Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
It looks as though Rep. Bart Stupak is being increasingly marginalized for his position on health care even among his fellow pro-life Catholics. In addition to the Catholic Health Association and a group of Catholic and evangelical scholars, now a group representing 59,000 Catholic nuns has endorsed the bill.
Some 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns Wednesday sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. It contains restrictions on abortion funding that the bishops say don't go far enough.The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."
And the editors of the Catholic magazine Commonweal also added their voice to the chorus calling for passage of the bill:
These critics point out that the bill departs from the Hyde Amendment's ban on federal support for any health plan that covers elective abortion. They insist this is the only conceivable way for the government to subsidize insurance without paying for abortion. This is false, as the Senate bill itself clearly demonstrates. Under the bill, anyone who buys a plan that covers elective abortion would have to pay a separate, unsubsidized premium for that coverage. Such premiums would be segregated from premiums for all other services in a special account, which would have to cover the full cost of elective abortions and couldn't receive a penny from the government. In other words, the bill would preserve the Hyde Amendment's principle without applying its method.Critics also claim that the money the bill appropriates for community health centers is not subject to the Hyde Amendment. No doubt the bill would be strengthened with the addition of language that clearly imposes the Hyde rule on any federal money given to health centers. But since such money will in any case be channeled through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where the Hyde Amendment obtains, there is no good reason to suppose that it will be exempt from the amendment's constraints. Besides, if HHS really could spend any part of the new funding on elective abortions, it wouldn't matter that the Hyde Amendment keeps it from using the rest of its money for this purpose: as the bill's critics never tire of telling us, money is fungible--the Hyde Amendment works only if it covers everything HHS spends. It's also worth mentioning that none of the existing health centers, which provide care to one in eight children born in the United States, has ever offered abortion services.
Many of the bill's most prominent critics are lobbyists, and for the purposes of lobbying, a plausible falsehood is often as useful as the truth. But crying wolf is always a dangerous game. If prolife groups raise false alarms to bully politicians and scare up donations, they risk being ignored when a real threat arises.
Ironically, Stupak flipped his position late last night and infuriated the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Right to Life organization.
As for me, I still don't really know how I feel about the actual bill. I know it doesn't have a damn thing to do with abortion, an issue I could scarcely care any less about. I don't particularly like the bill they've written. I don't believe for a moment that it will save any money and cut the deficit, nor do I think it will do anything to lessen the nation's overall spending on health care. And I don't like the mandate one bit.
But I also know that having 15% of the population uninsured, and more and more people on Medicaid -- which only pays 65% of what the private insurance companies do -- is bankrupting hospitals and impeding care even for those who do have insurance, especially in rural areas. I know that people really do die or are forced into bankruptcy because they lack insurance. And I don't know what the solution to that problem is either.
Politics
Comments
Stupak's speech before the vote wasn't bad. The heckling was poignant too. I don't agree with him as to when life begins or whether women should control their bodies, but he made the point that the bill was pro-all-life and should be passed for that reason.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 22, 2010 9:22 AM
It doesn't matter what the bill says or doesn't say; what matters is what will be in the ridiculous emails that will be received and forwarded as truth in the coming days with some ficticous doctors name at the bottom.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | March 22, 2010 9:47 AM
"I know that people really do die or are forced into bankruptcy because they lack insurance. And I don't know what the solution to that problem is either."
Single payer cures that. And controls costs better than the US non-system. And what about quality of care? The statisrics don't show convincingly that the US is better. But let's pretend that the US really does have "the best healthcare in the world" as some critics of reform contend. The problem is we can't afford it. It's like saying we will only allow Cadillacs on the road and if you can't afford one, walk. But a Chevrolet might be just fine for most people and those who can afford it can always pay extra for the Caddy.
That said, the current bill is certainly imperfect, but on moral grounds it is obligatory that we do what is possible to ensure everyone has access. It's a step in the right direction and Obama has succeeded where many have failed. Today is a day to celebrate. It is not the end of the road, but a journey starts by taking a step.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | March 22, 2010 9:52 AM
It appears to me that Rep. Stupak did exactly what the Republicans did on this initiative, where the President saved his ass and the Republicans suffered a huge strategic loss (strategic looking decades beyond the next couple of election cycles). Mr. Stupak's rhetoric painted him into a rhetorical corner where he had little to no room to maneuver. Whoever came up with the idea of an executive order is one crafty operator though it initially and tentatively appears that no changes in policy will occur because of it.
However the fact is that the President's executive order merely reiterated that his order would insure compliance to existing law even post-passage is a clear signal that Rep. Stupak had no real case. I do argue this point provisionally because we have yet to see any analysis which might have closed-off this President's abilities to leverage some loop-holes in the Senate Bill.
I did watch Rep. Stupak's press conference and it appears some anti-abortion rights groups did have concerns that the Senate language would allow some federal funding to go to "community centers", which I took to mean "Planned Parenthood". It should be noted that those centers provide healthcare services to pregnant women beyond on-demand early-term abortions so now I'm wondering if the deal won't allow them the type of funding they get now.
In terms of primary elements of the HCR bill itself, I'm most disappointed regarding the fact that in all my research of this issue, I have yet to encounter an economist or even a politician analyzing the affordability of the premiums coupled to the affordability credits for those that are going to be dragged into getting insurance. This was an issue I thought was ripe for exploitation by the Republicans but they barely made a peep about it except arguing a mandate is unconstitutional.
I also think the media could have done a better job explaining that a $940 billion program is supported by only $500 billion in new tax revenues, where the savings are coming from (Medicare, they did cover this but not in context of my point), and who exactly is paying the $500 billion and whether their new effective federal tax rates are historically fair or over the margin into punitive. I suspect their effective rates remain fair since effective rates are at historical laws since WWII. I would have liked this argument to have been made.
