Conservatives and Empathy

[Foxfyre]

For the thoughtful reader notice how the right can only project an often imaginary or exaggerated characteristic on the left. The right has no answers and if it were not for liberals they would have to look at their ideology's lack of any real accomplishment.

Shriner's is conservative according to one conservative but consider it helps handicapped and injured children but our government which helps a great many more people in all conditions is bad. If you can reconcile those thoughts in the same head, you can perform any ideological magic. And that really is the problem for any rigid ideology, when the real world intrudes it becomes someone else's fault. That sort of simplistic thinking makes life easy, finger pointing has always been the weak man's crutch; note too, no one answered my perennial question below.

PS The greatest progressive achievement was social security, followed by medicare and voting rights for all. I have asked for years for a conservative accomplishment equivalent to any of these and never ever get an answer. I wonder why. asked here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-conservatives-and-empathy-4.html#post4049757


"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." Matt Santos

I think if you do a careful evaluation of history you will find that it was mostly modern American conservatives, not liberals, who brought all these into reality. There is no way that FDR could be described as a 'liberal' under the modern definition of the term. He had no way to look ahead to see how future congressional leaders would corrupt and misuse his concept of social security. If he had, he would not have pushed it. It is now a far different program that what he promised it would be, it is not sustainable as it is, and it is one reason the United States is pushing headlong off the bankruptcy cliff.

The Civil Rights act would never have passed without Republican support--they supported it proportionately more than Democrats did. It was the modern Conservatives, aka Classical liberals, in both parties, not modern day liberals, who understood the concept of unalienable rights who voted for it. The EPA was authorized under Nixon with almost 100% Republican support. You want to call HIM a liberal? He is remembered for Watergate and other scandals, but in his first term he actively pursued five areas of domestic reform: welfare, civil rights (including not only desegregation and voting rights, but also additional rights for women and , economic and environmental policy, and reorganization of the federal bureaucracy.

There is a difference between a nanny state and unalienable rights. Modern liberals honor the nanny state while modern conservatives put the focus on unalienable rightts and personal freedom.

Who is more empathetic? Those who ignore the dependency created by well intentioned but wrong headed government largesse? Or those who see the unintended negative consequences, understand how it is affecting those trapped in them, and who are committed to breaking the destructive cycles that put them in it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Methinks that leftloons in general, and the pious blowhard OP in particular, equate pity with empathy.

A crying shame they have absolutely no empathy for taxpayer, who has to bear the financial burden for the imposition their faux empathy upon everyone else.

I think that is part of the problem, going back to my blinders metaphor in an earlier post, it is defnitiely tunnel vision to confuse empathy with sympathy or to confuse compassion with buying power, influence, prestige.

Let's apply some empathy to the current financial situation by translating it to more up close and personal terms:

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Remove a bunch of zeros and translate that to a young household just this year:
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

 

[2twsted4colorTV]

For the thoughtful reader notice how the right can only project an often imaginary or exaggerated characteristic on the left. The right has no answers and if it were not for liberals they would have to look at their ideology's lack of any real accomplishment.

Shriner's is conservative according to one conservative but consider it helps handicapped and injured children but our government which helps a great many more people in all conditions is bad. If you can reconcile those thoughts in the same head, you can perform any ideological magic. And that really is the problem for any rigid ideology, when the real world intrudes it becomes someone else's fault. That sort of simplistic thinking makes life easy, finger pointing has always been the weak man's crutch; note too, no one answered my perennial question below.

PS The greatest progressive achievement was social security, followed by medicare and voting rights for all. I have asked for years for a conservative accomplishment equivalent to any of these and never ever get an answer. I wonder why.

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." Matt Santos

Wilson was labeled "progressive" and was very much against women voting. Women were arrested and beaten for protesting.

As far as the black vote, the south where much of the segregation and what have you took place was ruled by Democrats who opposed blacks being treated equally. In fact:

Wilson did not interfere with the well-established system of Jim Crow and backed the demands of Southern Democrats that their states be left alone to deal with issues of race and black voting without interference from Washington

Since when are people solely on Social Security rich? They are at the poverty level. Social Security is practically broke, it's a joke. I wish to God we didn't have to pay into it, the government acts like it's doing us a favor paying it to us when we earned it, it is not an "entitlement" - Medicare the same way, it's a joke. You have to have aonther insurance to pay what Medicare doesn't, which is practically everything. I wish we didn't have to sign up for that either.

