the efforts to claim it covers expansion of federal authority. You choose not to address this, swanning off in various other directions instead.

      • Amazona January 11, 2013 / 12:35 am

        ” The difference is that Social Security has a trust fund. ”

        No, it does not. It is also not in a “lockbox”. SS funds collected are put into the general fund and SS payments are take out of the general fund.

        ” Now, you can claim that because you paid for someone else’s retirement, then dammit, someone else will have to pay for yours. Fine. Just admit it. Admit that you expect the taxpayers to take care of you in old age.”

        What a vivid exposition of the strange and distorted thought processes that drive your ranting.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 12:49 am

        Yes, Little Amy, Social Security does have a trust fund.

        http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

        Your claiming otherwise is a vivid exposition of deception on your part. Either that or ignorance–I’m not sure which.

      • Amazona January 11, 2013 / 1:10 am

        Calling the mechanism a “trust fund” implies that it is a separate, discrete, fund. Yet this is not true. If it is, it is quite porous,not exactly what we usually think of when we think of a “trust fund”.

        STEPHEN OHLEMACHER | August 12, 2012 12:17 PM EST | AP

        WASHINGTON — Now that Social Security is paying more in benefits than it collects in taxes, there is a fierce debate among politicians, academics and advocates about whether those shortfalls are adding to the federal budget deficit.

        The issue is important because the federal government’s annual deficit already exceeds $1 trillion, making any more borrowing tough to swallow. If Social Security is adding to the government’s financial problems, it becomes even more urgent to fix it.

        “Over 77 years and now through 13 recessions, Social Security has not added one penny to our deficit or our debt,” Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., said at a recent hearing by the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee. Becerra is the top Democrat on the panel.

        “I believe that Social Security has not contributed one nickel to the deficit because it is funded by the payroll tax,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who heads the Senate Social Security caucus, said in an interview.

        Former Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., disagreed.

        “We all know that it’s on a cash-flow basis,” Gregg said in an interview. “The cash comes in, the cash goes out, and right now we’re running a negative cash flow.”

        The Facts: Social Security’s shortfalls are adding to the federal budget deficit, in a roundabout way. One big reason: The rest of the government has been running such huge deficits over the years that it has spent all of the surpluses accumulated by Social Security.

        Here’s how it works: For nearly three decades Social Security produced big surpluses, collecting more in taxes than it paid in benefits. The government, however, spent that money on other programs, reducing the amount it had to borrow from the public, including foreign investors. That’s why some advocates complain that Congress has “raided” Social Security.

        In return, the Treasury Department issued special bonds to Social Security. The bonds are now valued at $2.7 trillion. They are accounted for in two Social Security trust funds, one for the retirement program and one for the disability program.”

        And so on. Nice snarl, exactly what we expect from you. It’s what you do instead of engaging in actual discourse, and it is clearly the ability to spew nastiness that drives your obsession with attacking people because they have different opinions than you.

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 9:55 am

        Amazona,

        What’s ironic is that a while back the point was made by one of the Conservatives here that there wasn’t really a Clinton Surplus because part of the so-called surplus was actually money borrowed from the SS trust fund. One of our Lefties responded (I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Watson) that the trust fund was part of the general fund, and so there WAS a surplus. Democrats are so transparent.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 12:53 pm

        Well Spook, it is in Enron Accounting; count the money twice, once as an asset in the Trust Fund, once as a current asset in the General Fund used to pay current liabilities then count it as a receivable (asset) because the General fund owes the money back to the Trust fund.

        Voila! A “Surplus” made entirely of hot air so abundant in Washington.

        Arthur Anderson would be so proud.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 12:59 pm

        Amazona,

        You’re thinking of Al Gore’s “Lock Box“.

        Remember? He ran in 2000 on the premise that the Social Security Trust Fund had been raided for so many years there was actually no fungible assets; only a box full of IOUs.

        Gore wanted Congress to establish a “Lock Box” that would actually have money in it.

        If the Trust Fund were real and chock full of Coin o’ the Realm why would Gore be asking for a box within the safe?

        Accounting sleight of hand.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 1:21 pm

        Little Amy said, “Calling the mechanism a “trust fund” implies that it is a separate, discrete, fund. Yet this is not true. If it is, it is quite porous,not exactly what we usually think of when we think of a “trust fund”.”

        Well, sorry if you don’t like the fact that the Social Security Administration calls their trust fund a trust fund. You unequivocally said social security does not have a trust fund. I unequivocally proved that it does, whether you like it or not.

        This is like a lot of your posts, Little Amy. You write things as though they are obvious, unassailable facts (without citing any sources, of course), but often a little investigation reveals that you are lying.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 2:30 pm

        …when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

        “Trust Fund” implies funds where there are none, therefore calling it a trust fund doesn’t make it one.

      • The Return of Rathaven January 11, 2013 / 2:36 pm

        I believe Funds Held in Trust is a legal term, for the abbreviation Trust Fund>

        With Social Security there are no “Funds and there is no Trust.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 3:27 pm

        Count said, ““Trust Fund” implies funds where there are none, therefore calling it a trust fund doesn’t make it one.”

        Semantics, Count. If a trust fund doesn’t exist, why is it that every year the Social Security Administration Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds provide a report to Congress every year?

      • tiredoflibbs January 11, 2013 / 4:57 am

        watty: “No, Little Amy. I was responding to tired’s post about the woman with 15 children. That diverted the discussion off course. Nevertheless, it succinctly summed up the conservative mind. Congratulations to tired for that.”

        Either you are lying again or you cannot comprehend the written word. My question with the video is as follows: “is this what they meant by “promote the general welfare”? My question was direct to the clause as the topic of discussion.

        You on the other hand did what you mindless drones normally do – the for Ds of what you call debate – dodge, deflect, duck and deceive. You deflected to your perceived (or indoctrinated) lies about conservatives. Your childish little attempts at gotchas are what Amazona has accurately pointed out. You have nothing but your lies and we have facts.

        Social security’s trust fund DOES NOT EXIST the Democrats raided it long ago with the Johnson administration when it became part if the general fund. Your statement shows you are as ignorant as mitchie.

        Pathetic.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 1:09 pm

        “Retirees” by definition are not contributing any longer to their deferred benefits.

        It is not possible for someone contributing to Medicare to opt out.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 1:17 pm

        You don’t have to rely on Medicare to pay for your health care expenses. That is called opting out. People do it today. I’m sure you will join them when the time comes because you are ideologically opposed to any form of socialism.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 11, 2013 / 1:45 pm

        Primarily because of government meddling, health-care costs have gotten so high in the last 20 or 30 years that only the truly uber-rich can afford to forego Medicare and pay for all their healthcare costs out of pocket, Watson. I doubt any of the Conservatives here are in that bracket — I know I’m not, although I’m not 65 yet, but I doubt that a few years is going to make much difference in my wealth level unless I win the lottery.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 1:53 pm

        Of course most conservatives cannot afford to pay for their retirement health care without relying on Medicare. This is where the disconnect between reality and their ideology starts to set in.

        Since you think the problem is government meddling, how do you think the free market would address this? I think they would address it by not insuring people they can’t make a profit on, which is exactly what they do in the individual insurance market today. That would be sick and elderly people–the ones who need health care the most. Since you are nearing retirement, and recognize that you are not going to be wealthy when you retire, is that the world you want to live in?

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 11, 2013 / 2:22 pm

        Since you are nearing retirement, and recognize that you are not going to be wealthy when you retire, is that the world you want to live in?

        Do I have a choice?

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 3:17 pm

        J.R. asks, “Do I have a choice?”

        That’s just a dodge. Let me rephrase the question slightly. Is that a world you would want to live in? No one has explained to me how a free market for health care would take care of the needs of the sick and elderly. The reason we have Medicare is because before Medicare a lot of retired Americans were living in poverty or unable to afford health care themselves. Maybe you want to go back to that for yourself, I don’t know. I don’t.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 11, 2013 / 3:27 pm

        That’s just a dodge.

        Sorry, I was just following your lead, Watson.

        Is that a world you would want to live in?

        Of course not, but as long as Obama is in office, I really don’t have a choice.

        No one has explained to me how a free market for health care would take care of the needs of the sick and elderly.

        We haven’t had a free market for healthcare, ESPECIALLY FOR THE ELDERLY, for nearly half a century, so how could anyone explain to you how it would work. It couldn’t possibly work any worse than what we have now. That said, as DB mentioned, start health savings accounts when you first enter the workforce, and allow anyone, but especially younger workers to have just high deductible, catastrophic health insurance policies. Allow competition across state lines, and I think you’d see a significant drop, or, at the very least, a significant slowing of the growth of health insurance costs.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 3:46 pm

        Well, J.R., one thing we can look at is how the free market insurance companies handle the individual insurance market.

        First, in the state in which I live, insurance companies are not obligated to even offer insurance to you. Now, who do you suppose they would deny even offering insurance to? Healthy people they can make money off of, or older people that they think they can’t?

        A couple of year ago I researched individual health care plans. Kaiser Permanente is one of the largest providers in my state. Their website stated, “these plans [individual and family coverage] do go through medical review and those with serious pre-existing health conditions are often denied. The only automatic denial stated by Kaiser underwriters is current pregnancy, but those with serious health conditions such as cancer, HIV, heart problems, obesity, etc. are often denied. If denied, your only chance of getting healthcare coverage may be to find employment (for you or your spouse) that offers a group medical plan or to apply for Medicare.” What if you are past employment age or can’t get a job?

