Trumpcare

[Taomeow]

I'm just listening to people. 

 

Story number 1.  A man who has "normal" insurance had a bothersome cough a few months ago.  Went to the urgent care to check it out.  They said, you need to go to the ER.  He said, OK, I'll drive myself there, it's a 10 minute drive.  They said, no way, you need to go in an ambulance.  No explanation.  He's someone who "does as the doctor tells him."  Was taken to the ER, waited a few hours to be seen.  The doctor said, you have a cough.  Take some cough drops.  My friend had to find someone to drive him back to the urgent care place where his car was still parked.  A few days later got a bill from the hospital for the ambulance ride.   $2,800.00.

Spent the next two weeks on the phone (mostly on hold) with the hospital disputing the bill.  They finally agreed to review it.  Got a new bill.  $1,400.00. 

 

Story number 2.  Psychotic breakdown, in someone with no insurance.  Picked up by cops, hospitalized for three days, under mandatory observation.  Seen by psychiatrist, discharged -- crazy as a bat, but uninsured, no treatment required.

 

Story number 3.  Old woman, Medicare, on many meds, at least two of which "may cause difficulty breathing," if someone bothers to read the fine print on the insert.  Develops difficulty breathing.  Gets hospitalized.  Sedated, put on a ventilator.  Sedation used "may suppress the breathing center of the brain," if someone bothers to read the fine print.  They don't bother.  Three days later, they take her off the ventilator and she can't breathe on her own.  And is very confused -- well, a powerful cocktail of drugs to keep you down will do that to you, but they say, hey presto, she has dementia and she can't breathe, how about take her off life support?  The family agonize over it, say no.  The woman sedated into "dementia" pulls the tubes, the family are asked, well, do you want them put back in?  This goes on for a month or so, back and forth, but she's never taken off meds to see what might happen if the breathing center and other centers of the brain aren't being suppressed by drugs by any chance.  Funeral last week.

 

Story number 4.  Someone very happy with her coverage.  She has the best insurance in the country.  One company, in New York, provides the best insurance in the country.  Always did, before obamacare and after.  The insurance covers everything, even acupuncture -- a lot of it.  Her husband who works for this company is not happy there.  He wants to look for another job.  Any other job means losing the best insurance in the country.  He is not changing jobs.  Only because of that, no other reason.

 

What am I driving at?  I don't know.  Which of the four stories cited sounds like "health care" to you?..  
 

[cold]

The system is broke my friend...

[Brian]

I'm just listening to people.

 

Story number 1. A man who has "normal" insurance had a bothersome cough a few months ago. Went to the urgent care to check it out. They said, you need to go to the ER. He said, OK, I'll drive myself there, it's a 10 minute drive. They said, no way, you need to go in an ambulance. No explanation. He's someone who "does as the doctor tells him." Was taken to the ER, waited a few hours to be seen. The doctor said, you have a cough. Take some cough drops. My friend had to find someone to drive him back to the urgent care place where his car was still parked. A few days later got a bill from the hospital for the ambulance ride. $2,800.00.

Spent the next two weeks on the phone (mostly on hold) with the hospital disputing the bill. They finally agreed to review it. Got a new bill. $1,400.00.

 

Story number 2. Psychotic breakdown, in someone with no insurance. Picked up by cops, hospitalized for three days, under mandatory observation. Seen by psychiatrist, discharged -- crazy as a bat, but uninsured, no treatment required.

 

Story number 3. Old woman, Medicare, on many meds, at least two of which "may cause difficulty breathing," if someone bothers to read the fine print on the insert. Develops difficulty breathing. Gets hospitalized. Sedated, put on a ventilator. Sedation used "may suppress the breathing center of the brain," if someone bothers to read the fine print. They don't bother. Three days later, they take her off the ventilator and she can't breathe on her own. And is very confused -- well, a powerful cocktail of drugs to keep you down will do that to you, but they say, hey presto, she has dementia and she can't breathe, how about take her off life support? The family agonize over it, say no. The woman sedated into "dementia" pulls the tubes, the family are asked, well, do you want them put back in? This goes on for a month or so, back and forth, but she's never taken off meds to see what might happen if the breathing center and other centers of the brain aren't being suppressed by drugs by any chance. Funeral last week.