As far as women voting:
Woodrow Wilson and Women’s Rights
President Wilson never accepted female suffrage. Despite his Progressive leanings, allowing women to vote was anathema to the man who, as a student at Princeton University, stated that “Universal suffrage is at the foundation of every evil in this country.” As a professor at Bryn Mawr, he referred to the female dean – Martha Carey Thomas, as “the apotheosis of the ‘advanced’ woman.” According to biographer Phyllis Levin, he “detested her and all she stood for.” Levin argues that Wilson’s eventual support of the 19th Amendment was motivated by “political value.” Historian Kendrick Clements writes that Wilson had a “patronizing approach to women.”


In November 1917 thirty-three courageous suffragettes were incarcerated at the Occoquan Workhouse for picketing the White House on behalf of women's suffrage.
On November 15, 1917, thirty-three women’s rights activists, arrested for picketing in front of the White House, were transferred to the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia. These courageous suffragettes suffered unspeakable brutalities that included beatings, humiliation, forced-feeding, and trauma. This became the National Women’s Party’s “Night of Terror.” Media publicity of the sordid event, according to New York Times coverage, helped persuade President Woodrow Wilson, a long-time opponent of women’s suffrage, to support the 19th Amendment.

It was a Republican who freed the slaves and from what I've read the Democrats in congress would not vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Republicans passed that. so you'd best read up on your history, sweetie.

 

[kwc57]

I have a 26 year old, liberal, vegan, empathtic step-nephew who wants to save the world and feed the starving children in Africa. He is a real hand wringer over the power of "the man" and the plight of the "oppressed". He thinks all of those evil conservatives and corporations should give their "fair share". Problem is, he is a deadbeat who won't keep a job, lives in my brother's house rent free and made so little when he did work that he paid no taxes.......but got a check back from the gubmint. I'm not even sure if he knows how to wipe his own ass by himself.......but he wants to use other people's money to save the world and feed starving children. He's liberal and he's "empathetic". True story!

 

[kwc57]

We have read far too many right wing posters who have penned far too many posts that indicate that they simply cannot remotely understand another POV.

Not that they disagree, but that they simply are incapable of even remotely imagining WHAT THE OTHER IS EVEN TALKI8NG ABOUT.

THAT indicates a LACK of empathy.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

It is the ability to imagine what it is like to be in another's shoes.

The extreme right winging posters on this board and every other board I have every posted on, display a near complete lack of empathetic ability.

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

But the RIGHT is the hands down winner when it comes to not only disagreeing, but not being able to even begin to understand the opposite POV.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

But when I read post after post that proves this to be the case?

I am left with no choice but to note that a lack of empathy is essential if one is going to be a RIGHT WING CRANK.

I think there are a few explanations of why the right lack empathy. The strongest argument is how they are raised.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it. ref ref

 

[2twsted4colorTV]

I think there are a few explanations of why the right lack empathy. The strongest argument is how they are raised.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it. ref ref

I believe in the "God helps those who helps themselves." it is like the old saying: "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day; TEACH a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." Don't the liberals WANT to be self-reliant? Why would you want to be dependent on somebody else forever? To be dependent on somebody else is to be under their rule? Can't they see that when you are dependent on the government, you are under their rule? You are not free? Don't they want to be free? I guess I just don't understand that. You raise and take care of your kids. But I raised mine to be self-reliant and take care of herself. Because one of these days I'll be dead and if she can't take care of herself, then what? Even the wild animals teach their young to be self-reliant. Imagine if none of use worked and relied on the government, where would THEY get the money? print it? When you contantly give somebody something and never expect THEM to take care of themselves, you are not doing them any favors.

 

[kwc57]

I believe in the "God helps those who helps themselves." it is like the old saying: "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day; TEACH a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." Don't the liberals WANT to be self-reliant? Why would you want to be dependent on somebody else forever? To be dependent on somebody else is to be under their rule? Can't they see that when you are dependent on the government, you are under their rule? You are not free? Don't they want to be free? I guess I just don't understand that. You raise and take care of your kids. But I raised mine to be self-reliant and take care of herself. Because one of these days I'll be dead and if she can't take care of herself, then what? Even the wild animals teach their young to be self-reliant. Imagine if none of use worked and relied on the government, where would THEY get the money? print it? When you contantly give somebody something and never expect THEM to take care of themselves, you are not doing them any favors.