        Here’s another data point. Back when Congress was holding hearings for ObamaCare, they had the CEO’s of health care providers testify. One CEO proudly told Congress that his company rescinded only one percent of their policies. (That is, they found a way to terminate contracts with their clients by claiming fraudulent applications or some other technical reason.) Only one percent–aren’t they great? But let’s think about that. By their own testimony, insurance companies make a net profit on over 90 percent of their policies. It’s that last few percent that costs them money. They aren’t going to rescind policies that make them money. So in reality, they are rescinding better than one in ten of the policies that do cost them money. It reminds me of the Las Vegas casino manager who was being interviewed once. The interviewer noted that children were playing the slot machines in the manager’s casino and asked, don’t you stop kids from gambling? “No,” the casino manager said, “We don’t stop them from playing. We just don’t let them win.”

        It seems obvious that for-profit health care providers are primarily in business to make a profit, not provide health care.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 5:14 pm

        Rahaven, rescinding policies and denying claims are not the same thing and it makes no sense to equate the two. As you may have heard, insurance companies have been criticized for rescinding policies for the flimsiest of excuses, to the point that the insurance companies may well have fraudulently rescinded those policies. It was a big point of discussion leading up to ObamaCare. Maybe you remember the insurance company CEOs having to testify about it.

        As for rescinding one percent of policies, yes, one percent is one in a hundred. But you completely missed my point. They don’t even try to rescind the policies that are profitable. They only try to rescind the policies for which they lose money, which is itself less than one in ten policies. When looked at it in that light, you see that they are rescinding more than 10% of the policies for which they would even consider rescinding.

        But thanks for playing, nit-wit.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 5:25 pm

        “they only try to rescind the policies for which they lose money, which is itself less than one in ten policies.”

        That’s not even partially true, that statement could not be mistaken for fact by even the most rabid of partisans.

        You really don’t understand the insurance business at all do you?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 5:33 pm

        Let me help you, a policy is rescinded under very strict legal definitions; only if and when a claimant files a false claim, provides fraudulent information, or fails to disclose information. Lie on an application or file an obvious fraudulent claim and your policy will be rescinded.

        Rescinded policies rarely overturned because the insurer must demonstrate the willful act, so your statement that they have been criticized for attempting to rescind for “flimsy” reasons is without merit, or what we call a lie.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 5:37 pm

        and one other thing, a rescinded policy requires that the insurer return the premiums to the customer. Giving a refund for all paid premiums is the very definition of a non-greedy, fiscally unsound and willfully anti-profit act.

        So, you’re wrong on all counts.

        Care to start over?

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 5:43 pm

        Count said, “and one other thing, a rescinded policy requires that the insurer return the premiums to the customer. Giving a refund for all paid premiums is the very definition of a non-greedy, fiscally unsound and willfully anti-profit act.”

        Assuming they refund all paid premiums, the reason they would do that is because they know it will be cheaper than paying for the health care of a sick person. They’re in it to make a profit, not provide health care to sick people.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 5:51 pm

        Regardless of what your handlers at Huffington Post may have told you, far less than one-half of one percent of policies are ever rescinded.

        Making profit and providing health care are not mutually exclusive. If you bothered to learn anything about business or economics you’d know that.

        and yes, refunding is far less than paying on a fraudulent claim … ya’ think?

      • neocon01 January 11, 2013 / 6:00 pm

        Count 100
        waspstooge 0

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 6:04 pm

        Count, do you assume we all have handlers because you do? What an idiotic comment.

        Rescinding one percent of policies is the number an insurance company CEO gave during testimony to Congress. Maybe that number is not applicable to the industry at large, but he said it was the number for his insurance company. I’ll take his word that he knows what he’s talking about.

        And yes, refunding is also far less than paying for cancer treatment, ya’ think?

        I’d love to see some evidence that the insurance industry is capable of providing health care to all Americans, including the sick and elderly. Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. There is plenty of evidence that they are not willing to do so, including some that I presented here. I don’t know about you, but I have looked into the individual insurance market because I am retiring far in advance of Medicare eligibility age.

        So if you can point us to any studies (or anything else) that would show how the free market would provide health care to all Americans, post them here so we can all become as illuminated as you.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 6:10 pm

        “Rescinding one percent of policies is the number an insurance company CEO gave during testimony to Congress.”

        Yet another lie, here’s what Richard Collins, the CEO of Golden Rule actually said, ““Rescission is uncommon, but unfortunate, and a necessary recourse in the event of material, and at times intentional or fraudulent, misstatement or omission on an insurance application,” he said.

        Less than one-half of 1 percent of individual insurance policies were terminated or rescinded, he said.

        I have a counter proposal since proving a negative is impossible; how about youshow us a study or any evidence that will lead us to the conclusion that a free market based health care delivery system cannot treat all patients.

        Since in the United States as of today our system is not only capable but doing just that you have only a left-wing theory to prove your point, but knock yourself out.

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 6:21 pm

        I think it’s time for Watson to quit digging.

      • tiredoflibbs January 11, 2013 / 7:06 pm

        FACTS from count, spook, ama, and me: 10

        Dumbed down regurgitated talking points from watty (really hufpo, npr and other proggy special interests): 0

        It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, espec

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 6:36 pm

        Count, I think the government does have a necessary role in providing health care, so there is no motivation for me to find a study to the contrary. It’s people like you (collective you) that object to the current system. If you want to gather support for changing the current system, then you need to convince us.

        As for rescinding, if it’s “less than one-half of 1 percent” rather than one percent, then I stand corrected. But as you well know, the issue of insurance companies rescinding policies because they looked for errors or technical issues when people got sick led to provisions in ObamaCare.

        And even if we believe that every rescission is right and proper, the last time I checked, insurance companies were under no obligation to provide anyone coverage. I’m not sure that this has changed since ObamaCare, but it was true before ObamaCare became law. In a purely free market system, how would you address that?

      • tiredoflibbs January 11, 2013 / 7:09 pm

        watty: “Count, I think the government does have a necessary role in providing health care, so there is no motivation for me to find a study to the contrary.”

        Really? Where is the authorization for the federal government to do so?

        There is no motivation for you to find a study to the contrary? Really? You must really be lazy and dishonest and from the sound of it somewhat of a moocher.

        The Constitution is all that you need….. now if the states want to set up social security and medicare like programs then I am all for it.

      • dbschmidt January 11, 2013 / 7:14 pm

        Pretty sure Watson is a government employee of some sort–he is retiring while the rest of us will need to work into our 70’s.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 7:29 pm

        i stand corrected, watson need not go all the way back to db’s 2:37 post, simply read what is written from tired and db from the last few minutes.

        The answers are here and easy to understand. Government is not the solution; government is the problem.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 7:31 pm

        tired,
        Watson’s posts tie nicely with the theme of this thread, and are consistent with watson’s view;the Constitution is more of a suggestion than the prevailing law by which our government is constrained and our rights protected.

      • dbschmidt January 11, 2013 / 7:13 pm

        1%’er Watson (who is retiring early) has already shown somewhere disdain and outright contempt for the highest law of the land when it doesn’t suit him, has little or no understanding of business, and wonks on insurance like it was evil oil or like corporation.

        Since he believes (contrary to evidence) that “the government does have a necessary role in providing health care, so there is no motivation for me to find a study to the contrary.” sounds too much like a child who, fingers in ears, shouts “nanny, nanny, boo boo” towards anything that might be contradictory.

        No matter the force used to implement these Ponzi schemes on the American people, no matter that if a couple of simple things were done like across state line sales of insurance (free market competition) and tort reform that the costs would quickly come in line. But how would I know that? Well, when I could no longer afford COBRA and no longer carried insurance–my doctor asked me to stop in anyway and she charged me 1/3 of what my insurance was paying because of the FEDERAL regulations and STATE imposed requirements on insurance. I am once again paying CA$H and actually realize the costs imposed in addition to the crappy reimbursement rates of the government plans.

        Back when I was a younger man, I had my insurance policies that covered a couple of general checkups a year plus catastrophic just in case. I could afford it because it was reasonable–many of my peers did not pay for this because, like me, we were invincible.

        Even though I am sure Watson does not understand the term “for profit” I have already advanced a simple solution If an insurance company has a 15% share of the market–they would have to show a 15% coverage of the so called “uninsurable.” Nevertheless, those folks would be required to carry a policy over time and not try to get it in the back of an ambulance. Even though I have not been in an auto accident in over thirty years–I still have car insurance of which a large part is to protect me from those that do not see a need for that either.

        But, F the Constitution, screw the individual and kill corporations trying to make a profit–well at least those Watson finds irritating like insurance and oil because they may make a profit. Apple and Nike are good companies and really deserve the 300% profit margins they “earn.”

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 7:24 pm

        First, whenever I read someone has written the word “but” I insert the thought that everything written prior to that word is now meaningless.

        I like you … but … I thinks you’re an ass.

        …led to provisions in ObamaCare.”

        Seriously, what on this great green earth didn’t lead to a provision in Obamacare?

        The provision of which you speak is a poorly written clause that specifies that rescission is only allowable in cases of fraudulently filed lames. Since Obamacare addresses preexisting conditions separately the research for omissions regarding preexisting is not just moot, but now the financial responsibility of every policy holder.

        In a purely free market system, how would you address that?