The whole debate was completely dysfunctional if your perspective is how this is going to affect Americans post-passage beyond the mere reform features of insurance coverage. For example, I have an individual plan now, will my premiums go up when my annual and lifetime caps are removed? Given that insurance providers must accept new clients with pre-existing conditions and cover their very expensive treatment, will this effect my premiums? We have added huge cost burdens to health insurance providers though they're also getting 31 million mostly healthy new customers. An analysis on the net change by income class would have been helpful and its affordability would have been helpful. I realize this was discussed at the Summit but only in the most general terms with families already purchasing insurance who'll see their premiums drop, certainly not in context of those who most likely prefer not to purchase mandated insurance though its subsidized who will see a monthly out-of-pocket expenditure they don't have now.
I'm not criticizing the plan itself, I'm criticizing the type of information that was considered in the public square. Rather than arguing about whose subsidies were superior or if any were workable, we instead saw Democrats attempting to rebut all the lies the Republicans were spreading. The HCR reform debate is perfectfy analogous to science literates debating Creationists employing the Gish Gallop, except that in this case, the progressives never got a real chance to make their case they were so busy stamping out all the misinformation. The media should have seperated itself from this debate and drove the debate by sticking with the contents of the bill, however they love a good fight. "Baby Killer" yelled at Rep. Stupak by a GOP Congressman last evening after Rep. Stupak made an excellent case that HCR is the superior "pro-life" position will probably be one of the more talked about events from last evening.
I support HCR and would have voted for this bill given what I know now, though I guarantee you I would have understood it far better than the politicos that were mouthing their support or opposition if I had an actual vote.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 9:53 AM
As for me, I'm very happy and excited about the passage of the healthcare bill. There's no point in just doing nothing in a bad situation, wishing things were better, unless there's clear evidence that any change at all would make things worse.
Many provisions of the bill look hopeful, and at least we're trying something new. We can always make changes to the law. Yes, it's risky to try something, but for me even a fairly high level of risk is preferable to doing nothing about the situation we have now. The only part that makes me sad is that it'll apparently be four more years before struggling families get any help with insurance payments.
Until I get some information that provides pretty clear evidence to the contrary, I suppose I'll go on seeing mandatory health insurance the way I see mandatory auto insurance: not just something that helps people who have accidents/get sick, but a protection for the rest of us who'd have to cover the costs of the uninsured when they do have an accident/get sick.
In the final illness of each of my parents, I made several trips with them to the nearby hospital emergency room. The place was usually jammed, even in the daytime when doctors' offices are open, with large numbers of people who had flu or a bad cold, or who had children running a fever. When I asked about it, I was told by hospital staff that many of these were people with no insurance who came to the emergency room for everything other people would go to a doctor's office for. That's got to be a much more expensive method of health care than helping to pay for people's insurance or even paying the insurance outright.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 22, 2010 10:36 AM
"If a victory is told in detail, one can no longer distinguish it from a defeat." - Sartre
Posted by: yaywewon? | March 22, 2010 10:40 AM
"I don't believe for a moment that it will save any money and cut the deficit, nor do I think it will do anything to lessen the nation's overall spending on health care."
So let's have a panel discussion between the CBO analysis and the stuff that came out of Ed's ass. I am sure our impartial media will call it a draw.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 22, 2010 11:05 AM
Riffing though not rebutting anything JuliaL stated @ 5, I think one of the primary deficiencies in the public debate is that healthcare financing isn't really a classic example of insurance, neither is Social Security with a few exceptions. So I find the analogies somewhat deficient with the exception of the mandate if you drive you require car insurance.
Unlike home insurance for example, the odds a person living in the developed world will need healthcare in their lifetime approaches 100%. In addition, we can easily predict who consumes the most healthcare and that the expected level of healthcare required for these people is greater than the vast majority of these people's net wealth. Even if its not beyond their means, without healthcare many a kids' opportunity for college would be compromised if health insurance didn't cover the jocks who require knee surgery or other such procedures given the high accident rate amongst active teens.
We'd be far better off if we named the mechanism we use to finance healthcare with a name other than "insurance". We should start looking at healthcare financing the way economists do. I had no problem supporting HCR from this perspective in spite of my having a character flaw that makes me mostly immune to the "healthcare for all" advocacy. I was and am in distinct opposition to liberals frequently claiming that having taxpayers finance your healthcare is a "right" and that HCR is in fealty to the Declaration of Independence like Speaker Pelosi abstractly states and did so at least twice yesterday. Certainly we have a right to secure healthcare, but we have no right to expect someone else to pay for it, that's just dumb and dangerous since it suggests government or some other groups grant us our rights rather than their being inalienable. It would be far better to make an argument HCR with subsidized coverage for those not able to afford coverage on their own in our best economic interests to do so and the resultant soft improvements to the cutlure of societies who do offer universal healthcare.
In fact we already do this for the elderly, the really poor, and children through Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP respectively.
The last economic study I reviewed argued that the universal mandate as the President laid-out some particulars in early-09 calculated a 0.5% growth in GDP if we implemented universal coverage. That's about $70 billion per year of additional goods and services given the current size of our economy. So while I continue to work on becoming more of a bleeding heart, the economic case already resonates.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 11:43 AM
Interesting comparison: at my wife's church saturday night (catholic church) folks were urged to pray that "god would make our leaders do the right thing and vote down any bill that would endanger the country and its economy". seems like a lot of people were out of sync on this one.