They are titty babies who were never weaned.

 

[Bern80]

I believe in the "God helps those who helps themselves." it is like the old saying: "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day; TEACH a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." Don't the liberals WANT to be self-reliant? Why would you want to be dependent on somebody else forever? To be dependent on somebody else is to be under their rule? Can't they see that when you are dependent on the government, you are under their rule? You are not free? Don't they want to be free? I guess I just don't understand that. You raise and take care of your kids. But I raised mine to be self-reliant and take care of herself. Because one of these days I'll be dead and if she can't take care of herself, then what? Even the wild animals teach their young to be self-reliant. Imagine if none of use worked and relied on the government, where would THEY get the money? print it? When you contantly give somebody something and never expect THEM to take care of themselves, you are not doing them any favors.

Is it really that hard to imagine? I tend of think of freedom and security on a spectrum. The more government ensures one the more it takes away of the other. And is it really so hard to imagine that some people would rather have government ensure them an outcome and risk free existence over freedom?

 

[Bfgrn]

I wish it were false Bern, but it is not. I hear it every day on this and other boards. I hear conservatives calling for cutting off extended unemployment, even though there is only ONE job for every five people out of work. But conservative solutions never include human capital. Their solutions always require some group of people to just evaporate.

No Bf, that;s your issue. Again assuming that if government won't help people they are doomed. There is a pretty good list of traits other than empathy that left is lacking; introspection, perspective and foresight immediately come to mind.

The social programs we have in America are the LEAST a nation who calls itself civilized should do. Social Security and Medicare are the very BEST of what government can and should do for We, the People.

The measure of a civilized nation is how much it's government takes upon itself to do for people (remembering that for our government to do something for one they must first take from another)? Sorry I simply don't buy into that premise.

Conservatives today are under the arrogant assumption that THEY know our founder's intent. Even though the best minds and scholars have been arguing things like the General Welfare Clause for over 200 years.

It isn't arrogance. We know their intent because they told us in accompanying documents they wrote along with constitution like the federalist papers. Madison very clearly stated in one of the federalist papers what the general welfare clause means and how it was to be applied. The only hand ringing over it is by the leftists who wish it allowed government to do more than it actually says.

Thomas Jefferson believed every citizen should have a free education and he also believed the levers of government belongs to the living, not the dead.

by which I'm fairly certain did not extend to ignoring the constitution if it doesn't fit your world view. And maybe he did believe in free education. That isn't the question. The quesiton is did he believe the fed was supposed to fund it. There is no authority over educuation by the fed found in the constitution, though a state would certainly have that authority.

Bern, PLEASE don't hack up my posts. Reply in paragraphs. I know what I said.

We the People ARE the government. So what We, the People DO FOR our fellow citizens defines who and what we are.

We don't have to assume anything. We KNOW what existed before Medicare. Without government help elderly citizens were the most likely to be thrust into poverty. When President Kennedy called for Medicare over 50 years ago, over half of the retired Americans had NO health insurance. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. And Medicare gave elderly Americans the security of not losing everything they worked their whole lives for because of an illness. THAT is what a civil and compassionate nation does, it protects the most vulnerable among us.



We need to strengthen our Nation by safeguarding its health:

--Our working men and women, instead of being forced to beg for help from public charity once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health program through the Social Security System.
President John F. Kennedy
State of the Union Address
January 14, 1963

 

[Bern80]

I wish it were false Bern, but it is not. I hear it every day on this and other boards. I hear conservatives calling for cutting off extended unemployment, even though there is only ONE job for every five people out of work. But conservative solutions never include human capital. Their solutions always require some group of people to just evaporate.

No Bf, that;s your issue. Again assuming that if government won't help people they are doomed. There is a pretty good list of traits other than empathy that left is lacking; introspection, perspective and foresight immediately come to mind.



The measure of a civilized nation is how much it's government takes upon itself to do for people (remembering that for our government to do something for one they must first take from another)? Sorry I simply don't buy into that premise.



It isn't arrogance. We know their intent because they told us in accompanying documents they wrote along with constitution like the federalist papers. Madison very clearly stated in one of the federalist papers what the general welfare clause means and how it was to be applied. The only hand ringing over it is by the leftists who wish it allowed government to do more than it actually says.