        Oh, fer crissakes. Did you even complete the high school graduation requirement in economics?

        Start with dbschmidt January 11, 2013 at 2:37 pmthen go to J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 11, 2013 at 3:27 pm.

        The mitigation of risk is facilitated by broad and inclusive participation. In a free market environment, insurance companies have always sought to garner the largest market share possible.

        Here’s some reading material for you to find; look to see what happened to insurance companies during the great Depression. This will give you some insight into how they’re supposed to work and how government intervention thwarted that business model.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 7:41 pm

        Count said, “The mitigation of risk is facilitated by broad and inclusive participation. In a free market environment, insurance companies have always sought to garner the largest market share possible.”

        Mitigation of risk by broad participation is the most rational system. But why is it that insurance companies deny individuals heath care? Why did it require an act of Congress to change that? I don’t see that insurance companies, left to their own devices, actually want an all-inclusive market share.

        As for the idea that I’m a government employee, lots of laughs. There are plenty of them already on this blog, retired or otherwise.

        Anyways, you guys all got me. You win.

      • The Return of Rathaven January 11, 2013 / 8:23 pm

        Insurance companies don’t deny health care; they deny health care payments.

        The government denies twice as many payments for health care as do the insurance companies.

        Obamacare does nothing to change either.

        Have another shot of Kool-Aid.

      • watsonthethird January 12, 2013 / 1:09 pm

        Rathaven said, “Insurance companies don’t deny health care; they deny health care payments.”

        Yes they do. From the Kaiser Permenente website. (I pulled this in 2010):

        these plans [individual and family coverage] do go through medical review and those with serious pre-existing health conditions are often denied. The only automatic denial stated by Kaiser underwriters is current pregnancy, but those with serious health conditions such as cancer, HIV, heart problems, obesity, etc. are often denied. If denied, your only chance of getting healthcare coverage may be to find employment (for you or your spouse) that offers a group medical plan or to apply for Medicare.

        Those with serious heath conditions are often denied. This is why a handful of states have guaranteed issue laws, and guaranteed issue is part of ObamaCare. If insurance companies truly desired to insurance everyone, as Count claims, then they wouldn’t explain that they can deny any coverage for any reason, and there would be no need for guaranteed issue laws.

      • Amazona January 11, 2013 / 9:23 pm

        wattle, can you name a “government employee” on this blog, retired or otherwise?

        Surely you do not count those who serve our nation in its military as “government employees”.

        And of course we win. You came to a battle of wits unarmed, poor silly thing, and once your emotions start to wane you are out of ammunition.

        All your strident emoting, all your snideness and insults, and all you have accomplished is a detailed exposition of your ignorance and your conviction that the Constitution isn’t worth following.

        And we already knew that.

      • watsonthethird January 12, 2013 / 1:17 pm

        Little Amy said, “And of course we win. You came to a battle of wits unarmed, poor silly thing, and once your emotions start to wane you are out of ammunition.”

        Of course you did. And here is what we have learned.

        • Mothers with 15 children are single-handedly subverting the constitution and driving the country to bankruptcy.

        • The Founding Fathers made a grave mistake by including the judiciary branch in the constitution. Those damned judges have been subverting the will of the Founding Fathers ever since.

        • The Social Security Trust Fund doesn’t exist. Those reports to Congress, the board of trustees? All as fake as the moon landing.

        • Insurance companies are altruistic businesses whose true desire is to insure each and every person they can, regardless of cost. The fact that they deny coverage to people they don’t want to cover? It’s all a mistake. If only the insurance companies knew about their own policies, they’d change them in an instant. Somebody should send them some email!

        • Insurance companies only rescind policies with the best of intentions. They never re-examine applications when people get sick. It’s just coincidental routine review. And they’re always understanding when a sick client makes an innocent error on their application.

        • If you wind up without insurance and get sick, no problem! Doctors, hospitals, nurses, radiologists, service providers, equipment providers–they all want you to feel better and will gladly accept as little as you can afford to pay. Even nothing if that’s what it takes to make you well!

        • It’s inconceivable to conservatives that someone could retire early without working for the government. Such is their faith in private enterprise. The only way to retire early is to work for the government. In fact, working for the government is the best thing you can do. Ignore the fact that Ronald Reagan said government workers are the worst.

      • Amazona January 12, 2013 / 1:56 pm

        And once again the wattle has to retreat to the only tools available to the rabidly radical Left: Outright lying and feeble and impotent and clumsy efforts to use reductio ad absurdum as an arguing base.

        That’s all that is left to the wattles when facts defeat them, as they always do.

        Thanks so much for proving my point: That “…. once your emotions start to wane you are out of ammunition.” It was never in doubt, but it was generous of you to back up with even more proof.

        I am still struck by your obstinate reframing of what is actually said into something unrecognizable, and for a while wondered if this is due to stupidity or dishonesty—and then realized I just don’t give a damn.

      • watsonthethird January 12, 2013 / 2:26 pm

        Actually, it’s a pretty accurate representation of what you all have said. And if you don’t give a damn, why do you respond more often, and with more words, than anyone else? You can’t help yourself, can you. You are a marvel to observe.

      • Amazona January 12, 2013 / 3:46 pm

        Rule Of Holes, wattle—-Rule of Holes

      • tiredoflibbs January 13, 2013 / 8:40 am

        watty: “Actually, it’s a pretty accurate representation of what you all have said.”

        Actually, it is your version, your spin, on what we said and not what we actually said! It is also void of FACTS and full of your opinion and regurgitated dumbed down talking points.

        Several of us have pointed it out, but apparently you have an inability to comprehend the written word.

        Truly sad and pathetic.

      • neocon01 January 12, 2013 / 11:18 am

        waspstingthe t*rd

        As for the idea that I’m a government employee, lots of laughs

        the idea that anyone BUT government would “employ” you is the REAL LAUGH!!

      • Amazona January 11, 2013 / 8:40 pm

        “….I think the government does have a necessary role in providing health care, …”

        Why? Because you want it to, that’s why. In spite of the fact that the role of providing health care is not a delegated duty of the federal government, in spite of the fact that the foundational document of our nation which forms its rule of law not only does not assign this to the federal government in the body of the Constitution but actually DENIES it this authority in the 10th Amendment, you just FEEL that it would be nice if it did, so you think it should.

        Very analytical.

        The Founders took a belt-and-suspenders approach to writing what they thought was the most important element of the Constitution—that of limiting the size, scope and power of the federal government. First they clearly specified what it MUST do, and then they laid out what it CANNOT do, stating that what is not delegated is forbidden, except at the state or personal level.

        But the emoters like the wattle just ignore all of this and have wall-kicking name-calling temper tantrums when faced with reality, because THEY DON’T LIKE REALITY. They want things to be the way they want them to be, law be damned.

        I notice that the wattle has never answered my very serious questions so let’s take another look at them.

        But this does bring up a question, and it is a serious one—does this right to ignore the Constitution apply to everyone? It seems that you might be looking at this as if only people who agree with you ought to be able to subvert the Constitution to advance their own agendas, but what is your opinion on whether or not someone with a very different agenda also takes the position that the Constitution has no authority regarding HIS goals?

        What if a movement gains power and wants Congress to establish a mandatory state religion? What if some group feels it unnecessary to demand a speedy trial—or trials at all? Should the Constitutional requirement for a presidential election every four years be dismissed if you happen to like the guy in power now? What if the guy is George W. Bush?

        Is it all relative?

        If Might Makes Right, and those in power get to make the rules as long as they hold that power, regardless of what our Constitution says, then how would our nation be different from any other tyranny? And would you be so complacent about tossing aside Constitutional restrictions and laws if it was the Opposition wanting to do so?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 9:04 pm

        Amazona,

        I FEEL that people with grey hair must be suffering as they appear to be old. Old people can’t possibly be enjoying life with the same enthusiasm as young people so the humane thing to do is end their lives with dignity.

        I FEEL it is government’s responsibility to make this come about as leaving it up to the individual to do so create a hardship and the companies (evil profit-driven medical companies) are intrinsically opposed to ending life when their very existence is predicated on extending life.

        Can you see where this is going?

      • Amazona January 11, 2013 / 9:19 pm

        Count, don’t forget the intrinsic superiority conveyed merely by being alive for fewer years than others. To the Left, one is evidently born with great wisdom and knowledge, which erodes with age, so merely by reaching one’s fifth or sixth decade one is inherently less qualified, intelligent, or competent than one with fewer years behind him—so much so that he deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule.

        This is similar to the Left’s conviction that one whose only skill in life is the ability to pretend to be someone else is somehow qualified, by nature of that limited talent and the fame and fortune which reward it, to be a respected leader in economic and political thought.

      • neocon01 January 12, 2013 / 11:13 am

        count it is going here

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 5:41 pm

        So I’m paying thousands a month for an individual insurance plan, occasionally making a claim because I’m in good health. You really think the insurance company is busy trying to find something I might have missed in my application? I don’t think so. They happily take my money until I start costing them. Then they start looking.

        According to a new report by congressional investigators, an insurance company practice of retroactively canceling health insurance is fairly common, and it saves insurers a lot of money.

        A subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently held a hearing about the report’s findings in an effort to bring a halt to this practice. But at the hearing, insurance executives told lawmakers they have no plans to stop rescinding policies.

        The act of retroactively canceling insurance is called rescission. It happens with individual health insurance policies, where people apply for insurance on their own, not through their employers. Their application generally includes a questionnaire about their health.