Posted by: dean | March 22, 2010 11:48 AM
dean, that must be a pro life church.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | March 22, 2010 12:21 PM
Michael Heath #8: I'm not as sure as you that health care is not a right. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are meaningless words to someone suffering from a serious illness and unable to find treatment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25 states " Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services".
One thing I've always found odd is that if you are a law-abiding citizen, you have no guarantee of basic food, shelter and medical care. But, commit a crime and go to jail and you have the rights to all of those. I doubt you would support denying prisoners any of those basic necessities.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | March 22, 2010 12:22 PM
JusticeLeague @ 11 - If you take custody of someone you've removed their ability to exercise their rights to access, in your words, "basic food, shelter and medical care." So of course we would expect the government whose detaining people to provide for those resources. Therefore I find your analogy is defective since we're discussing the needs of one group vs. the property of another in light of the delegated powers the federal government enjoys.
I also never claimed the poor didn't have a right to healthcare, in fact I stated quite clearly that they did have a right to access healthcare. However, I also stated those without the resources to healthcare had no right for others to pay for their healthcare.
I support taxpayer funded healthcare for some as an optimal policy position, but I don't see how rights are at all involved if our rights are inalienable. I instead see an argument about where to draw the line regarding delegated government powers trying to optimize what is 'necessary and proper' to 'promote the general welfare'. I'd argue the government has the power to establish the HCR reform we are encountering.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 12:56 PM
JL #11: While I don't always agree with Mr. Heath, I'm with him on this one. I don't have a firm opinion on whether health care is a "right" or not, but I think your example (for arguing that it is a "right") is a red herring. The State has denied a prisoner the ability to seek his own food, shelter, and medical care (his "liberty"), therefore it is the duty of State to provide those. I don't think it is a "right" of the prisoner, or Citizen, per se. As I see it, the State does not guarantee a Citizen's success, only a fair and level playing field where the Citizen can strive. It's a difference between "political rights" (which I strongly support), and "economic rights" (which I mostly disagree with).
On another point, I hate the equivalency of "health insurance" with "health care". Even if we grant this as a "right", I don't think it should be a right to "insurance", but rather a right to "care", however that is paid for. "Insurance" is only one way to pay for the "care", and a fairly inefficient way if the Insurer is an unregulated virtual monopoly in a given market.
Posted by: Scott | March 22, 2010 1:08 PM
@7
Bullfighter, aside from your ass preoccupation, can you understand that what the CBO currently projects based on current information is most likely to change as congress spends our money? And they won't be finding cheaper ways to implement health care they will add to the deficit if past history is any guide. This may be why Ed doesn't believe we will end up reducing the deficit as a result of this legislation.
Posted by: Rich | March 22, 2010 1:32 PM
These catholics are APOSTATES! I do not know how anyone could possible support this illegal marxist unconstitutional HELLthcare madate. It is illegal for the federal government to force private citizens to purchase anything. I hope an asteroid hits the marxists that wrote this crappy Karl Marx wannabe bill. Beter yet, I hope some hacker breaks into the system and erases the bill and senate aids steals the hard copies and burns them.
I hope our Muslim socialist Kenyan born non-president is happy now. Man, I wish we had Bush back.
Posted by: Tea Party Turd Smasher | March 22, 2010 1:39 PM
Why are nuns supporting healthcare reform? Because they run the hospitals that provide the lion's share of healthcare provided to the under- and un-insured in this country, and they see first-hand how badly the current system works.
Cardinal DiNardo is probably muttering something about "that monstrous regiment of women" right now...
Posted by: Shay | March 22, 2010 1:42 PM
I am not going to answer Rich, who is obviously a moron, but it would be refreshing if Ed occasionally responded to comments that pointed out his egregious fallacies. Otherwise, what distinguishes him from a standard-issue Republican legislator? (Yeah, I know there is a big difference in results - Ed is often right, which is why I read his blog. But I am interested in the difference in process. People can be right for wrong reasons, such as blindly trusting other people, but being lucky enough to trust the right people. I'd like to have some insight into the thinking process that results in the posts on this blog. Otherwise, I'll probably lose interest in the posts.)
Posted by: bullfighter | March 22, 2010 1:47 PM
"I am not going to answer Rich, who is obviously a moron,"
A moron for positing that the savings are based on assumptions about actions that may not occur?
It isn't that you won't respond to that comment, it's most likely because it would require some thought on your part, bullshitter.
Posted by: dean | March 22, 2010 1:56 PM
Michael Heath @8: that's just dumb and dangerous since it suggests government or some other groups grant us our rights rather than their being inalienable
I don't have time to get into most of the interesting discussion between you and JusticeLeague on the issue of this particular right, but why would this suggestion be "dumb and dangerous"? What exactly does it mean that rights are "inalienable"? That seems to me to be nothing but a fantasy. The empirical reality is that rights are indeed given by the society (which includes government as an institutionalized form of societal organization), and are an equilibrium result of an ongoing struggle between the individuals and institutions.
I prefer a reality-based approach to problems, in which there is definitely room for rights, but not for God-given ones.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 22, 2010 1:58 PM
Dean the asshole: Did you expect that your approach would deserve an answer?
Posted by: bullfighter | March 22, 2010 2:03 PM
bullshitter, I knew you wouldn't supply one no matter what.
Posted by: dean | March 22, 2010 2:26 PM
Scott #13: You are correct to distinguish betwen "health insurance" and "health care". If we were to accept that everyone has a right to health care that doesn't have to be fulfilled through insyrance. For example, the British National Health Service provides health care for the british public, not health insurance.