Thomas Jefferson believed every citizen should have a free education and he also believed the levers of government belongs to the living, not the dead.

by which I'm fairly certain did not extend to ignoring the constitution if it doesn't fit your world view. And maybe he did believe in free education. That isn't the question. The quesiton is did he believe the fed was supposed to fund it. There is no authority over educuation by the fed found in the constitution, though a state would certainly have that authority.

Bern, PLEASE don't hack up my posts. Reply in paragraphs. I know what I said.

We the People ARE the government. So what We, the People DO FOR our fellow citizens defines who and what we are.

We don't have to assume anything. We KNOW what existed before Medicare. Without government help elderly citizens were the most likely to be thrust into poverty. When President Kennedy called for Medicare over 50 years ago, over half of the retired Americans had NO health insurance. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. And Medicare gave elderly Americans the security of not losing everything they worked their whole lives for because of an illness. THAT is what a civil and compassionate nation does, it protects the most vulnerable among us.



We need to strengthen our Nation by safeguarding its health:

--Our working men and women, instead of being forced to beg for help from public charity once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health program through the Social Security System.
President John F. Kennedy
State of the Union Address
January 14, 1963

Hack up your post? Get real. If you're afraid to have what you say scrutinized that oughta say quite a lot to you about the validity of what you say. You say our social programs are the least a country can do. That implies you believe government should be doing even more for people. A position that indicates an amazing lack of foresight. You are compassionate to a fault. What you want to do at first blush sounds nice and warm and fuzzy. But the fact that you don't see what government must do to ensure those things for people shows that you lack foresight. You claim we don't know what the general welfare clause means. Which is not factually correct. We know quite specifically what it means because one of the authors told us. The only debate is from left who simply don't like what it said.

 

[Bfgrn]

No Bf, that;s your issue. Again assuming that if government won't help people they are doomed. There is a pretty good list of traits other than empathy that left is lacking; introspection, perspective and foresight immediately come to mind.



The measure of a civilized nation is how much it's government takes upon itself to do for people (remembering that for our government to do something for one they must first take from another)? Sorry I simply don't buy into that premise.



It isn't arrogance. We know their intent because they told us in accompanying documents they wrote along with constitution like the federalist papers. Madison very clearly stated in one of the federalist papers what the general welfare clause means and how it was to be applied. The only hand ringing over it is by the leftists who wish it allowed government to do more than it actually says.



by which I'm fairly certain did not extend to ignoring the constitution if it doesn't fit your world view. And maybe he did believe in free education. That isn't the question. The quesiton is did he believe the fed was supposed to fund it. There is no authority over educuation by the fed found in the constitution, though a state would certainly have that authority.

Bern, PLEASE don't hack up my posts. Reply in paragraphs. I know what I said.

We the People ARE the government. So what We, the People DO FOR our fellow citizens defines who and what we are.

We don't have to assume anything. We KNOW what existed before Medicare. Without government help elderly citizens were the most likely to be thrust into poverty. When President Kennedy called for Medicare over 50 years ago, over half of the retired Americans had NO health insurance. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. And Medicare gave elderly Americans the security of not losing everything they worked their whole lives for because of an illness. THAT is what a civil and compassionate nation does, it protects the most vulnerable among us.



We need to strengthen our Nation by safeguarding its health:

--Our working men and women, instead of being forced to beg for help from public charity once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health program through the Social Security System.
President John F. Kennedy
State of the Union Address
January 14, 1963

Hack up your post? Get real. If you're afraid to have what you say scrutinized that oughta say quite a lot to you about the validity of what you say. You say our social programs are the least a country can do. That implies you believe government should be doing even more for people. A position that indicates an amazing lack of foresight. You are compassionate to a fault. What you want to do at first blush sounds nice and warm and fuzzy. But the fact that you don't see what government must do to ensure those things for people shows that you lack foresight. You claim we don't know what the general welfare clause means. Which is not factually correct. We know quite specifically what it means because one of the authors told us. The only debate is from left who simply don't like what it said.

Bern, I asked you nicely not to hack up my posts. It has nothing to do with fear of being scrutinized, I welcome scrutiny. The reason I asked is because it creates a disjointed conversation.