        The process begins after a policyholder has been diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer. The insurer then reviews the health status information in the questionnaire, and if anything is missing, the policy may be rescinded.

        The omission from the application may be deliberate, to hide a health condition that might have made the applicant ineligible for insurance. But sometimes there’s an innocent explanation: The policyholder may not have known about a health condition, or may not have thought it was relevant.

        The rescissions based on omissions or immaterial conditions incensed many lawmakers.

        You do represent insurance companies, do you Count?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 6:04 pm

        “cancelling” and “rescinding” are two different subjects.

        Your NPR article fails to present the facts that new policies that suddenly present with serious health conditions are suspect from the beginning. A routine inspection to see if per-existing conditions were misrepresented is sound business practice.

        If the government were to perform this due diligence we’d have less waste and fraud in the medicare system.

        I’m a financial analyst, I have never worked for an insurance company, but I, unlike you, actually researched how this is done.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 5:22 pm

        90% of your statistics are made up. can you show the actuarial that supports your claim that companies make “profit” on “over 90 percent of their policies”.

        Even if we were to assume that statistic is accurate; assuming that the policies they rescind are only those which cost the companies is assuming information not presented; a logical leap.

        The companies rescind and prosecute fraudulent claims, which may or may not have cost the company money.

        But the idea that government run health care wouldn’t deny coverage or treatment while for-profit companies do is simply laughable.

      • Cluster January 11, 2013 / 5:15 pm

        No one has explained to me how a free market for health care would take care of the needs of the sick and elderly.

        It’s obvious that no one has explained much of anything to you. How do you think the elderly paid for their health care in the 1950’s? Any guesses?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 11, 2013 / 2:25 pm

        No, that is not opting out, that is paying for a service and not availing of it.

        Explain once and for all how I might opt out of Medicare. since it is not possible you are sadly reduced to repeating the same non sequitur. One cannot opt out of the Government coercion called Social Security.

        For JR and I, we continue to pay for a product that, had we been given the liberty to purchase from our own resources would have been preferable.

        Had it not been for the Medicare Program, health care for retirees would be affordable to nearly any pocketbook belonging to persons such as we that planned for our retirement from an early age.

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 3:18 pm

        Had it not been for the Medicare Program, health care for retirees would be affordable to nearly any pocketbook belonging to persons such as we that planned for our retirement from an early age.

        Count, all one has to do to confirm that is look at the original projections of Medicare’s costs and compare to what the actually costs have been.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 3:22 pm

        Count said, “Had it not been for the Medicare Program, health care for retirees would be affordable to nearly any pocketbook belonging to persons such as we that planned for our retirement from an early age.”

        I don’t believe that. As I said to J.R., there was a reason Medicare was needed. It’s just magical thinking to believe that the vast majority of American, let alone conservatives, would find affordable health care on the free market in their own age. Maybe you could have done it, Count. But you would be the exception.

        As for “opting out,” go ahead and quibble with my phrasing if you like. If you do some googling you will find that yes indeed, there are people who pay for their old age health care without relying on Medicare. As with a lot of things, the more money you have, the better the product and services. I’m sure a successful person such as yourself will be able to afford the absolute best health care there is when you are sick and dying.

      • neocon01 January 11, 2013 / 3:58 pm

        Hillary?

      • dbschmidt January 11, 2013 / 11:47 pm

        Well Count,
        You may have been close but I am voting for that poor bastard (sperm donor) that signed away all rights and obligations to a “married” lesbian couple who have since split up and now the State wants him to foot the bill.

      • dbschmidt January 10, 2013 / 5:34 pm

        Count,

        Just about everything I have read now and in the past has pointed towards the Founders warning us, the people, about what is happening now (well, since the 30’s) and it is only getting worse by the minute. The biggest issue (aside from having only a few true Federalists in government) is that when the Progressives could not form a consensus–they used brute force. Everything from SS, Medicare through ObamaCare.

        If this were still a Constitutional form of Government–I should be paying my taxes to my State who would in turn allocate some of it to the Federal government to cover their enumerated duties instead of having the State beg for dollars with strings attached. I would like to see a program (10 years max.) that would review each and every program of the Federal government against it’s Constitutional mandate or not. If not, the program is returned to the State or falls by the wayside. Never happen in this nation of moochers.

  4. tiredoflibbs January 9, 2013 / 6:11 pm

    Is this what they meant by “promote the general welfare”?

    I don’t think so……

    It is a sad state of affairs that this situations keeps happening all across the country – someday the gravy train will run out of gravy.

    • neocon01 January 9, 2013 / 6:35 pm

      someday the gravy train will run out of gravy.

      and THAT is the reason they are so hell bent to disarm us.

      • neocon01 January 9, 2013 / 6:39 pm

        the “SYSTEM” ****FAILED**** HER”
        REALLY?? REALLY??
        WHY should tax payers PAY?
        fo ALL my chillen n be held accntble?? YEAH YOU and your dog.
        spay them both.

      • neocon01 January 9, 2013 / 7:37 pm

        al Ubama’s idea of General welfare……….

      • Jeremiah January 10, 2013 / 9:47 am

        She’s lookin’ for you, Neo. LOL
        jk

    • watsonthethird January 9, 2013 / 10:18 pm

      Well, tired, at least you’re willing to cut the crap and get straight to the point. It’s not the constitution at all. It’s that some people might be getting a hand out and you resent it–especially when they don’t look like you. That’s really what this is all about. But the problem with conservatives is that they themselves feed at the gravy train, too. The growth in federal spending on entitlements isn’t because of mothers with 15 kids; its coming from old people. Middle class people. And a lot of B4V’ers fit that bill, whether they’re willing to admit it or not.

      You huff and puff about the evils of socialism and how the constitution is being subverted, right up until the time your taxpayer-funded entitlements and handouts are threatened. Then it’s different. Then you come up with rationalizations for your government checks. As I’ve said before, there isn’t a one of you that could depend on yourselves for health care in your old age. If you claim you can, then put your money where your mouth is and pay for your care out of your own pocket. And that’s just one example.

      • Amazona January 9, 2013 / 10:53 pm

        ” As I’ve said before, there isn’t a one of you that could depend on yourselves for health care in your old age”

        You lie.

        “It’s that some people might be getting a hand out and you resent it–especially when they don’t look like you.”

        Not just a lie but a vicious lie.

        ” If you claim you can, then put your money where your mouth is and pay for your care out of your own pocket.”

        I do.

        And it’s not our fault you still don’t know the difference between an entitlement, in which someone just receives a handout, and deferred benefit by which someone pays in advance for what is received later.

        Too stupid to understand or too dishonest to admit it, it doesn’t matter. One way or the other, it’s still just the wattle.

      • Amazona January 9, 2013 / 10:56 pm

        “It’s not the constitution at all.”

        Biggest lie of all. But then what else can we expect of the wattle, who is not only ignorant of the Constitution but determined to remain that way.

        Do tell, wattle—-what in the Constitution allows the redistribution of wealth? It’s a simple question. Can you answer it?

      • tiredoflibbs January 9, 2013 / 11:33 pm

        Watty, you are such a liar!

        I haven’t rationalized SQUAT! Several of us have said that WE ARE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. WE DON’T AGREE WITH IT AND WE WANT THE OPTION TO GET OUT.

        We know you have a problem with reading comprehension. I don’t see you calling for the end of “middle class welfare”! Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is, Watty?

        We do know tat under the obAMATEUR, welfare and food stamp growth far outpaced job growth!

        If you have a spine you can find that data easily. But, you are too much of a coward to do so.

        The DEMOCRATS will continue to grow the dependent class to retain power. That is what I resent.

        Go away coward, you have nothing but hatred.

      • The Return of Rathaven January 10, 2013 / 1:24 pm

        Actually, watson has a point.

        We should opt out of social security and stop redistributing our money to old people and expecting young people from doing the same when it’s our turn.

        Turn on, tune in, drop out.

        Now if watson can just tell us how to do that …

      • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 1:29 pm

        Oh my, Little Amy. A vicious lie? Hardly. The reason I get such a heated response from the likes of you and tired is that you know it is the truth. Cuts a little too close to the bone.

        And by the way, Amy, Medicare is not a deferred benefit. The health care of current retirees is paid by the taxes collected from current taxpayers. It’s as simple as that. There is no deferred benefit. At least you can claim that fiction with Social Security, but not Medicare. But nice try to once again rationalize your behavior.

      • tiredoflibbs January 10, 2013 / 1:57 pm

        “The reason I get such a heated response from the likes of you and tired is that you know it is the truth. Cuts a little too close to the bone.”

        No warty, what generates our heated response is your continued use of lies and dumbed down talking points regardless of the facts we bring up.

        You are aware that Soc Sec recipients are charged a PREMIUM for Medicare?

        Obviously not, you are as ignorant as mitchie. I see you haven’t grown a spine, but rather favor using your dumbed down talking points than think for yourself.

        Pathetically.

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 1:57 pm

        Oh, wattle, do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself.

        Medicare is a deferred benefit in that the person forced to “contribute” to it is not allowed to participate in the program until a certain age. Therefore, while paying in for, say, 40 years, the use of the program is deferred.

        Don’t play silly semantics games.

        And don’t pretend that you are not fully aware that the “vicious lie” to which I referred, one of so many deposited here by you, is in the snarl ““It’s that some people might be getting a hand out and you resent it–especially when they don’t look like you.