Michael Heath-Where you lose me is when you say everyone has the right to health care, but no right for others to pay for it. How is a pauper to access health care if someone else (or a collective of others; i.e. the state) doesn't pay for it?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | March 22, 2010 2:27 PM
I'm not Michael Heath, but my understanding of what he was saying is that nobody should be denied health care just because they're Jewish, or black, or other unrelated reasons. Similar to how you're guaranteed freedom of speech, but you still have to pay if you want pamphlets published.
Posted by: mds | March 22, 2010 2:53 PM
mds #23: Denial of access to health care on the basis of race or religion is (thankfully) rare and I doubt that is what we just spent a year debating. Denial on the basis of ability to pay is not rare and is at the heart of the debate.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | March 22, 2010 3:10 PM
@14 and others--Deficit reductions are all relative. The correct question is not "will future acts of Congress cause health care to add to the deficit", it is "will future acts of Congress cause health care to add to the deficit MORE THAN if there had been no reform measure". No one argues that Congress is perfectly capable of spending more money, but just the cost-savings from cutting Medicare Advantage alone are huge.
There is one question I wish I could get someone to answer satisfactorily. The point of free markets over central planning is that free markets are supposed to be more efficient. Free market's superior efficiency is supposed to be driven by superior distribution of resources, and by superior innovation. How does this figure in with health insurance? Public insurance does a much better job at disbursing funds, and it seems to me that the only innovation that has occurred is newer and better ways of screwing customers out of coverage. Where is the free market advantage in health insurance?
Posted by: Shygetz | March 22, 2010 3:39 PM
mds #23:
But you can open your mouth and speak for free. If, as Michael Heath said, accessing at least basic health care is a right, and it's not free, then someone has to pay. If the person accessing it simply does not have the money to do so, then who pays?
Speaking as an ex-Christian, I find the reaction of the 'religious right' to the whole idea of universal healthcare somewhat bizarre. Have they forgotten the story of the Good Samaritan? Those who are too poor to afford health insurance are like the man set upon by robbers. Those who oppose the very idea of universal healthcare, which a large proportion of belong to the 'religious right', are like the priest and the Levite who passed by on the other side of the road, and it is those who supported it that are like the Samaritan who stopped and helped the man, simply because he was injured and in need of help.
Posted by: Zmidponk | March 22, 2010 4:00 PM
The difference between the right to free speech and the right to health care is that you don't have to print pamphlets to exercise your right to free speech. Anyone can go to Capitol Hill with a sign and scream until their face turns blue. I don't see how it makes any sense to offer someone access to health care but not the means to procure that care. In what way is that access? Just saying, "We won't stop you but if you can't pay for it, sucks for you" isn't allowing access. There's no way to guarantee access to health care without guaranteeing that that person can afford it. Health care always costs money, usually quite a lot. Saying that we only need to allow the right of access seems to me to be quite a bit like the old Dubya argument that everyone already has health care...they just go to the emergency room. Implicit in the idea of access to health care, IMO, is the funds necessary for that access.
As far as rights go, I don't see a health care bill like this as granting any sort of new right, but simply affirming a right that already exists. As a staunch atheist (like many on this blog), I have to conclude that the only moral and political authority comes from the individual. As individuals (and because I'm not an anarchist), we've banded together as a society and come together to decide what are rights and what aren't. I think we're moving in the direction of establishing as a society that health care is a right for all. The Constitution and Bill of Rights tend to dwell on negative rights of the government and not affirmative rights of the people which is what we have to hash out now. I also reject the idea that arguing for health care from the clause "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is abstract as Michael Heath claimed. In what way can you guarantee life without guaranteeing the means necessary to continue that life? How is a chronically unhealthy life conducive to liberty and happiness? There are certain rights that I feel are fundamental as a matter of human dignity, but I don't know what it means to say that rights are inalienable in a world without a Creator and a higher moral authority.
Posted by: Ryan | March 22, 2010 4:01 PM
JusticeLeague @ 24,
mds @ 23 explained my position very well though I'd extend his following analogy with what is in italics:
JusticeLeague @ 24 stated:
Exactly, which is why I support the democratic process working to legislate HCR that provides universal coverage. I think the powers granted goverment provide them sufficient powers in spite of such exercise infringing on the rights of taxpayers (which all taxes do).
The Democrats are not defending our rights by seizing the property of some to finance the healthcare of others, in fact they're infringing on the rights of those who are paying these taxes. Instead we are exercising the democratic legislative process to create a social safety net, that's an entirely different paradigm to providing for the excercise or defense of rights, where such an argument is a sure loser for those unable to afford health care since my right to income I earned is far superior to the right of another person to use my money for their healthcare.
So let's call what it is, establishing a social safety net to provide access to everyone for healthcare; Pelosi's rhetoric about rights and the DofI and the founders is every bit as absurd as conservatives judges searching for rights they prefer we not have and voila, coming up empty.
And simply because one's rights are prohibited or violated doesn't make it either wrong or unconstitutional. In this case the government has powers to tax and I think the objective does meet constitutional muster in regards to providing for the general welfare. But let's not ignore that taxpayers do give up some of their property rights in terms of income they earned which is going to be distributed to those less fortunate. Someday that earner will see some reciprocation when they're retired and someone else is paying taxes into Medicare for their healthcare.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 4:16 PM
Shygetz #25:
I've always thought that there are certain things that simply should not be run on free market principles. Healthcare is one of them. The reason for this is that free market principles, in practical terms, makes everything turn into 'run this as a business', and the end aim of any business is to make a profit. In many things, this works, because many businesses are about providing a product or service that people want at a price they're willing to pay, so doing it well translates into profits.