 

Story number 4. Someone very happy with her coverage. She has the best insurance in the country. One company, in New York, provides the best insurance in the country. Always did, before obamacare and after. The insurance covers everything, even acupuncture -- a lot of it. Her husband who works for this company is not happy there. He wants to look for another job. Any other job means losing the best insurance in the country. He is not changing jobs. Only because of that, no other reason.

 

What am I driving at? I don't know. Which of the four stories cited sounds like "health care" to you?..

 

This isn't about providing healthcare, it's about controlling healthcare as a means of controlling the masses -- about controlling the system and controlling the money.

 

The way to return control to the individual is to literally return control to the individual. It is really as simple as that. Want better products and services? Let the consumer make informed decisions on his or her own behalf. Want better value? Let the consumer make informed decisions on his or her own behalf. "Healthcare" isn't special in this regard.

[Trunk]

[blackstar212]

Because some people want to see social Darwinism. They relish in people suffering. It is the ONLY explanation.

[MooNiNite]

This is basically why healthcare is so expensive.

 

 

There are no checks and balances/competition, so there is bribery/exploitation. 

 

20 million for "firewood", response: "we dont have the records, we just spend the money."

 

That's like buying every stick of lumber in Maine. 

 

Federal Reserve

Edited March 29, 2017 by MooNiNite

[Gerry]

What about full scholarships to all qualified pre-med students and if the medical school entrance exam is passed, then a full scholarship is given. That way there is no debt to be contended with after medical school and residency. The same offer should be given to all nursing students.

If you look at German, French, and other Universal, single payer, the cost of the Dr. education is free, for the doctor.  Their compensation for there services are far less than in America.  I am not sure how, but the malpractice costs are negligible.  There total cost are in the 50% to 60% of better.of America's, and their health outcomes are generally.

[Gerry]

This isn't about providing healthcare, it's about controlling healthcare as a means of controlling the masses -- about controlling the system and controlling the money.

 

The way to return control to the individual is to literally return control to the individual. It is really as simple as that. Want better products and services? Let the consumer make informed decisions on his or her own behalf. Want better value? Let the consumer make informed decisions on his or her own behalf. "Healthcare" isn't special in this regard.

Why is this approach a solitary American approach?  There are no other western, industrial, nations that think this is a workable system.  It clearly was not before the ACA, a least the semblance of a market place approach back then.

 

I hear the argument, but I do not understand how it improves healthcare for everyone.  Is healthcare a Right?

Edited March 30, 2017 by Gerry

[Brian]

Why is this approach a solitary American approach?  There are no other western, industrial, nations that think this is a workable system.  It clearly was not before the ACA, a least the semblance of a market place approach back then.

 

I hear the argument, but I do not understand how it improves healthcare for everyone.  Is healthcare a Right?

No, healthcare cannot properly be considered a right because a right is something innate which is to be protected rather than something one is entitled to have provided by others.

 

Until just a matter of decades ago, pretty much every society in history had operated on a basis of trade -- and the alternative to the sovereignty of the individual was essentially slavery. Suddenly, in roughly a century or less, the "civilized" nations of the world have decided that a form of feudalism is preferable but none of them have a sufficiently long track-record with "universal healthcare" to demonstrate that it is viable. On the contrary, those instances in which the central government has taken over the business of providing (and paying for) healthcare have been increasingly problematic -- to the extent that many of the earlier adopters have either failed or are currently trying to unwind things without coming right out and saying so (because then the government would have to return freedoms to the individual and governments hate having to do that...)

 

In the US, it is actually much more simple than that -- the US Constitution simply doesn't provide authority for the Federal government to insert itself in the private healthcare industry.

[Gerry]

No, healthcare cannot properly be considered a right because a right is something innate which is to be protected rather than something one is entitled to have provided by others.

Well on this issue we have to disagree.  I believe humans are eusocial. E. O. Wilson].  It is in our interest to work collectively for genetic reasons. As he points while being eusocial, we do form groups that are competitive with in that structure.

 

I am an atheist, but I do embrace aspects of christian social philosophy.  I believe we are our brothers keepers.

[MooNiNite]

Well on this issue we have to disagree.  I believe humans are eusocial. E. O. Wilson].  It is in our interest to work collectively for genetic reasons. As he points while being eusocial, we do form groups that are competitive with in that structure.

 

I am an atheist, but I do embrace aspects of christian social philosophy.  I believe we are our brothers keepers.

 

Giving all of the power of healthcare to the government is disastrous. Just look at the videos i posted above.