As I read through the replies on this thread, it confirms my post on conservatives, their moral system and the way they were raise. To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.

Conservatives claim America is founded on Christian beliefs. The root word of Christianity is Christ. Jesus walked this earth to set an example of how we should live our lives. Jesus taught social justice and that we are our brother's keeper. The Bible addresses helping the least among us.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe in the truth and history.

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. (wiki)

Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure people’s liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.

Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.

SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.

Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.

If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

 

[Bern80]

Bern, PLEASE don't hack up my posts. Reply in paragraphs. I know what I said.

We the People ARE the government. So what We, the People DO FOR our fellow citizens defines who and what we are.

We don't have to assume anything. We KNOW what existed before Medicare. Without government help elderly citizens were the most likely to be thrust into poverty. When President Kennedy called for Medicare over 50 years ago, over half of the retired Americans had NO health insurance. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. And Medicare gave elderly Americans the security of not losing everything they worked their whole lives for because of an illness. THAT is what a civil and compassionate nation does, it protects the most vulnerable among us.



We need to strengthen our Nation by safeguarding its health:

--Our working men and women, instead of being forced to beg for help from public charity once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health program through the Social Security System.
President John F. Kennedy
State of the Union Address
January 14, 1963

Hack up your post? Get real. If you're afraid to have what you say scrutinized that oughta say quite a lot to you about the validity of what you say. You say our social programs are the least a country can do. That implies you believe government should be doing even more for people. A position that indicates an amazing lack of foresight. You are compassionate to a fault. What you want to do at first blush sounds nice and warm and fuzzy. But the fact that you don't see what government must do to ensure those things for people shows that you lack foresight. You claim we don't know what the general welfare clause means. Which is not factually correct. We know quite specifically what it means because one of the authors told us. The only debate is from left who simply don't like what it said.

Bern, I asked you nicely not to hack up my posts. It has nothing to do with fear of being scrutinized, I welcome scrutiny. The reason I asked is because it creates a disjointed conversation.

As I read through the replies on this thread, it confirms my post on conservatives, their moral system and the way they were raise. To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.

Conservatives claim America is founded on Christian beliefs. The root word of Christianity is Christ. Jesus walked this earth to set an example of how we should live our lives. Jesus taught social justice and that we are our brother's keeper. The Bible addresses helping the least among us.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe in the truth and history.

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. (wiki)

Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure people’s liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.

Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.

SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.

Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.

If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

I can't speak for how anyone else was raised Bf. I was raised to be as non-dependent on others as possible. I was raised Catholic, but no longer ascribe to any organized relgion, nor do I believe that one needs to be religious to have a good moral compass. You don't need god to have things like integrity, personal accountability or generosity.

I know the debate over the general welfar clause as well and do acknowledge that Hamilton's somewhat borader view has prevailed. Unfortunately winning, does not always equate to being right. It is simply better, despite whatever altrusitic intentions government may have, for their spending power to very specific and very limited. It also makes sense that Hamilton's view would prevail. Let's face it, financial discipline is hard. Look at how many people in our country are in debt. Most individuals eventually have to do something about it. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. But a government doesn't have that constraint. It can simply vote itself more money, or even have more of it printed. The interpretation of the general welfare clause was broadened for no other real reason than because government could. It gives them more power and power is we all know is rather addicting.

I agree that the founders would be appalled at the extent to which the government and corporations are intermingling. But don't for a second think that means they would be all for all of the entitlements we have established since their time. The founders were leary of the altruism of government. They knew that road to tyranny is paved with the best of intentions meaning despite how compassionate or kind policy x may sound it really is best for government to stay the hell out of it.

 

[mudwhistle]

I wish it were false Bern, but it is not. I hear it every day on this and other boards. I hear conservatives calling for cutting off extended unemployment, even though there is only ONE job for every five people out of work. But conservative solutions never include human capital. Their solutions always require some group of people to just evaporate.

No Bf, that;s your issue. Again assuming that if government won't help people they are doomed. There is a pretty good list of traits other than empathy that left is lacking; introspection, perspective and foresight immediately come to mind.



The measure of a civilized nation is how much it's government takes upon itself to do for people (remembering that for our government to do something for one they must first take from another)? Sorry I simply don't buy into that premise.