Healthcare, especially emergency healthcare, however, is a service that people only use when they don't really want to (they would prefer simply not to be injured/ill in the first place). In addition to this, you're more often talking about something that decides whether somebody lives, not merely about, for example, whether they're adequately entertained that evening. This means the absolute paramount thing that any good hospital/clinic/whatever should be concerned about is how many patients walk out of their doors alive and healthy - regardless of cost. However, if you run healthcare on 'free market principles', that really means you're trying to turn a profit with each hospital/clinic/whatever, so you have to be very concerned with the cost of anything and everything, especially the actual treatments and procedures the patients undergo.
Posted by: Zmidponk | March 22, 2010 4:24 PM
Shygetz @ 25 - Freemarkets and what we have, regulated capitalism does result in maturing industries to seek ways to create a more monopolistic market which reduces supply and increases prices. In addition, not all businesses work well as private entities vs. public; sometimes a mix works well also.
I have yet to come across an economist making an arguable case for private-only health insurance companies. The guest columns in the Wall Street Journal that defend that industry seem mostly intent on maintaining barriers to entry in the various states and maintaining client lists of only those that are healthy.
This reality is one reason I don't believe health insurance is really insurance since our society collectively decided that we don't accept people suffering in the streets. That's a movement that started 40+ years ago and is bipartisan in spite of the GOP's leadership fiercely avoiding the topic, i.e., which results in current premium payers subsidizing those who have no coverage but get care anyways. That of course is a paradox; we all want everyone to have access to healthcare, while those on the Right don't want to change the current system which causes so much economic harm to individuals, our economy, and our global competitiveness.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 4:28 PM
Shygetz @25: Both Zmidponk and Michael Heath have given you good answers specifically about health care, but there is a more general point that needs to be made: It is not generally true that "free markets are supposed to be more efficient". Markets are often more efficient than government planning, but not always and in certain areas not even usually. There is no general rule or principle that markets are superior.
Besides, both "free market" and "more efficient" are terms that need to be defined before people start debating them, as the meaning of neither is obvious.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 22, 2010 4:43 PM
Michael Heath @28: I think the powers granted goverment provide them sufficient powers in spite of such exercise infringing on the rights of taxpayers (which all taxes do).
What exactly are the rights of taxpayers that taxes infringe upon?
Posted by: bullfighter | March 22, 2010 4:47 PM
Michael Heath @28: The Democrats are not defending our rights by seizing the property of some to finance the healthcare of others
"Taxation = seizing of property" is bullshit. Even if you believe in some abstract inalienable rights based on a brilliant political pamphlet (but a political pamphlet nevertheless) from 1776, you can't seriously believe that property exists without a government. Not even Jefferson believed that - note that it is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness".
Posted by: bullfighter | March 22, 2010 4:53 PM
bullfighter @ 33:
Property in the broadest sense of the term.
bullfighter @ 33- you misrepresent my position and are fighting a strawman of your concotion. I clearly stated @ 28:
When individuals delegate powers to a government they are ceding some rights, that is an empirical fact. Of course we expect some benefit back from the concession, either directly or indirectly, or else we wouldn't do it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 6:13 PM
Michael, I understand that you do not consider every right absolute, which seems to be a significant factor in your frequent arrival to reasonable conclusions even when some of your premises are wrong. Indeed, I agree with a lot of what you said (see e.g. where I mentioned you in passing in post #31). But I am challenging a specific statement, and the fact that you also wrote a lot of reasonable stuff doesn't really have any bearing on the validity of that statement.
So your explanation is irrelevant. It shows how you can reconcile your beliefs that property is a right, presumably existing independent of states and governments, that taxation is taking of property, and that the government is within its powers to collect taxes. But I already knew you could do that, and that's not what I challenged.
So it is you who are fighting a strawman if you are implying that I somehow claimed that you opposed taxes as wrong or unconstitutional. I did nothing of the kind.
Rather, I attacked your idea that before-tax income is property. Do you acknowledge that you expressed that idea? If you did not, and don't hold that idea, then I misunderstood you (and misrepresented, but not intentionally). But if you do hold that idea, then I did not misrepresent you, and you have not responded in any relevant way to my criticism.
So let's repeat my position: the idea that before-tax income is property is completely unfounded in any reality or consistent thought, and therefore the idea that taxation is taking of property is absurd.
And, since there never was property that was taken in the first place, then taxation could not infringe upon any property right.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 22, 2010 7:38 PM
bullfighter @ 35 wrote:
I stated @ 34:
bullfighter @ 35 wrote:
Are you arguing that the XVI Amendment is redundant to some other numerated power or making some other argument? If I never had the right to my income [property], why did the government require a Constitutional amendment prior to collecting taxes on my income [property]?
Is there a point where the government exceeds its authority in taxing my income and violates my right to the income I earned? Is 100% OK? How about 90%? 60? 40%? Do you draw a line and if so how?
In terms of my answer to your your question, yes - my earned income is my property, it is in fact booked as an asset precisely at the time it is earned. If you are a business owner it's booked in the Accounts Receivables account until collected upon which it's usually moved into another asset account. Assets are property. If the federal government taxes one penny of my income, they've infringed upon my property right. Do the have the power to do so? Yes, the 16th Amendment affords them that power.