        We are talking about the Constitution, and all you can do is wallow in your spite and malice, and hurl vile accusations and invent vicious lies. It’s a sick little game you play, where you spew out vicious accusations, and when you are called on it you then smirk that the only reason anyone would find them offensive is because they are too close to the truth. I guess this is just an extension of the Leftist concept of relativism, but as usual you are wrong. Some things are vicious lies just because they are vicious and they are lies.

        As I said, pure wattle.

        And BTW, the response your sick ego had to recast as “heated” was about as emotional as swatting an annoying mosquito. You flatter yourself, but it is telling that you have such a need for validation that you seek in in any form, even contempt.

      • tiredoflibbs January 10, 2013 / 1:59 pm

        Dang auto correct on I-phone…

      • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 2:32 pm

        Rathaven said, “We should opt out of social security and stop redistributing our money to old people and expecting young people from doing the same when it’s our turn.”

        Right. If you stop “redistributing” money to old people starting now, and you’re willing to accept the consequences, then at least there’s some honesty. Cut all the government checks. All of it. To NeoClown. To Spook. To all of them. Starting today.

        The problem is that most so-called conservatives don’t actually want that. True, they don’t want their money going to all the mothers with 15 kids. But when _they_ actually need help to keep from becoming destitute in their old age (or to stay alive), then they are all for continuing redistribution to old people. Their idea of eliminating “redistribution” is on the backs of other people, just so long as their entitlements aren’t affected.

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 2:39 pm

        wattle, your constant blathering about what other people think, want, will do, would do, could do, might do, etc. is really tiresome. And sad, in a creepy way, because it is an ongoing and unwanted peek into a disturbed psyche seething with fury at strangers, just because they think differently than you do.

        You have a bitter, sour, nasty vision in your mind, which you are trying to apply to people you don’t know, just because those voices in your head telling you these fantasies are really making you angry.

        You are oblivious to what is clear to everyone else—you invent hateful, nasty fantasies about strangers and then attack them because you claim that your fantasies about them are true. But all the ugliness, all the hatefulness, come from inside YOU.

        And BTW, a “conservative” is one who believes the Constitution of the United States of America is not only the law of the land but the best form of government for this nation. Maybe you ought to focus on why this ticks you off so much, and why you find it offensive.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 10, 2013 / 3:01 pm

        Still waiting to find out exactly how to opt out.

        I’d love to stop paying into Social Security, and I’d love to get back the money i paid in since Social Security and Medicare are, by definitional a deferred benefit plan (according to 26 USC § 414) and there is little to no chance that the amount of benefits I have paid in will ever be reimbursed to me.

        Just tell me where to sign and I’ll forgo all previously paid premiums into my specific account which Social Security has logged based on my Social Security number since I first began working. But, being a simple-minded tool of the Leftest Masters and unable to reason beyond your dumbed-down talking points you cannot.

        Being a ward of the State is the best from life watson can expect.

      • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 3:14 pm

        Count said, “Still waiting to find out exactly how to opt out.”

        You can start by advocating for policies that don’t exempt the current generation of American receiving entitlements. Don’t be so dishonest as to claim that your policies are right and proper, but should start with future generations.

        You can start by investigating what your health care options will be in your old age without any government safety net. You can start with the fact that the state in which you live, Count, doesn’t require insurance companies to insure anyone. (That may change with ObamaCare.) Given that, I doubt that old, sick people will have any options at all. But maybe that’s the way you want it.

        As for Little Amy complaining about my comments, my advice to you is to stop reading them.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 10, 2013 / 3:37 pm

        Watson, “you can start by advocating for policies that don’t exempt the current generation of American receiving entitlements.” Already done, see: Ryan Plan.
        investigating what your health care options will be in your old age without any government safety net.” You need to do some “investigation”. That is not possible; under current conditions medical insurance is required to defer to Medicare all applicable charges and supplement anything beyond that to the maximum allowable.
        You can start with the fact that the state in which you live, Count, doesn’t require insurance companies to insure anyone.” Again, wrong, in this state citizens are not permitted to opt out of medical insurance if the insurance is offered or available without posting a bond with the state. All employers sanctioned by the state of California require employees to have a minimum amount of medical insurance even if that means we pay premiums.

        At any rate, as pointed out earlier, Social Security and Medicare are deferred benefit programs, meaning that neo, Spook, et al have “paid in” to a program and are in process of receiving the benefits of that pay in; this is the antithesis of an entitlement like the massive amount of government largess you & your fellow moochers and takers receive at the public teat.

        You should really read what others here have written because you are woefully ignorant.

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 3:40 pm

        Just as the wattle reserves the right to subvert the Constitution at will, he still clings to his determination to redefine “entitlement” at will.

        Social Security and Medicare are contracts with the government. The government says “We’re going to take some money from you now, but you will get it back later, in the form of payments to you or your health care providers”. While a true contract has to be voluntary, this is still the contract offered to the people who have their private property confiscated by the State. Charity is not an enumerated duty of the federal government and is therefore not allowed to the federal government.

        And many of the recipients of government charity have never been a part of any contract at all—have never contributed to the schemes, so are not receiving any pre-paid benefit but are simply being given the property of others. This is pure charity, instead of the partial charity of government deferred benefit programs.

        Military pensions are true contracts, mutual agreements between the government and those who agree to serve. The government says “We need your skills and talent, but we don’t want to pay what you could get for them in the private sector, so this is our bargain with you—you sign on for 20 years or more, you agree to work for much less than you could make for the same skills outside the military, you give up your right to decide where you are going to live or what you are going to do. You will go where we send you, and it may be dangerous and it will certainly often be uncomfortable. You may be separated from your family for long periods of time, and your family may be dislocated from homes and schools and communities if we decide to move you. In return, upon retirement we will provide you with a pension, to help offset the low pay and extreme demands of military service.” This is a remuneration agreement between a Constitutionally allowed military and its members, and is legal under the Constitution.

        wattle is on record as approving of the first, the Constitutionally indefensible social engineering/charity schemes, but also is in favor of the government reneging on its legal contract with its retired military.

        It’s a strange way of looking at the world, and an even stranger way of looking at how our nation should be governed.

    • M. Noonan January 11, 2013 / 8:59 pm

      “Somebody’s got to pay”…but not her! She’s just the suffering mother! She doesn’t have to pay…”somebody” does…somebody with a job. Somebody who got married before having 10 children with a man. Somebody who doesn’t have a total of 15 children with multiple fathers. Somebody with a modicum of self respect.

      But, also, this brings to mind something that our liberals don’t seem to understand as they go about “promoting the general welfare” via taxpayer subsidies: this woman clearly hasn’t the foggiest notion how to live. No one, it appears, ever took her aside and attempted to instruct her on how to be a responsible citizen. Do you think she’s sternly educating her children on the realities of life? Or do we want to bet that a least a good portion of her children will wind up just like her?

      When I lived in Florida back in the 1990’s, one of the jobs I had was as an insurance salesman – selling life insurance policies at the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum (that’s another scam that needs to be looked in to – I couldn’t stomach it for long and quit, but its quite corrupt how insurance companies sell these “burial” policies where all the money in them winds up in the funeral director’s pocket). But I did enter the homes of these people – some of them, poor as they were, were quite respectable…most were vermin infested dung heaps. Grandmothers on down to granddaughters on welfare with a pack of ill-clad, ill-cared-for kids running around. And with all that welfare money and all that host of well-paid government bureaucrats running around, no one had every apparently thought to go in to those homes and at least show those people how to clean house. It taught me, right then and there, that no one in the liberal welfare State gives a tupenny damn about these people…they are just an excuse for a well-paid government job and a captive batch of voters.

  5. Retired Spook January 10, 2013 / 12:51 am

    The subversion of the Constitution, and the General Welfare clause in particular, isn’t something that just happened. It’s been a concerted effort by a movement that has transcended several generations of very patient and evil people, and there’s a growing sense that they are about to mount the final offensive. It’s only going to be reversed in one of two ways: either by an equally patient, multi-generational effort on the part of constitutionally oriented individuals or by some sort of violent socio-economic reset.

  6. Cluster January 10, 2013 / 9:05 am

    Watsons response is exactly what I referred to in the “scorched earth” campaign being waged by progressives, and is nothing new. I remember reading something very similar to this post from other progressives in the years past. It’s a childish response, and allows them to avoid any critical analysis of the issue in favor of demonizing their opponents as bigots and racists.

    It is mind numbingly frustrating that we have such thick headed people in our presence.

    • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 1:31 pm

      It’s not scorched earth. It’s the fundamental weakness of your argument. tiredoflibbs perfectly summed up the conservative position in 2013 with his post. You’re intellectually dishonest.

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 2:01 pm

        wattle, your “response” isn’t even relevant to what was posted. If you don’t know what a “scorched earth” policy is, then don’t blather on as you do.

        You are an example of this policy, ignoring fact and refusing to engage in rational discourse, instead wallowing in your sick need to destroy those with different points of view, as they are ENEMIES.

        You show no interest at all in explaining why you disagree, but instead illustrate a sick need to seek out people who see things differently than you do and then viciously attack them. You are not here for political discourse, but to wallow in your pathology.

  7. dbschmidt January 10, 2013 / 10:41 am

    From an article I read yesterday, and short of posting the entire article–this is a good summation. Well worth the read if you want to understand the “Left” a little better.