It isn't arrogance. We know their intent because they told us in accompanying documents they wrote along with constitution like the federalist papers. Madison very clearly stated in one of the federalist papers what the general welfare clause means and how it was to be applied. The only hand ringing over it is by the leftists who wish it allowed government to do more than it actually says.

Thomas Jefferson believed every citizen should have a free education and he also believed the levers of government belongs to the living, not the dead.

by which I'm fairly certain did not extend to ignoring the constitution if it doesn't fit your world view. And maybe he did believe in free education. That isn't the question. The quesiton is did he believe the fed was supposed to fund it. There is no authority over educuation by the fed found in the constitution, though a state would certainly have that authority.

Bern, PLEASE don't hack up my posts. Reply in paragraphs. I know what I said.

We the People ARE the government. So what We, the People DO FOR our fellow citizens defines who and what we are.

We don't have to assume anything. We KNOW what existed before Medicare. Without government help elderly citizens were the most likely to be thrust into poverty. When President Kennedy called for Medicare over 50 years ago, over half of the retired Americans had NO health insurance. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. And Medicare gave elderly Americans the security of not losing everything they worked their whole lives for because of an illness. THAT is what a civil and compassionate nation does, it protects the most vulnerable among us.



We need to strengthen our Nation by safeguarding its health:

--Our working men and women, instead of being forced to beg for help from public charity once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health program through the Social Security System.
President John F. Kennedy
State of the Union Address
January 14, 1963

JFK would be a Republican today. Comparing him to the Democrats of today he leans more toward the right then most liberals would be comfortable with. He believed in cutting taxes and he didn't believe in spreading the wealth. He also said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Very good words that the left has forgotten. Instead the left instills dependency on our children. They're fostering a sense of entitlement that will change this country forever. We might as well call ourselves New France.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hack up your post? Get real. If you're afraid to have what you say scrutinized that oughta say quite a lot to you about the validity of what you say. You say our social programs are the least a country can do. That implies you believe government should be doing even more for people. A position that indicates an amazing lack of foresight. You are compassionate to a fault. What you want to do at first blush sounds nice and warm and fuzzy. But the fact that you don't see what government must do to ensure those things for people shows that you lack foresight. You claim we don't know what the general welfare clause means. Which is not factually correct. We know quite specifically what it means because one of the authors told us. The only debate is from left who simply don't like what it said.

Bern, I asked you nicely not to hack up my posts. It has nothing to do with fear of being scrutinized, I welcome scrutiny. The reason I asked is because it creates a disjointed conversation.

As I read through the replies on this thread, it confirms my post on conservatives, their moral system and the way they were raise. To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.

Conservatives claim America is founded on Christian beliefs. The root word of Christianity is Christ. Jesus walked this earth to set an example of how we should live our lives. Jesus taught social justice and that we are our brother's keeper. The Bible addresses helping the least among us.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe in the truth and history.

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. (wiki)

Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure people’s liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.

Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.

SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.

Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.

If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

I can't speak for how anyone else was raised Bf. I was raised to be as non-dependent on others as possible. I was raised Catholic, but no longer ascribe to any organized relgion, nor do I believe that one needs to be religious to have a good moral compass. You don't need god to have things like integrity, personal accountability or generosity.

I know the debate over the general welfar clause as well and do acknowledge that Hamilton's somewhat borader view has prevailed. Unfortunately winning, does not always equate to being right. It is simply better, despite whatever altrusitic intentions government may have, for their spending power to very specific and very limited. It also makes sense that Hamilton's view would prevail. Let's face it, financial discipline is hard. Look at how many people in our country are in debt. Most individuals eventually have to do something about it. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. But a government doesn't have that constraint. It can simply vote itself more money, or even have more of it printed. The interpretation of the general welfare clause was broadened for no other real reason than because government could. It gives them more power and power is we all know is rather addicting.

I agree that the founders would be appalled at the extent to which the government and corporations are intermingling. But don't for a second think that means they would be all for all of the entitlements we have established since their time. The founders were leary of the altruism of government. They knew that road to tyranny is paved with the best of intentions meaning despite how compassionate or kind policy x may sound it really is best for government to stay the hell out of it.

Bern, you keep emoting without any facts.

HERE are the FACTS:

We tried a charity only approach...it FAILED. Maybe conservatives feel the elderly and poor need to beg.