Do I see the wisdom in their taxing my income? That becomes a policy debate that is irrelevant to this discussion, where I'm focused strictly on powers and rights. From a policy position I of course support taxation and in fact believe a large part of our problem the past 10 years is tax revenues are too low. The Constitution is a document that numerates powers, those powers, like the 16th, have us limiting or even losing our rights for some hopefully greater or more beneficial purpose given that no man is an island. I do dispute what we tax (mostly income and soon punitively high capital gains) and how we prorate taxes (business income rather than consumers including businesses, people and even charities) but that is an entirely irrelevant discussion given I concede the federal government has the power to reduce my rights of property by taxing me in some fashions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 11:28 PM
When individuals delegate powers to a government they are ceding some rights, that is an empirical fact.
What if I never delegated any powers to any government?
Posted by: Juice | March 23, 2010 2:10 AM
Ed wrote:
This brings up something that has been bugging me about his blog for a while now. Most of the time, Ed's posts hitting various politicians and others for their poor and even outright stupid arguments are on target. In the health care issue, however, we saw mostly criticism of Republican talking points, and not all of it was on target. Pointing out Republican stupidity and hypocrisy where it exists (and it exists in a lot of places) is all well and good, but then Ed said this in his post:
In between posts about Republican hypocrisy, where were the posts breaking down the CBO reports and showing his thinking on why he doesn't believe these bills will cut the deficit? Obama explicitly said that he wouldn't sign any health care reform bill that added to the deficit, but I don't see how any Democrat can say with straight face that their plan won't add to the deficit, let alone reduce it. What would have happened to public opinion had the CBO reports come back more realistic? (Just to be clear, I'm not blaming the CBO, they can only score proposals as they are written.) We'll never know now. When all of major spending actually starts to take full effect in 2014, will the media do a detailed analysis comparing the promises of deficit reduction to reality? I'm not holding my breath.
From where I'm sitting, Ed, it sure looked like you wanted the bill to pass, since there was so much more you could have said to get at the truth of the plan that you didn't say.
Posted by: JasonTD | March 23, 2010 6:18 AM
Juice @ 37:
Excellent question. Randy Barnett covers that topic in his masterpiece, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, in one of four sections, the applicable one titled, "Constitutional Legitimacy". It's a respectful consideration and rebuttal of Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.
Mr. Spooner argued that the Constitution isn't binding on subsequent generations that didn't ratify it. His presumption is that we are a free people, as is Barnett's and they're on firm ground given Madison was explicit this was the framework from which he architected the Constitution he took to and which was largely passed at the Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Barnett counters Mr. Spooner by arguing the Constitution can be legitimately binding without our explicit consent, but only if the government allows us the free exercise of our unrestricted rights, those restrictions are not overly punitive, and its obligated to defend our individual rights. IIRC, Mr. Barnett demarcates appropriate powers vs. rights by grounding liberty in natural rights. His view is both expansive and not submissive to any religious dogma like other groups that argue for natural rights; it appears only so these conservative groups can claim we have no rights their dogma rejects, like our claim we have a right to the expression of our sexual identity while demanding equal protection regardless of that identity (as long as we're not violating the greater rights of others).
In Barnett's view therefore Lawrence v. Texas was a perfect application of the Constitution to strike-down unconstitutional state law against the private sexual practice of citizens. Mr. Barnett was also the advocate who argued and lost Gonzales v. Raich in the SCOTUS. He argued the federal government had no legitimate power to deny Ms. Raich her freedom to self-medicate with marijuana. Of course the Supremes somehow found that power in what I believe is an over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Mr. Barnett's a strong proponent that the Judiciary has constitutional powers to overturn the other two branches unconstitutional laws and the framework for considering those laws are a presumption of individual liberty. That's a much more expansive view of liberty than currently employed on the court by both its conservatives and its non-conservatives.
I may not be doing justice to Mr. Barnett's argument since it's been several years since I studied this topic. I know Ed's a big fan of his as am I. Obviously my reference to Barnett's argument above is not bullet-proof. For example, whose to say the power to tax my income via the 16th amendment which clearly restricts my rights is not overly punitive? From a philosophical perspective, why do I care that's been ratified in the Constitution rather than merely statutory, either way I'm giving up a large chunk of my income. I don't chafe at this particular amendment in spite of my thinking its bad policy, I merely bring it up as relevant to the question of the legitimacy of the coming universal mandate to procure health insurance.
I'm going to throw that book back on my reading pile and bone up on this topic.
It'd be great if Mr. Barnett weighed in on the universal mandate, especially since he interprets both the 'necessary and proper' and 'interstate commerce' clauses narrowly.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 23, 2010 6:45 AM
JasonTD @ 38:
That is topical material Ed has rarely covered. Therefore why the criticism?
JasonTD @ 38:
Huh? The CBO scored the bill as reducing the deficit. Not merely because they front-loaded the bill with taxes to fund the start-up phase, but even in the following ten years. Money quotes from the CBO:
And given GOP objections that the first ten year budget was a scam to hide the weenie from the American public regarding the program's financial stability, the Democrats requested the CBO score the following ten years where the CBO predicts:
JasonTD @ 38:
How are you determining their scores are not realistic? Could you provide a citation? You are arguing as if its common and accepted knowledge this bill is a deficit buster and your framework should be this forum's point of reference when the currently accepted referee in these matters produced opposite findings to your claims. This brings up the old Sagan response, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 23, 2010 7:02 AM
My criticism was that Ed wasn't covering the issue, though he says that he doesn't believe the CBO report any more than I do, given what I quoted above.
As I said, the CBO can only score bills the way they are written. They can't change or second-guess the bill when it makes dubious claims about how the law will look in the future. Apparently, they don't get to call legislatures for 'double counting'.