 

You need multiple providers all competing to dissolve corruption and create a marketplace. 

 

The costs would be much lower. 

[Brian]

Well on this issue we have to disagree. I believe humans are eusocial. E. O. Wilson]. It is in our interest to work collectively for genetic reasons. As he points while being eusocial, we do form groups that are competitive with in that structure.

 

I am an atheist, but I do embrace aspects of christian social philosophy. I believe we are our brothers keepers.

We can be our brother's keeper, if we choose to do so. Compelled charity is not charity. Jesus never called for the use of the Roman spear to require compassion.

 

Yes, the human animal is a social creature but also a selective and discriminating one. We actually have the freedom of assembly and of association written right into the Constitution -- the freedom to choose something necessitates the freedom to not choose that same something, too.

 

Who controls your personal energy, Gerry? Who owns your creative ability? Those aren't intended as rhetorical questions. If the individual is not master of his or her own future, who is, exactly?

[Brian]

Well on this issue we have to disagree. I believe humans are eusocial. E. O. Wilson]. It is in our interest to work collectively for genetic reasons. As he points while being eusocial, we do form groups that are competitive with in that structure.

 

I am an atheist, but I do embrace aspects of christian social philosophy. I believe we are our brothers keepers.

Do I have the right to free chocolate milkshakes?

[Brian]

If you charter an agreement with a supplier and they agree...maybe....

That would be a voluntary (and probably rescindable) agreement, correct? And it seems unlikely that they would agree to provide me with chocolate milkshakes without some mutually agreeable recompense?

 

That's "trade."

[Brian]

I guess....

 

But they could also agree to write something up in recognition of prior actions or relations. You might get written in to an agreement for free chocolate milkshakes if the owner of a chocolate milkshake vendor had a father whose life was saved from some pharmaceuticals that were made in the pharmaceutical place that you worked at (or whatever the case may be) and the owner wanted to express gratitude or something.

 

 

Although that's getting a bit abtruse, I have seen similar things happen.

And that would be milkshakes to repay me for a service previously provided, even if indirectly. Still "trade."

 

If totally "out of the blue" (and not a publicity stunt), it would be "charity."

 

Contrast those amusing scenarios with one in which the government either compels the milkshake maker to give them to me for free or compels you to pay the milkshake maker for my milkshakes...

Edited March 30, 2017 by Brian

[Gerry]

[...]

Yes, the human animal is a social creature but also a selective and discriminating one. We actually have the freedom of assembly and of association written right into the Constitution -- the freedom to choose something necessitates the freedom to not choose that same something, too.

 

Who controls your personal energy, Gerry? Who owns your creative ability? Those aren't intended as rhetorical questions. If the individual is not master of his or her own future, who is, exactly?

Eusocial carries more implications than being a social creature, there is a genetic, evolutionary, relation that borders on a social contract. It is an argument other than the legalistic argument of freedoms and rights.  But as I said, we are on different sides of this fence, but that is ok.  I understand your side of the argument, for the most part, but I reject it.

 

The control argument of the last paragraph is like our straw dogs in CH. 5.  I always control my energies and abilities.  The individual is always in control of these thing.  The use of "future" is a more problematic projection.  I fully endorse the use of tax code to redistribute wealth.  I fully endorse using those funds to better individuals lacking such resources.  In a society with the disparity of income and wealth of America, the tax code must be used to redress these disparities.  In a well ordered society such remedies would be unnecessary.  I will gladly spend other peoples money on many things including nutritional needs. [As in meals on wheels and school food programs.]

 

There are lots of places I would rather my tax dollars were not spent, or spent at lower rates. 

Edited March 30, 2017 by Gerry

[Brian]

Eusocial carries more implications than being a social creature, there is a genetic, evolutionary, relation that borders on a social contract. It is an argument other than the legalistic argument of freedoms and rights. But as I said, we are on different sides of this fence, but that is ok. I understand your side of the argument, for the most part, but I reject it.

 

The control argument of the last paragraph is like our straw dogs in CH. 5. I always control my energies and abilities. The individual is always in control of these thing. The use of "future" is a more problematic projection. I fully endorse the use of tax code to redistribute wealth. I fully endorse using those funds to better individuals lacking such resources. In a society with the disparity of income and wealth of America, the tax code must be used to redress these disparities. In a well ordered society such remedies would be unnecessary. I will gladly spend other peoples money on many things including nutritional needs. [As in meals on wheels and school food programs.]