    The Left’s Greatest Mind-Trick: Politicizing Emotion

    Now, consider the welfare state. Is it right or wrong to help a poor person? What about providing for children’s education? Or making sure that everyone has health coverage? These things appear self-evidently right, and therefore the cost doesn’t matter to the left. Scarcity and how resources are employed don’t enter into the equation. Voluntary or involuntary, it doesn’t matter how these things are done. So it doesn’t matter if government forces people to do something or not.

    Leftists are convinced they are on the side of right. They don’t care about the cost; they care about humanity. Due to their preoccupation about humanity, they don’t particularly care about individuals (ask any leftist what he thinks about the tens of millions killed by avowed socialists). This does not mean that leftists are hard-hearted; rather, they tend to be hyper-sensitive stars in their own imagined melodrama.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_lefts_greatest_mind-trick_politicizing_emotion.html

    • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 1:32 pm

      That’s great, db. Let me know how your retirement goes without Medicare.

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 1:46 pm

        “That’s great, db. Let me know how your retirement goes without Medicare.”

        Gee, wattle, are you saying that the feds ought to refund db’s forced “contribution” to this scheme, with interest, instead of paying it out to him as an ongoing benefit?

        And, just curious—do you have insurance? Have you voluntarily chosen to pay a premium to a company, to spread liability and cost over a large number of participants, with the expectation that if you have a covered claim it will be honored? Have you ever made an insurance claim?

        Did you consider this a freebie, a handout, an entitlement? Did this make you a moocher, a leech, a parasite?

        Please explain why someone who has voluntarily entered into an insurance contract is held to a different standard, regarding claims on the contract, than someone who was forced into this contract involuntarily.

        BTW, we did notice that you were unable to address the content of db’s post and could do nothing but make a feeble irrelevant snarl.

      • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 1:54 pm

        First off, I’m not old enough to be eligible for Medicare. Second, my health care is not subsidized by the taxpayer. Third, I have no problem with the federal government providing a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care. Fourth, I have no problem paying taxes to support that problem.

        It is people like you, Little Amy, who have a problem with it.

      • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 1:57 pm

        Actually, just to be clearer, it is people like you, Little Amy, that have a problem with it — until you actually need to rely on taxpayers to subsidize your health care. Then your tune will change in an instant.

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 2:08 pm

        “First off, I’m not old enough to be eligible for Medicare”

        I didn’t ask your age, or make any reference to YOU participating in Medicare. I asked about insurance in general, and in fact about VOLUNTARY participation in insurance plans, not the forced participation of Medicare.

        So, do you or do you not have any insurance? Health, property, car? Have you ever made a claim on any of them? Did this make you a moocher, a leech, a parasite?

        “Second, my health care is not subsidized by the taxpayer.”

        It is now, or will be soon, under Obamacare–regardless of your age.

        ” Third, I have no problem with the federal government providing a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care. ”

        That little gem can easily be reframed to make it more accurate and relevant to the thread: ” Third, I have no problem with subverting the Constitution of the United States of America to implement a program not constitutionally allowed to the federal government, to provide a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care. ”

        And this, wattle, is what the thread is about.

        Do try to keep up.

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 2:14 pm

        And, wattle, you might stop consulting that cloudy old crystal ball to inform me and others of what we really think and what we will really do .

        You are simply inventing scenarios that you foolishly think support your position, and all you are doing is making an even bigger fool of yourself.

        Every word you post is dependent on some weird distortion of fact and truth,and indicative only of the chaos in your own mind.

        I, for example, have no problem with a government deciding to provide a safety net for people whose personal health care planning has fallen short. I just believe that, first, it should always be the responsibility of the individual to do his own planning, and second that any safety net has to be accomplished within the boundaries of the law of the land—the Constitution of the United States.

        Therefore, any such safety net would have to be done by the State, or by the People, as it is not included in any of the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government. And if the people of a state agree that they want their state to engage in this kind of a program,then they are fully entitled, under our constitutional law, to do so.

      • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 2:34 pm

        Little Amy said, “That little gem can easily be reframed to make it more accurate and relevant to the thread: ” Third, I have no problem with subverting the Constitution of the United States of America to implement a program not constitutionally allowed to the federal government, to provide a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care. ”

        Right. And I think most of you are inherently dishonest about it. Have I not made myself clear on that point?

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 3:20 pm

        Well, congratulations, wattle, for admitting that you disdain the Constitution and have no problem with advocating its subversion if you personally happen to approve of the reason for breaking a particular law.

        You not only agree with the way I restated your comment, you got downright snippy about it—- ” Have I not made myself clear on that point?”

        Well, actually you and your fellow travelers HAVE made that clear, but at the same time have claimed to really support the Constitution, and just had a different spin on what it means. It is rather refreshing to see one of you come right out and admit that you have no problem in simply ignoring what our rule of law says, if it doesn’t comply with what you think should be done.

        I wish more of you would do the same, admit to your true belief that the Constitution is meaningless and should be discarded or ignored or subverted whenever one of you finds it inconvenient.

        But this does bring up a question, and it is a serious one—does this right to ignore the Constitution apply to everyone? It seems that you might be looking at this as if only people who agree with you ought to be able to subvert the Constitution to advance their own agendas, but what is your opinion on whether or not someone with a very different agenda also takes the position that the Constitution has no authority regarding HIS goals?

        What if a movement gains power and wants Congress to establish a mandatory state religion? What if some group feels it unnecessary to demand a speedy trial—or trials at all? Should the Constitutional requirement for a presidential election every four years be dismissed if you happen to like the guy in power now? What if the guy is George W. Bush?

        Is it all relative?

        If Might Makes Right, and those in power get to make the rules as long as they hold that power, regardless of what our Constitution says, then how would our nation be different from any other tyranny? And would you be so complacent about tossing aside Constitutional restrictions and laws if it was the Opposition wanting to do so?

      • dbschmidt January 10, 2013 / 5:46 pm

        Third, I have no problem with the federal government providing a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care–Watson

        Actually, I do as it is not an enumerated duty of the Federal Government. That does not mean I am against health care but at best it should be a State issue. That is the part most Liberals fail to realize–what is and is not in the purview of the FEDERAL government.

        BTW, search on Galveston County, TX and their county opt-out of SS. Why was that option not available to me? The returns they are receiving are multiples of SS recipients today. I am in my 50’s and right now I would sign a deal with the government that if they returned everything they extracted from me (even without interest unlike the IRS) at the point of a gun (forced, coerced) I would not rely on them for either SS or Medicare/Medicaid.

      • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 6:57 pm

        db, the wattle goes even farther than your quote. When I reframed the comment you quoted, this was the response: (emphasis mine)

        “Little Amy said, “That little gem can easily be reframed to make it more accurate and relevant to the thread: ” Third, I have no problem with subverting the Constitution of the United States of America to implement a program not constitutionally allowed to the federal government, to provide a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care. ”

        Right. And I think most of you are inherently dishonest about it. Have I not made myself clear on that point?

        So you see there is an overt admission to being just fine with, and I quote, “..subverting the Constitution…”.

        So when you try to use reason, saying “Actually, I do as it is not an enumerated duty of the Federal Government. That does not mean I am against health care but at best it should be a State issue. That is the part most Liberals fail to realize–what is and is not in the purview of the FEDERAL government. ” it is useless, because this argument would only be effective with someone who has some respect for the Constitution, who agrees it is the law of the land, and who has a desire to follow it.

        The wattle is none of these, but finally admitted to outright disdain for the Constitution. So any comment on enumerated duties will fall on deaf ears, because he admits he simply does not care—that the Constitution should be subverted to advance an agenda he personally approves of.

        You may have noticed that he never responded to my very serious questions about what happens when this attitude is applied across the board.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 10, 2013 / 8:55 pm

        You may have noticed that he never responded to my very serious questions about what happens when this attitude is applied across the board.

        I’ve noticed, in my albeit somewhat limited time here, that the liberals who comment here rarely answer serious questions, particularly of a philosophical nature, and yet it’s an almost exclusive tenet of the Left to accuse Conservatives of not being critical thinkers. Kinda humorous when you think about it — in a sad, pathetic sort of way.

    • Amazona January 10, 2013 / 1:39 pm

      ” Is it right or wrong to help a poor person? What about providing for children’s education? Or making sure that everyone has health coverage? These things appear self-evidently right,….”

      …and they are. Each is a noble aspiration and should be encouraged in our society.

      The problem is not what should be done but how it should be done. And the Left has decreed that all of this should be done by the federal government, in ignorance or defiance of the restrictions on the size scope and power of the federal government laid out in the Constitution.

      The leaders of the Left callously want all power shifted to the federal government because this is really a way for them to gain power for themselves. The followers of the Left are mindlessly oblivious of anything but the feel-good self-congratulatory smugness they feel when they can believe that they have done something, in spite of the fact that they did it with someone else’s time, energy and personal property.

      The Founders set up a system which is adaptable to any contingency, but only through a careful process, and the emoters resent the process so they want to discard it. It gets in their way. In a nearly infinitely flexible and adaptable governmental system, set up by the Founders, only one aspect was designed to be rigid and very nearly unchangeable, and that is the scope of authority of the federal government.

      The absolute restriction on the growth and power of the federal government was supposed to be the one thing that could not be altered without a great deal of discussion and consensus among the citizens. And it is this establishment of a reasonable process that makes our Constitution the best template for government in human history.