Medicare has lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. It has increased life expectancies and given our ancestors who worked, fought wars and built a better America for our benefit a dignified end of life.

Not only is Medicare a HUGE success for the elderly in America, it is MORE cost effective that private insurance. This comes from a CONSERVATIVE...

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

2003

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

* Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

* The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

* The average income of Medicare beneficiaries is closer to the poverty line than many of us working folks would like to believe: According to government statistics Moon cites, more than 90 percent of retirees covered by Medicare earn less than $32,000 per year for individuals or $40,000 for couples. In 2003, Medicare beneficiaries will spend an average of 23 percent of their income on health care!

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.


2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

William Ralph Brody

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

 

[2twsted4colorTV]

Bern, I asked you nicely not to hack up my posts. It has nothing to do with fear of being scrutinized, I welcome scrutiny. The reason I asked is because it creates a disjointed conversation.

As I read through the replies on this thread, it confirms my post on conservatives, their moral system and the way they were raise. To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.

Conservatives claim America is founded on Christian beliefs. The root word of Christianity is Christ. Jesus walked this earth to set an example of how we should live our lives. Jesus taught social justice and that we are our brother's keeper. The Bible addresses helping the least among us.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe in the truth and history.

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. (wiki)

Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure people’s liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.

Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.

SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.

Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.

If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

I can't speak for how anyone else was raised Bf. I was raised to be as non-dependent on others as possible. I was raised Catholic, but no longer ascribe to any organized relgion, nor do I believe that one needs to be religious to have a good moral compass. You don't need god to have things like integrity, personal accountability or generosity.

I know the debate over the general welfar clause as well and do acknowledge that Hamilton's somewhat borader view has prevailed. Unfortunately winning, does not always equate to being right. It is simply better, despite whatever altrusitic intentions government may have, for their spending power to very specific and very limited. It also makes sense that Hamilton's view would prevail. Let's face it, financial discipline is hard. Look at how many people in our country are in debt. Most individuals eventually have to do something about it. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. But a government doesn't have that constraint. It can simply vote itself more money, or even have more of it printed. The interpretation of the general welfare clause was broadened for no other real reason than because government could. It gives them more power and power is we all know is rather addicting.

I agree that the founders would be appalled at the extent to which the government and corporations are intermingling. But don't for a second think that means they would be all for all of the entitlements we have established since their time. The founders were leary of the altruism of government. They knew that road to tyranny is paved with the best of intentions meaning despite how compassionate or kind policy x may sound it really is best for government to stay the hell out of it.

Bern, you keep emoting without any facts.

HERE are the FACTS:

We tried a charity only approach...it FAILED. Maybe conservatives feel the elderly and poor need to beg.

Medicare has lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. It has increased life expectancies and given our ancestors who worked, fought wars and built a better America for our benefit a dignified end of life.

Not only is Medicare a HUGE success for the elderly in America, it is MORE cost effective that private insurance. This comes from a CONSERVATIVE...

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

2003

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

* Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

* The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

* The average income of Medicare beneficiaries is closer to the poverty line than many of us working folks would like to believe: According to government statistics Moon cites, more than 90 percent of retirees covered by Medicare earn less than $32,000 per year for individuals or $40,000 for couples. In 2003, Medicare beneficiaries will spend an average of 23 percent of their income on health care!

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.


2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

William Ralph Brody

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

We pay into Medicare - if you have never worked at a job, but have always been on Welfare, here's a newsflash -- you aren't eligible for it. Same for Social Security - since you can't be on Welfare forever, I don't think anyhow - if you have never paid into either Medicare or SS, you aren't eligible for it. Then you really WILL be in deep shit - poverty that is. You can HAVE MY portion of Medicare if you want - I don't really want it. But, I have paid into it, and fortunately I have a wonderful insurance through hubby's retirement, but . . . How in the hell do you think people survived for hundreds of years without it. The fact that we have a longer life expectancy has nothing in the world to do with Medicare!! It's nutrition knowledge, antibiotics, vaccines, etc. All came about BEFORE the invention of Medicare!!!

 

[Bern80]

Bern, I asked you nicely not to hack up my posts. It has nothing to do with fear of being scrutinized, I welcome scrutiny. The reason I asked is because it creates a disjointed conversation.

As I read through the replies on this thread, it confirms my post on conservatives, their moral system and the way they were raise. To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.