 

There are lots of places I would rather my tax dollars were not spent, or spent at lower rates.

You would be OK with me using your money as I deem appropriate?

[Gerry]

You would be OK with me using your money as I deem appropriate?

 

That is done all the time.   Tax dollars are sent to a central location, DC, then returned to states as federal expenditures.  The return to where I live in less than what was sent.  Many state get more in return than they sent.  Mississippi got $4.70 for each dollar they paid in federal taxes.  [i would have posted the graph but the software want the images URL.]  This is where the chart is.  I think these are 2016  data, but they may refer to 2015 tax submissions.  I will also note that as I follow such things, these ratios have increase over the last decade.

 

States like SC, Virginia, Hawaii, Alabama, Mississippi, all have larger military expenditures than I would willingly contribute to.  SC and I think GA are building those fighter jets, Air force 1, and other new toys. Boeing Defense headquarters is in Missouri and they get $1.34/tax buck. 

 

I would be perfectly fine with them building  5 or 6 less fighter jets  and spending those tax dollars on school nutrition, elderly poor food distribution, and saving Big Bird.  No one is asking me if I want my tax dollar, and those are MY dollars I earned, on those Jets.  It is spent as "they" deem appropriate. 

 

I do not find the redistribution of income from the richer to the poorer as an inappropriate social function.  A society that concentrates income and wealth in the manner we do is unjust.  In 2014 1,245,279 households earn in excess of $500,000.  There were 148,606,578 returns filed.   That is 0.84% of all tax returns had an adjusted gross income in excess of $500K.  That groups income was $1,926,649,000  or roughly 20% of all gross income in 2014.  Good for them.

 

As you look at regular folks, the folks that do the work for the production of the GDP, the disparities become clearer.  About 75% of returns have gross incomes less that $75K.  Their total income is $2,961,227,270 or roughly the upper 0.8% earns 66% of the income of 75% of America.  Knock it down a notch to those with incomes under $50K.   That is 62% of America and they in total earn less in total than that upper 0.8% !

 

These people are not going to be able to afford the healthcare products produce by the blood suckers we call the Insurance providers.  My income level is closer to the top 5%, maybe more.  I am on Medicare as is my wife.  I think we will be ok until we die, but I am not sure about it.  One of my daughters is in a household of about $75K, but her husband's work status changes periodically.  Currently she gets  HC insurance from work.  [btw, she has no choices. She is "forced" to use the insurance her employer selects.  Now that's a crap shot."] Their lives are at the top edge of the working poor. If they have to buy their own coverage, well their shit out of luck.

 

For me, I see the disparity of income distribution as inequitable.  I would rather "we all" understood this and worked voluntarily to make the poorer better off because the richer saw the justice in this.  Well, not in my life time.  So I'd use a tool that I will philosophically agree with you is a bit odious.  I'll use tax code as wealth redistribution system.

 

 

 

 

[Brian]

Thirty Enumerated Powers

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is widely cited as being an exhaustive list of Congressional power. But, in reality, there are a total of thirty (up to 35, depending on how they’re counted) Congressional powers that are listed throughout the document. Find them here:

•To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

•To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

•To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

•To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

•To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

•To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

•To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

•To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

•To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

•To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

•To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

•To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

•To provide and maintain a Navy;

•To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

•To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

•To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

•To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

•To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

•No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

•The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

•In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

•The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

•The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

•The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

•Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

•New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;

•The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

•The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

•The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

•The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

This is what the citizens of the several States have authorized the Federal government to do. Anything not listed here is abuse of power. If you and the other citizens of your State choose to authorize your State to collect & spend money for other stuff (public education or "universal healthcare" or "universal chocolate milkshake rights" or whatever), knock yourself out! If you can convince 33 other States to go along with the plan, perhaps you can get in ratified as an Amendment to the US Constitution. Until then, though, it is not within the proper scope of the Federal government, regardless how strongly you feel it is a good idea. <shrug>

 

"Redistribution of wealth" is theft and it is unconstitutional.

 

BTW, Big Bird is on HBO now.

[Gerry]

You would be OK with me using your money as I deem appropriate?

 FWIW, I'd like to spend my tax money building that Texas accelerator.  Size matters.

[Brian]

FWIW, I'd like to spend my tax money building that Texas accelerator.  Size matters.