      What we are seeing now is the determination to discard the process and shift all power to the Executive Branch. One of the resident trolls once had a hissy fit when I referred to our Imperial Presidency, yet what we are seeing now is the Vice President announcing, with evident approval, the intent of the President to act not as President but as King, and unilaterally modify our Constitutional rule of law.

      And where is Congress when this is announced? How many in our Constitutionally elected body of legislators, who so recently swore an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution, will stand up for it and honor that oath if the man who is preparing to take that oath again in a few days is also announcing, via a surrogate, his intention to do the opposite?

  8. Cluster January 10, 2013 / 12:38 pm

    they tend to be hyper-sensitive stars in their own imagined melodrama

    That’s exactly it DB. The American Thinker article perfectly summed what progressives are.

  9. Amazona January 10, 2013 / 2:24 pm

    I am amused by watson’s frantic effort to shift the discussion away from the intent of the General Welfare Clause, which is so often cited by the low-information emoters as the justification for their social engineering experiments, and into one specific issue, where he can invent motives for others and hurl insults and generally pretend to be part of a discussion while avoiding the actual topic.

    This is the pattern of the Left. The leaders do it on purpose, to avoid having to deal with fact and to clutter the discussion with emotion, and the followers do it because they are so ignorant of the actual core of discussions like this that all they CAN do is fall back on their hysteria and hatreds.

    And then there is the sub-group of people like watson who couldn’t care less about anything but spewing out their boundless hatreds and hostilities, using any political or pseudo political or semi political excuse to try to slap on a thin veneer of justification, but not fooling anyone. It’s wallowing in a pathology—nothing more, nothing less. watson, and his ilk, have a driving need to express their hatred and contempt and negativity, so they troll the internet looking for people they can attack on the pretense of political discourse.

  10. Cluster January 10, 2013 / 2:48 pm

    It’s truly remarkable how stupid and dishonest Watson continues to be. He learns absolutely nothing and seems to relish his role in the imagined melodramatic world he creates for himself. Despite countless times, over the past several years of conservatives calling for means testing of Medicare, and social security, in addition to the sought after “opt out” option, Watson continues to use those programs as a political club thinking that he has us in a corner, when in fact all he does is expose his incredible thick headed ignorance.

    Absolutely stunning.

  11. Cluster January 10, 2013 / 2:57 pm

    The American Thinker article explains Watson perfectly. He is that hyper sensitive champion for mankind and a star in his own imagined melodramatic world fighting for the little guy against evil hypocritical foes.

    It’s hilarious.

  12. Cluster January 10, 2013 / 3:11 pm

    The following is the perfect narrative from our melodramatic star:

    Third, I have no problem with the federal government providing a health care program so that our nation’s old people get adequate health care. Fourth, I have no problem paying taxes to support that problem. – Watson

    He cares so much about mankind that he has no problem with the government providing healthcare to its older citizens, and anyone who questions the right of the government to administer it, cost of the program as a whole, and qualification of to receive such benefit, is simply an extremist and uncaring fool.

    This is the melodramatic world that Watson occupies.

  13. Cluster January 10, 2013 / 3:21 pm

    You can start by advocating for policies that don’t exempt the current generation of American receiving entitlements – Watson

    Means testing is a plan that wouldn’t exempt the current generation. Just another inconvenient truth not allowed inside the hyper sensitive melodramatic liberal works of Watson.

    And I loved his last line – “then don’t read it”. It’s good to see Watson still remembers grade school tactics.

  14. Cluster January 10, 2013 / 3:28 pm

    Watson is really full of stupid today is he not? Loved this one –

    And by the way, Amy, Medicare is not a deferred benefit. The health care of current retirees is paid by the taxes collected from current taxpayers. It’s as simple as that. There is no deferred benefit. At least you can claim that fiction with Social Security, but not Medicare. But nice try to once again rationalize your behavior.

    Watson, there is no difference between the deferred benefit programs of SS and Medicare. We pay in now, with the expected benefit of either monthly cash payments, or medical services in the future. Hence a deferred benefit. And by the way, many seniors still do supplement their Medicare coverage. Just FYI. So they are still paying, not the youngsters.

  15. Cluster January 10, 2013 / 3:31 pm

    James, the King of melodramatic ignorance who fights evil strawman in the name of unexamined compassion and is truly an Oscar winning star in his own misguided realty has entered our world.

    Welcome James.

    James is not welcome and will not be welcomed. James has a pattern of coming back with a post or two that are not very offensive and then if the posts are allowed to remain he falls back into his routine of racism, bigotry, and personal attacks. His posts will continue to be removed. //Moderator

    • neocon01 January 10, 2013 / 5:15 pm

      jimmah (sasan)

      has left the building………AGAIN 🙂

  16. Retired Spook January 10, 2013 / 4:13 pm

    Watson,

    Your posts here are becoming more and more disjointed and void of facts. You make the same accusations/arguments over and over and over. You never quite get around to saying how you would fix problems other than suggesting that Conservatives should just opt out of programs that are not opt-outable. So I really have only one basic question for you (actually a 2-parter): do you believe the activities the federal government is currently engaged in (regardless of whether or not they’re authorized under the Constitution) are sustainable, and, if so, how, and if not, why not?

    • watsonthethird January 10, 2013 / 11:45 pm

      Ah bugger, let’s try it again with correct formatting so it’s easier to read.

      Spook said:

      Your posts here are becoming more and more disjointed and void of facts. You make the same accusations/arguments over and over and over. You never quite get around to saying how you would fix problems other than suggesting that Conservatives should just opt out of programs that are not opt-outable. So I really have only one basic question for you (actually a 2-parter): do you believe the activities the federal government is currently engaged in (regardless of whether or not they’re authorized under the Constitution) are sustainable, and, if so, how, and if not, why not?

      Aside from your snide editorializing, that’s a fair question. I do think changes need to be made to keep programs such as Medicare and Social Security sustainable. But I also think that everybody has to sacrifice, including you and your fellow retirees. I support a combination of tax increases and reduced benefits. If we accept that federal spending is out of control, as is often stated here in B4V (I’m not sure exactly how your phrase it), then we have to look at everything to get things back in order. And yes, that would include your retirement benefits. If we truly can’t afford them anymore, then something has to give, don’t you agree?

      tiredoflibb’s injecting the video of the woman with 15 children is just a classic stereotype of the conservative mind. The sustainability of the federal government is not threatened by women like her. If you look at the primary driver of spending, it is old people. It’s just that simple.

      The reason I suggest that conservatives are dishonest about this is that polls show that two-thirds of self-identified conservatives don’t want Medicare benefits reduced. At the same time, they rail against perceived socialism. Maybe you are in the other one-third, but the vast majority of conservatives hold inconsistent positions. Why do you suppose that is? I think it’s because self-preservation trumps political ideology. The vast majority of conservatives realize that they need those benefits, that they want them. If not now, then later. When it comes down to it, that is ultimately more important than their ideology. In the meantime, venting about “socialism” and subverting the constitution makes them feel better.

      So now a question for you: Why do you think the majority of conservatives simultaneously rail against socialism while at the same time rejecting any cuts in Medicare?

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 12:21 am

        Why do you think the majority of conservatives simultaneously rail against socialism while at the same time rejecting any cuts in Medicare?

        It kind of depends on the age of the Conservatives, Watson. Assuming you are saying that people my age, already on SS and MediCare, should suddenly have their benefits cut, then you would be in a tiny minority of people suggesting that. That would be like your bank changing the terms of a fixed-rate mortgage 5 years into the mortgage. Democrats aren’t suggesting ANY entitlement reforms; in fact, they’re avoiding reform like the plague. At least Romney and Ryan were suggesting reforming Medicare for those younger than 55, and virtually every Conservative I know, regardless of age, supported that. George Bush invited the Democrats to join him in coming up with ways to extend the solvency of SS in 2003, saying EVERYTHING was on the table. They told him to pound sand.

        When Tip O’Neil and Reagan got together in 1983 and agreed to raise the SS retirement age over a period of a couple decades from 65 to 67 and begin indexing the wage cap on which SS deductions were subject to, it added 30 years to the solvency of SS. Removing the cap completely for MediCare deductions improved the solvency of Medicare. The point being, it wouldn’t take much to extend the solvency of both programs, but each year that Congress does nothing, the window to do SOMETHING closes a little more. For the last 30 years, Democrats have preferred to use the threat of the GOP destroying SS and MediCare as an electoral club rather than actually doing something to preserve both programs for future generations.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 12:46 am

        Well, perhaps two-thirds of conservatives are your age, which would explain the poll benefits. And of course you would be against any cuts to your benefits. Everyone is against cuts to their own benefits. That’s my point. But if things are as bad as your pals say, then you should sacrifice for the good of the country along with the rest of us.

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 1:10 am

        And of course you would be against any cuts to your benefits.

        I never said that, but that doesn’t seem to stop you from just making it up. Your argument reminds me of the contrived contraceptive issue that was used to beat up Romney. George Stephanopoulos asked Romney in one of the primary debates if he thought states could ban contraceptives. Romney was incredulous, and said that, while states had that power, no one was even talking about it, much less suggesting it. And thus a manufactured issue was born that morphed in the equally manufactured War on Women. Now you’re suggesting that retired people on SS and MediCare voluntarily agree to cuts in benefits when NO ONE else is suggesting that. And it’s duly noted that you’re not suggesting that ANYONE on any form of welfare voluntarily take less.

