I wonder why the CBO says Obama care will reduce the deficit? I don't think we will ever agree on this subject so I will retire for the evening--maybe.
Closing your business because of Obamacare
- Thread starter CajunCrimson
- Start date
Ooh, I'm so glad you made that list. You've inadvertently highlighted some of the biggest problems with our Federal Government. Let's go down the list:
The provision of a common defense of all States was to ensure the availability of proper and speedy protection of the individual States without requiring direct action or individual responsibility for the action from any other individual State. This was in order to both promote a more organized, more efficient National military as well as to prevent potential military abuses or inaction resulting from one State's standing towards another. For example, if Florida was attacked then the National military can responding immediately without Florida having to "negotiate" with Georgia and/or Alabama for military aid. In addition, provisions for providing funding for a standing military was to be done on a temporary, as-needed basis. The primary military base and function was to come from the existence, training, and utilization of the State Militias, which is easily inferred from the clauses in Article One, Section Eight immediately following the explicit enumerated powers regarding the Army and the Navy. This design allowed for, one, much more State control over and involvement in the National Military force(s); two, a more flexible military organization allowing for both individual State and National military duties and actions; and, three, a much more rigid and controllable structure for military spending.
Ah, yes, one of my favorite Federal Government stupidities.
The enumerated powers give Congress the power to "establish post Offices and post Roads". That's it; that's all it says. It neither requires any specific level of actual Federal Government involvement in that establishment nor prohibits any other involvement as well. It also makes absolutely no statement, much less a requirement, regarding the responsibility for or management of postal services by the Federal Government.
Yes, it does allow the Federal Government to carry out the various duties necessary for the establishment of post Offices and post Roads, including the transportation of mail. It does not, however, require that the Federal Government must carry out those actions. It also does not prevent the Federal Government from delegating any of those duties to whomever it wishes.
There is absolutely no reason why the Federal Government has to employ every individual involved in the transport of postal mail. There is no requirement, even, that the Federal Government has to own and control every post Office and post Road.
The Federal Government could literally eliminate the USPS, lease its post Offices to private companies - such as UPS, Fedex, DHL, etc. - and delegate the handling of postal mail to those companies, stipulating the rules and regulations that they must adhere to in the handling of postal mail. That would not only be well within the Constitutional power granted to Congress regarding postal mail but would also move thousands and thousands of jobs from the public sector to the private sector and save the Federal Government - and, thereby, the taxpayers - millions of dollars a year.
This is true. However, the "local" fire and police departments providing common protection to your "local" city or county are only truly "local" if they are "locally" funded and controlled. The way our U.S. Constitution was written - following the way our Federal, State, and Local Governments were intended to be - the design and desire was that the closer a service or action gets to an individual citizen, the smaller the Government entity under whose purview that service or action falls. If a service or action affects only the citizens of a particular State and it does not directly violate any citizen's Federally-protected civil rights then that service or action was only intended to fall under the purview of that State's Government. If a service or action affects only the citizens of a particular County or City and it does not directly violate any citizen's Federally-protected or State-protected civil rights then that service or action was only intended to fall under the purview of that County's or City's Government.
This design allows for the handling of issues that affect a particular group of citizens to be handled by the Government entity closest to those citizens. It promotes not only more accurate and more efficient handling of the issues that are actually and directly affecting those citizens but also more efficient and responsible handling of the funding for the services or actions regarding those issues.
Of course, all of this points back to the original intention regarding the hierarchy of authority around which this country was designed. You see, the greatest authority was to be the individual citizens. The State Governments were tasked with the organization of and responsibility to their internal local Governments, those most closely connected with their actual citizens. The local Governments were to solely exist to directly serve the citizens of their particular area. The State Governments were to solely exist to serve their internal local Governments and to resolve disputes or issues that affected multiple areas within their State. The Federal Government was to solely exist to serve the State Governments and to resolve disputes or issues that affected multiple areas within the Nation, inasmuch as the power was granted to it to do so by the U.S. Constitution and by the States, through the ratification and future amending of that Constitution.
By now, we've allowed that hierarchy to be turned completely upside down. Citizens and even States now have little more control over the overall scope and power of the Federal Government than a small mouse has over the designs and intentions of the house cat from which he daily hides.
The Federal Government was intentionally designed so that it could never grant itself any additional power. If the Federal Government wanted more power, it was supposed to beg that power of the States. And the States were intended to have much more control over Congress, far more than any political organization or lobbyist, with the ability to remove and replace any of their officials who were not acting in the State's best interest and even having the authority to remove itself entirely from the purview of the Federal Government through secession, if so desired by the State.
Of course, that design has been abused and ignored for so long that it is hardly recognizable, especially to those within the Federal Government, and the resulting evolution of our Nation and Federal Government is so far removed from that design that it would likely be unrecognizable to its designers.
Then again, you're probably happy with that, too.
Last edited:
TL/DR
I'm fine with them.
Any large organization has bureaucracy. If we relied on individual charity to fund these services, they wouldn't exist.
You may find it odd, but I care about the society and communities to which I belong. I ensure I do my part to pick up the slack for those who can't or won't pull their own weight. I understand that there are those people like the undocumented immigrant who does not pay income taxes and the billionaire who hides millions upon millions of taxable income offshore. It sucks sometimes, but that's life.
I'm fine with them.
Any large organization has bureaucracy. If we relied on individual charity to fund these services, they wouldn't exist.