Talk to your local representatives! Express to your State legislators your desires, wishes and concerns so that they can better understand the will of the governed. Keep government small and local so that it can be both responsive and responsible. A far-away all-powerful bureaucracy is neither.

[Gerry]

Thirty Enumerated Powers

 

This is what the citizens of the several States have authorized the Federal government to do. Anything not listed here is abuse of power. If you and the other citizens of your State choose to authorize your State to collect & spend money for other stuff (public education or "universal healthcare" or "universal chocolate milkshake rights" or whatever), knock yourself out! If you can convince 33 other States to go along with the plan, perhaps you can get in ratified as an Amendment to the US Constitution. Until then, though, it is not within the proper scope of the Federal government, regardless how strongly you feel it is a good idea. <shrug>

 

"Redistribution of wealth" is theft and it is unconstitutional.

 

BTW, Big Bird is on HBO now.

Is Taxation theft?  I assume you would clearly say yes.  My guess is there are many federal things, governmental things that you consider "abuse of power" and forms of theft.  As I said I can understand the argument.  I'm sure that you understand my arguments.

 

Not quite the same, but related.  I'd love a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of dividing off self autonomous  regions.  I'd draw a line around NJ, eastern Pennsylvania, the south east section of NY, and all of NE, though ME is a problem, and have a high degree of self rule within that domain.  I assume my friends on the west coast feel more or less the same.  WE could keep our tax dollars and spend them on all that damn foolish socialistic crap we like.  We could have Big Bird as our "regional" bird.

 

I mean we could have God's Land, say the south,  the We Use To build Stuff, the rust belt,  The Real West from AZ to MT, and the Dude Land west of the Rockies. 

[Gerry]

Brian?  "[...]  provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. [...]"

 

What is this "general welfare" crap? Could that include Universal Heathcare?

[Brian]

Is Taxation theft?  I assume you would clearly say yes.  My guess is there are many federal things, governmental things that you consider "abuse of power" and forms of theft.  As I said I can understand the argument.  I'm sure that you understand my arguments.

 

Not quite the same, but related.  I'd love a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of dividing off self autonomous  regions.  I'd draw a line around NJ, eastern Pennsylvania, the south east section of NY, and all of NE, though ME is a problem, and have a high degree of self rule within that domain.  I assume my friends on the west coast feel more or less the same.  WE could keep our tax dollars and spend them on all that damn foolish socialistic crap we like.  We could have Big Bird as our "regional" bird.

 

I mean we could have God's Land, say the south,  the We Use To build Stuff, the rust belt,  The Real West from AZ to MT, and the Dude Land west of the Rockies.

Taxation for unauthorized expenditures is theft. Taxation for authorized expenditures is in accordance with an agreement -- it is trade.

 

For instance, the citizens of the several States authorized the Federal government "to establish Post Offices." The US Postal Service, therefore, is a legitimate and authorized use for Federal tax revenues. We may debate the question of efficiency and stewardship of those monies, and we may decide some day to amend the Constitution to remove that authorization if we decide (as citizens of the several States), but Post Offices are appropriate uses of Federal tax dollars. We have agreed as a society that we value the ability to have mail delivered and we are willing to pay the Federal government to perform this service for us. We don't have "a right to postal service" -- it is a privilege we have collectively agreed to underwrite, and we reserve the ability to rescind that authorization by proper mechanisms (amending the Constitution in accordance with Article V of that same document).

 

in contrast, there is no authorization for the Federal government to spend taxpayer money on chocolate milkshakes for the general public. The citizens of the several States have not in any fashion granted to the central government that power. If Congress were to pass a law, and get the President to sign it, establishing a program to ensure poor kids get free milkshakes (or, in a "universal right" rather than "redistribution" framework, to ensure "all Americans have equal access to chocolate milkshakes regardless of ability to pay"), this would be fundamentally unconstitutional. Using the enforcement capacity of the IRS to extract money from taxpayers for the purposes of providing "free milkshakes for everyone" might be popular in some quarters but it would be theft.

 

See the difference?

[ralis]

I spent some time in the Mojave Desert during the winter and chose to drive through North Las Vegas. The poverty and homelessness was horrifying to me. Poverty and homelessness are not isolated events, but are social problems that effect all of us. Part of a broken system that rewards the very wealthy and leaves behind the less fortunate.

 

The radical right wing could care less if people are dying on the street for lack of housing, food and healthcare.

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by ralis