I've seen a lot of these facts elsewhere, and I think I recall us talking about Rep. Paul Ryan's bit during the health care meeting with the President, where he pointed out some of this. While I don't buy into the '10 years of taxes for a few years of benefits' argument that Republicans give, I find it hard to dismiss what I read in this article. Some highlights:
- $53 billion in new Social Security tax revenue as wages go up as some employers opt to increase wages rather than provide insurance. I suppose Social Security doesn't need the money from a tax explictly intended to fund that program.
- $72 billion in premiums intended to cover the CLASS act. (I think that's a long-term disability insurance program.)
- There is also the 'doc fix' that isn't in the bill. The bill assumes that Medicare payments to doctors will be according to a sustainable growth rate formula that Congress has voted to override for several years running, as they worry that even more doctors than now will stop seeing new Medicare patients, or opt out of the program entirely. The 10 year cost of doing what they've been doing would be over $200 billion.
Those are the obvious unrealities in the CBO score.
As you pointed out above, a lot of the 'savings' in the bill are cuts to future growth in Medicare spending that will happen under current law plus reductions in Medicare Advantage. While there's nothing definite, it is not unreasonable to believe that these cuts won't end up being as deep as the bill plans. That's just a cynical view of someone that noted that AARP supported the bill. Maybe they know something we don't about the actual plans for Medicare spending. Also, when Democrats say that this plan will reduce the deficit (relying partially on savings in Medicare) and extend the solvency of Medicare, then it is obvious that they are double counting those savings. You can't use money you're cutting from future Medicare spending to both pay for insurance subsidies and improve the balance of Medicare at the same time. It would be like saying that you're going to have a net gain in your personal budget if you cut $20 a month from your food spending, but then use that $20 dollars to buy HBO and Showtime.
In the end, I don't think my claims are extraordinary, though I do have evidence for them.
Posted by: JasonTD | March 23, 2010 10:13 AM
Michael Heath @36:
Are you arguing that the XVI Amendment is redundant to some other numerated power or making some other argument?
It wasn't redundant because Article I, Section 9 had explicitly barred the federal government from collecting direct taxes. But this is an issue of separation of powers between federal and state/local government, not an issue of individual rights. The Constitution before the XVI Amendment did not give individuals a right to be free from taxation (which would then, after the passage of the XIV Amendment, bar state and local governments from collecting taxes as well).
If you want to argue that the XVI Amendment limited an individual right that had previously been recognized by the Constitution, then you would not agree with the statement that the (repealed) XVIII Amendment was the only one that limited a previously existing individual right. Do you not believe that the US has a constitutional tradition of non-diminishing individual rights? (While legally irrelevant, I think such a tradition is very significant for societal views on what is appropriate for a constitutional amendment.)
Is there a point where the government exceeds its authority in taxing my income and violates my right to the income I earned? Is 100% OK? How about 90%? 60? 40%? Do you draw a line and if so how?
First, top marginal tax rates over 90% have been used in societies with strong property rights, such as the US (when Ike was president) and the UK, and those societies have not collapsed or degenerated into totalitarian dictatorships.
More generally, from the rights-based perspective, there is no a priori limit. There is no direct reason a society could not decide to do away with private property altogether. That's not to say it would be wise to do so. I think there is overwhelming empirical evidence that such a society would be economically unsuccessful, and very soon it could sustain its institutions only by violating rights of its citizens (it would almost certainly have to suppress dissent and forbid travel, or people would change its institutions or move elsewhere). This would happen even if the society initially abandoned private property by democratic means (unlike the countries that have come close to that "ideal" in reality - North Korea and the Khmer Rouge Kambodia - which did it violently, which poses a whole other set of issues).
You have to be careful to distinguish a system of property rights from violence done to prevent changes to such system. Arguing that lack of private property is itself a violation of basic rights is the mirror image of radical leftists who argue that capitalism (or, even more generally, private property) is the source and cause of all evil.
my earned income is my property, it is in fact booked as an asset precisely at the time it is earned. If you are a business owner it's booked in the Accounts Receivables account until collected upon which it's usually moved into another asset account.
Are you arguing that accounting conventions determine property rights? That's preposterous.
Let's say you are a salaried employee. By your argument, your gross salary (as shown on your W-2) is your property, including the employee's half of the FICA tax, but the employer's half of your FICA taxes is not (because it is never recorded on the books as your asset). But that's absurd. If you really owned your pre-tax income, you'd have to own all of it, not just the part determined by an arbitrary accounting split.
If you argue from accounting to rights, you are going to run into a whole bunch of such inconsistencies.
Do I see the wisdom in their taxing my income? That becomes a policy debate that is irrelevant to this discussion
I agree with that. As I said before, your other ideas moderate your view of property rights in a way that results in policy positions that are generally reasonable. So I am not arguing with your conclusions.
Nevertheless, it is still a problem if you perpetuate false premises (especially popular ones). Other people will derive less reasonable conclusions from the same premises. And some will see that someone with reasonable practical views (you) subscribes to these ideas about property rights, and will conclude that they must also be reasonable. I contend that they are not.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 23, 2010 10:22 AM
JasonTD @41:
As I said, the CBO can only score bills the way they are written. They can't change or second-guess the bill when it makes dubious claims about how the law will look in the future.
This is a fallacious argument. Of course the bill considered now is scored as it is written. What does it mean "how the law will look in the future"? CBO is not scoring speculations about future laws. Nor would such scoring be relevant for the bill as presented.
I find it hard to dismiss what I read in this article.
Note that every source cited in that article is a right-wing source. (Except of course CBO and Ezra Klein, whom the author is arguing against.) And all the cited writers whose names I recognize have a history of making ignorant or dishonest (or both) claims.
$53 billion in new Social Security tax revenue as wages go up as some employers opt to increase wages rather than provide insurance. I suppose Social Security doesn't need the money from a tax explictly intended to fund that program.