You may find it odd, but I care about the society and communities to which I belong. I ensure I do my part to pick up the slack for those who can't or won't pull their own weight. I understand that there are those people like the undocumented immigrant who does not pay income taxes and the billionaire who hides millions upon millions of taxable income offshore. It sucks sometimes, but that's life.
If it's too big to be done voluntarily, then it's too big to be done legitimately or with accountability. And if you do nothing but take take take, then you destroy the goodwill you would otherwise have, if not the financial base upon which you intend to draw. Good for you if you care and give, but it's not caring or giving to do it with other peoples' money, which is how government works, as you obviously know.
People understand what the military gives them in some sense. The Dept. of Defense is about as big as organizations get, yet since the dawn of history armies have been supported by taxes in large part.
Charity can't be relied upon here, but it's not tied to the size of the enterprise.
We haven't arrived where we are as a country by accident. It's been the decisions of our people back to the Forefathers.
Last edited:
A liberal lawyer from California who loves Socialism = the Kardashian sisters Dad
Defend something even though you know it causes harm.......even though it took two peoples heads nearly off...
How bad is your business doing if you have over 50 employees but can't afford to work healthcare into their paychecks?
Perhaps that is why all of those other nations come here for care. There's just something about free enterprise that brings the best out of any situation. Govenment healthcare removes that. People coming from th UK and Canada to have procedures, I believe, supports my assumption.
In 2010, the number of new business start ups was at its lowest level in the 33 years since records were kept.
My guess would be no. But I could be wrong.
I have a friend (former coworker) whose mom worked as a nurse in England. She told me that for small everyday stuff the national healthcare is great, but you did not want to get anything serious or something that needed long term care. Plus she said most of the super wealthy would always come to the states to get treatment.
I'm not talking about charity for national defense, which is explicitly provided for in the Constitution.
I am talking about charity for all the feel-good social spending that you think is a right, and which has been shoehorned into the 'general welfare' and 'interstate commerce' clauses, where constitutional justification is even sought, and for which charity was sufficient up until the point where elected officials determined that making electoral bargains with government largesse was an effective way to get elected.
Last edited:
My guess is no simply based on the fact that he uses the word afford. I have not spent the past 6 years building my business in order to provide health insurance to my employees. I have not spent 20-25 weeks a year on the road for the past 6 years to provide puppies for my employees. I did not eviscerate every bit of savings I had at the age of 34 to make sure rainbows appeared in the sky so my employees had smiles on their faces. We did not sell the land my wife's grandmother left her in order to pay ourselves for the first two years when we could not "afford" to because cash flow was tight (I did not pay myself so I could pay my employees). I did not sell my beloved 1964 Chevy Nova to provide cash to give my employees doughnuts every morning so they were happy. I have not worked ungodly hours the past 6 years so that employees smiled.
Do you get it now, or should I go on? I did all the above, and a lot more, to provide for myself and my family, hopefully to the point of me becoming "wealthy". I did it so I would never again have to work and be paid what someone else thought I was worth. I do it so I do not have to stick my hand out at the end of two weeks and accept a check based on what some one else perceives my worth to be. I amassed the capital and risked it, I reap the rewards. And if it fails, I take the loss. You want what I have? Then go do what I did. But be sure to be a good boss and make sure you pay at the upper end of the pay scale and provide awesome benefits package (which you will pick up the tab for) and match their 401k contribution dollar for dollar since you have such a kind heart. And forget a regular coffee machine, you need to provide a Verismo, that way everybody can have the coffee they like. And free doughnuts in the morning and catered lunches. Go crazy boss man, you should be able to "afford" it once you get to 50 employees because that is obvioulsy some magical number. Doesn't matter what kind of work you do and what kind of people you employ, 50 employees apparently means something.
So says the owner of a business with a measly 38 employees.
Just a fun aside, the company was founded by me and 3 others, and after 6 years in business we have one guy (he was our first hire, employee #5) that draws a higher salary than any of us, including the President (employee #1).
Last edited:
Medical tourism is now an industry in the US, and many employers are paying for employees to go to countries like Thailand and India for care.
The number of folks getting procedures done here pales in comparison to the number of Americans going elsewhere.
The British and Canadians who do come here are the wealthy in search of specific specialists and sub-specialists, because they can afford it. It has nothing to do with the American system overall, which cannot be characterized as a free market.
But, not all bureaucracies are created equal, not even close. The private sector is efficient; government is not. And much of the private sector bureaucracy exists to deal with the rules and regulations created by clueless government-folk. Everybody knows this, or should know it. To try to claim the bureaucracies of the two sectors are equal is either dishonest or a demonstration of ignorance.
Especially once government has crowded out the charities.
Picking up the slack for those who won't pull their own weight - and making the rest of us do the same - encourages more and more people not to pull their own weight. Why do you social engineering types devise incentives to bring forth the worst of human nature?
Your might not like Yglesias because of his political beliefs, but he does state in his report that Obamacare is redistribution of wealth.This is your author of your "fair" article......
His first work "Heads in the Sand"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/04...17145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=047008622X
Ah -- a great book by Mr Yglesias -- "Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws up the Democrats" -- yeah, I bet it's a very impartial article
Yglesias says, “And make no mistake, the health care bill is, all things considered, the largest income-redistribution program enacted in decades. It collects taxes from the prosperous and offers new Medicaid benefits to the near poor and provides sliding-scale subsidies to a broad range of families earning below the median income. There’s plenty to like about that, but also plenty to dislike if you’re the sort of prosperous person who owns or manages a small or medium-sized firm.”
Of course, if you it makes you feel better, we can proceed with fear; Obama won the United States will now drop off the edge of the world.