        But if things are as bad as your pals say, then you should sacrifice for the good of the country along with the rest of us.

        And, pray tell, what is YOUR sacrifice?

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 1:26 pm

        Spook said, “And, pray tell, what is YOUR sacrifice?”

        My sacrifice would be to pay more taxes, in large part to support the benefits people like you are currently receiving.

        Spook: “Now you’re suggesting that retired people on SS and MediCare voluntarily agree to cuts in benefits when NO ONE else is suggesting that.”

        No, I mean everyone. I will pay more in taxes. You will take less in benefits. People on welfare people will take less. Everyone shares the burden of getting the nation’s fiscal house in order.

        So let’s just cut to the chase: Would you be willing to to accept cuts in your benefits in order to getting the nation’s fiscal house in order?

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 1:40 pm

        Spook said, “Your argument reminds me of the contrived contraceptive issue that was used to beat up Romney.”

        See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-contraception_n_1974752.html

        Earlier in his campaign, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney took a clear stand on the issue of contraception coverage by stating that he would support legislation that allowed all employers to refuse to cover employees’ birth control for moral reasons. But lately, when Romney is pressed on that particular stance, he dodges the question in a way that gives the impression he has reversed his previous position.

        Not only did Romney make it an issue, other conservatives running for office in 2012 most certainly did as well.

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 1:51 pm

        So let’s just cut to the chase: Would you be willing to to accept cuts in your benefits in order to getting the nation’s fiscal house in order?

        I would on one condition: that there was a written guarantee, signed by every member of Congress that the additional revenue would be used to reduce the deficit. Think the Dems will go for that? Not a chance of a snowball in hell!

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 2:07 pm

        Not only did Romney make it an issue, other conservatives running for office in 2012 most certainly did as well.

        No, the media in the person of George Stephanopoulos made it an issue. Contraception and insurance coverage for contraception wasn’t even on anyone’s radar until George asked Romney the question in the primary debate. Once Romney said that states DID have the legal power to ban contraception (never mind that no state was considering or would consider it) it opened the floodgates, and voila — a manufactured issue that millions of brain-dead women believed based on exit polls.

        And the Huffpo piece tries desperately to put an negative spin on it, but they don’t really address how the issue came up in the first place.

      • dbschmidt January 11, 2013 / 2:37 pm

        I am in my fifties and as I have stated before (and has been recommended by many conservatives) I want to opt-out of a program that will not allow me. There would be a large pool in a free-market of us “in-betweeners” that want out. Means test existing based on the amount they were forced to pay into these Ponzi schemes (SS & MediCare) and return their benefits over the coarse of the remainder of their lives. Have the youngest entering the job market be able to have health savings accounts and free-market insurance to cover them. Basically, privatize the entire shebang.

        With that said, insurance is a risk / reward business and as part of that model dependent on % of market share–these companies would also have to carry that % of the un-insurable ; however, they would have to carry insurance prior to the ambulance ride to the ER.

      • dbschmidt January 11, 2013 / 2:43 pm

        BTW, this post is on the General Welfare Clause and how it has been perverted through the years including SS & Medicare. Neither SS, MediCare / Medicaid, nor ObamaCare are Constitutional duties of the Federal government.

        Don’t bring up the SCotUS decision which had nothing to do with the Constitutionality of ObamaCare. That will bew heard after it is in effect in 2014.

        So, aside from all of the buggery of the Left–where does this power come from and why does anyone think it is okay?

    • tiredoflibbs January 11, 2013 / 8:03 am

      Spook, watty is your typical Democrat. He buys into the “everyone must sacrifice”. By “sacrifice”, he means tax increases and not spending reforms. As we have seen in this “fiscal cliff” crap, obAMATEUR and the Democrats kept chanting “balanced approach”. But as we have seen it is all tax increases the “balance” of spending cuts are practically non-existent with more NEW spending. No reforms, no deficit reduction, no strengthening of SS, Medicare etc.

      Oh, for that they want MORE taxes.

      And uninformed drones like watty, mitchie, velma, denny , etc. etc. etc. they buy into and regurgitate the simple minded dumbed down pap.

      Pathetic.

      • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 1:28 pm

        No, tired, that’s not what I said. I was very clear that not only should taxes be raised, spending should be reduced as well. The problem for you is that spending on mothers with 15 kids is tiny relative to all the other spending. So cuts will have to come from elsewhere, especially benefits for retired people. Maybe you should take a refresher course in reading comprehension.

      • tiredoflibbs January 11, 2013 / 6:55 pm

        watty: “The problem for you is that spending on mothers with 15 kids is tiny relative to all the other spending.”

        Again, watty, you are either lying or incapable of comprehending the written word. I NEVER once said that the problem with spending on entitlements were due to women with 15 kids.

        But of course, that would require you to step out of your comfort zone of making sh!t up. We know you are comfortable with regurgitating dumbed down talking points even though you have been proven wrong time and again.

        I will amuse you a little more…..

        The federal government does not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. obAMATEUR has increased spending where we need to borrow or print money to the tune of over $ trillion per year….and he wants to spend MORE!!! Where will it end?

        And no, I am not talking cutting benefits but the waste in all government spending. But do, repeat your same crap as before to continued provided FACTS, it is very amusing.

  17. Cluster January 11, 2013 / 7:58 am

    Watson again proves that he is own Oscar winning star in his own trumped up altruistic world. This time he even writes the script:

    Admit that you expect the taxpayers to take care of you in old age.

    Earlier he claimed that Spook wants to cut everyone else’s benefits but not his own. So he builds the strawman, then ferociously tears them apart all in the name of superior compassion and understanding.

    He reminds me of Dudley Do Right.

    • watsonthethird January 11, 2013 / 1:35 pm

      Well then let’s just leave Spook out it. Polls show that two-thirds of self-identified conservatives don’t want Medicare benefits reduced. Spook suggested that the reason for this could be that the majority of those folks are already receiving Medicare. But more than two-thirds of self-identified conservatives don’t even want the Medicare eligibility raised. You would think that if you were already on Medicare you wouldn’t care about raising the eligibility of others–unless you realize how badly other old people are going to need the same benefit you are receiving.

      As for cartoon characters, you remind me of Bullwinkle.

      • Retired Spook January 11, 2013 / 2:19 pm

        But more than two-thirds of self-identified conservatives don’t even want the Medicare eligibility raised.

        It’s not just two-thirds of self-identified conservatives, Watson; it’s two-thirds across the board.

        What’s more, raising the eligibility age remains unpopular with most Americans.

        Sixty-seven percent of adults in an ABC News-Washington Post poll released last week said they opposed raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.

        “Opposition to increasing the Medicare eligibility age crosses partisan and ideological lines; it’s 68 percent or more among Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives alike,” according to Damla Ergun, an analyst at the polling firm Langer Research Associates. “Instead views relate to age; opposition peaks at 78 percent among adults age 50-64. It’s also higher among women and people with less than $100,000 incomes, compared with men and the better-off.”

  18. tiredoflibbs January 11, 2013 / 8:09 am

    watty still doesn’t get it. EVERYONE IS FORCED, repeat that FORCED, to participate in Social Security and Medicare, regardless of their ability to pay. That is the fragile crux of his argument. We don’t have a choice and he whines how hypocritical conservatives are.

    He does not get that it is not the woman with 15 kids that are bankrupting the system (a claim I never made) but proggy DEMOCRATS who refuse to reform the system after they have raided the “trust fund”. The trust fund does not exist – he falls for the lies of the Democrats and their “lock box” dumbed down talking point.

    No matter what FACTS are brought before him he still keeps regurgitating the dumbed down talking points like a good little mindless drone.

    Pathetic.

  19. Cluster January 11, 2013 / 5:11 pm

    It seems obvious that for-profit health care providers are primarily in business to make a profit, not provide health care. – Watson

    Watson, insurance providers are not health care providers. You really are a dumb SOB aren’t you?

  20. dbschmidt January 11, 2013 / 11:24 pm

    Think I finally figured out what was bugging me about Watson’s responses. He is for an honest to god democracy. The old two wolves and one lamb deciding what’s for dinner Democracy instead of the Republic we now have.

    At least he had the balls to come out and state his opinion (no matter how terribly wrong it is)–will give him that.

  21. dbschmidt January 12, 2013 / 10:48 pm

    Watson,

    I realize it is impervious to your thick skull but;

    • The Founding Fathers made a grave mistake by including the judiciary branch in the constitution. Those damned judges have been subverting the will of the Founding Fathers ever since. –Watson

    and Watson’s lack of reading comprehension (from the posting);

    With the many writings and comments of the Founders one can realize the general substance with respect towards the federal government was one not one of ever expansive powers but rather one of restriction on both power and scope.

    For example, nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents.

    What one will find is that our Founders only listed the enumerated duties and “General Welfare” was not one of them.

    Constitutional historians refer to what happened next as the “Revolution of 1937.” The President proposed that for each sitting justice over the age of seventy there be appointed one new Justice to “help them with their case load.” In reality, FDR wanted to pack the court with six additional justices willing to declare all of his “must legislation” Constitutional. What was about to happen would ultimately lead our country to the clear and present danger of economic insolvency. The Supreme Court at the time consisted of four conservatives, three liberals, one moderate, and one swing.

    Former slave Frederick Douglass advised: “Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. … The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Comments are closed.