Conservatives claim America is founded on Christian beliefs. The root word of Christianity is Christ. Jesus walked this earth to set an example of how we should live our lives. Jesus taught social justice and that we are our brother's keeper. The Bible addresses helping the least among us.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe in the truth and history.

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. (wiki)

Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure people’s liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.

Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.

SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.

Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.

If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

I can't speak for how anyone else was raised Bf. I was raised to be as non-dependent on others as possible. I was raised Catholic, but no longer ascribe to any organized relgion, nor do I believe that one needs to be religious to have a good moral compass. You don't need god to have things like integrity, personal accountability or generosity.

I know the debate over the general welfar clause as well and do acknowledge that Hamilton's somewhat borader view has prevailed. Unfortunately winning, does not always equate to being right. It is simply better, despite whatever altrusitic intentions government may have, for their spending power to very specific and very limited. It also makes sense that Hamilton's view would prevail. Let's face it, financial discipline is hard. Look at how many people in our country are in debt. Most individuals eventually have to do something about it. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. But a government doesn't have that constraint. It can simply vote itself more money, or even have more of it printed. The interpretation of the general welfare clause was broadened for no other real reason than because government could. It gives them more power and power is we all know is rather addicting.

I agree that the founders would be appalled at the extent to which the government and corporations are intermingling. But don't for a second think that means they would be all for all of the entitlements we have established since their time. The founders were leary of the altruism of government. They knew that road to tyranny is paved with the best of intentions meaning despite how compassionate or kind policy x may sound it really is best for government to stay the hell out of it.

Bern, you keep emoting without any facts.

HERE are the FACTS:

We tried a charity only approach...it FAILED. Maybe conservatives feel the elderly and poor need to beg.

Medicare has lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. It has increased life expectancies and given our ancestors who worked, fought wars and built a better America for our benefit a dignified end of life.

Not only is Medicare a HUGE success for the elderly in America, it is MORE cost effective that private insurance. This comes from a CONSERVATIVE...

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

2003

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

* Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

* The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

* The average income of Medicare beneficiaries is closer to the poverty line than many of us working folks would like to believe: According to government statistics Moon cites, more than 90 percent of retirees covered by Medicare earn less than $32,000 per year for individuals or $40,000 for couples. In 2003, Medicare beneficiaries will spend an average of 23 percent of their income on health care!

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.


2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

William Ralph Brody

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

I'm not emoting anything. It's you who is failing to see reality. Facts? It is an undeniable fact that our government has far more power than it had at the time of the founding. The founders knew what too much governmental power meant for a citizenry because that is what they fled from. You on the other hand are the one changing the subject completely in order to avoid what you know to be true. Try actually responding to what I said first, then we can talk about whether a system that is going to be bankrupt can somehow be called efficient.

 

[Unkotare]

To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.

What a stupid generalization.

 

[aplcr0331]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216"]Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters[/ame]

 

[sassmcghee]

To conservatives, empathy is seen as weakness.

What a stupid generalization.

Completely stupid and baseless and untrue.

 

[hippie2049]

We have read far too many right wing posters who have penned far too many posts that indicate that they simply cannot remotely understand another POV.

Not that they disagree, but that they simply are incapable of even remotely imagining WHAT THE OTHER IS EVEN TALKI8NG ABOUT.

THAT indicates a LACK of empathy.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

It is the ability to imagine what it is like to be in another's shoes.

The extreme right winging posters on this board and every other board I have every posted on, display a near complete lack of empathetic ability.

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

But the RIGHT is the hands down winner when it comes to not only disagreeing, but not being able to even begin to understand the opposite POV.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

But when I read post after post that proves this to be the case?

I am left with no choice but to note that a lack of empathy is essential if one is going to be a RIGHT WING CRANK.

I think there are a few explanations of why the right lack empathy. The strongest argument is how they are raised.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it. ref ref

I'm guessing someone has read George Lakoff.

I have charged conservatives with a lack of empathy and felt nothing but sympathy for their lack of empathy and I have never intended to use it in a pejorative manner. Often times when I have charged a conservative with lacking empathy I've prefaced it with something to the effect of "I do not intend to hurt your feelings and I understand how it could seem that way, but consider it from their perspective. Practice empathy." They always take offense and frequently get irate further demonstrating their lack of empathy.