I don't know what this word salad is supposed to mean. Are you somehow arguing that this money is not real?
$72 billion in premiums intended to cover the CLASS act. (I think that's a long-term disability insurance program.)
I suppose you are arguing that CLASS should be scored on an accrual basis. You either don't know anything about government budget rules, or are making a bad faith argument. All government programs except contractual guarantees (such as student loan guarantees) are subject to cash-basis accounting. That applies to long-term programs such as Social Security and Medicare. So you are making a special pleading to apply new, inconsistent rules just because you don't like the result. That's an extraordinarily weak argument.
There is also the 'doc fix' that isn't in the bill.
This is one of the most dishonest Republican talking points. There is going to be the doc fix with or without this bill. It is completely independent of it. So by what logic does it have anything to do with this bill? None whatsoever. It is a red herring the size of a blue whale.
a lot of the 'savings' in the bill are cuts to future growth in Medicare spending that will happen under current law plus reductions in Medicare Advantage. While there's nothing definite, it is not unreasonable to believe that these cuts won't end up being as deep as the bill plans.
You can believe what you want, but the only way those cuts can end up not being as deep is if there is subsequent legislation that will change them, and that legislation will need to be scored on its own. Again you are making a dishonest argument that CBO should violate the law and score the current bill by reading tea leaves about future laws.
Democrats say that this plan will reduce the deficit (relying partially on savings in Medicare) and extend the solvency of Medicare, then it is obvious that they are double counting those savings.
There is no double counting. If the bill does both of those things, then what they say is absolutely correct. It would be double counting if they showed double the number in the budgetary effect, but that's not what you are accusing them of doing.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 23, 2010 11:05 AM
JasonTD-
1st - your $53 billion Social Security claim rests on nothing but talk in terms of its impact on the deficit beyond McArdle's and the GOP's claims. I understand their argument, but I'm not confident they accurately understood how the CBO cash-flowed through the receipts. In fact I am confident we can't trust anything the GOP says. From what I can discern reading your linked article, I would argue that this influx of receipts is deficit reducing just as the CBO scored it given the time frame. We also can't simplistically claim those as liablities, instead those monies can earn interest (if not borrowed from the Administration) and get paid out on a schedule that may not match receipts.
2nd - CLASS premiums - exact same argument as above.
The 'doc fix' is a marginal issue irrelevant to the bill. If the bill hadn't passed that issue would remain. The President has been transparently clear on this and I think rightly so. I would like to see this addressed, but it is a dinstinctly different matter.
I'd argue your post validates the CBO score is a good one if that's the best arguments against the CBO when considering the marginal changes between the bill failing or the bill passing for the time period assessed, i.e., 2010 - 2029. Especially since two of the three problems you raise are in areas where this President and Congress inherited a stressing need to reform both well before we reach the period where the CBO score expires.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 23, 2010 12:31 PM
bullfighter - I think we live on two entirely different universes with some slight overlap. I find your arguments not just entirely unconvincing, but illogical and absurd and you continue to misrepresent my arguments, e.g., my argument earned income is property merely because I describe that's how GAAP works.
GAAP defines earned and invoiced income not out of some mathematical convenience but because it is an ownable asset, i.e., property in its broadest sense as I originally and redundandtly defined property, and our reserved property rights. Some companies even sell their receivables, in fact that's a standard business practice when an entire business operation is sold.
It's obvious you think the same as my arguments so I think the best course, at least the one I'll be taking, is agree to disagree and leave it at that. I stand by all my previous points.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 23, 2010 12:42 PM
JasonTD - my point about social security has some inadvertent misakes, please consider this instead for that one particular point:
Your $53 billion Social Security claim rests on nothing but talk in terms of its impact on the deficit beyond McArdle's and the GOP's claims for the time period being analyzed. I understand their argument perfectly, but I'm not confident they accurately understood how the CBO cash-flowed through the receipts and especially any cash outlays. In fact I am confident we can't trust anything the GOP says. From what I can discern reading your linked article, I would argue that this influx of receipts is deficit reducing just as the CBO scored it given the time frame. We also can't simplistically claim those as liabilities equal to the amount of receipts as the linked article's author asserts; instead those monies can earn interest and get paid out on a schedule that may not match receipts - I assume most after the period of time analyzed.
The CBO would be wrong if they captured the marginal increase in cashflow without also adjusting for the marginal outflow. But that is not a claim made by any of the protagonists' in the link in your article nor do I believe that happened since their analysis wouldn't be credible.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 23, 2010 1:31 PM
Michael Heath - Yes, obviously we'll have to agree to disagree. You are correct in stating that I also think your arguments are illogical and absurd. (For the record, though, I'll mention that I have offered explanations why your positions are wrong and why your arguments are illogical.)
I think it is quite puzzling, though, as I generally see at least an 80% overlap in our practical policy positions.
Posted by: bullfighter | March 23, 2010 1:33 PM
bullfighter - we each made our case very clear, we each noted we wouldn't be moved. I've got to get some work done. Nothing more than that.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 23, 2010 1:54 PM
Michael,
This thread is now a bit old, so you might not see this, but I feel that I should respond anyway.
On the Social Security and CLASS act premiums, I think you have a point. It depends on how those programs are handled in the CBO scoring. It would be perfectly legitimate to count those revenues in the bill if they also counted any changes in expenditures for those programs that are due to the bill. I don't know for a fact one way or the other whether it was counted that way in the bill, so I can concede that point pending further evidence. Although, this statement you made is kind of confusing me,
I can only assume that you are referring to the practice the government has implemented for decades where extra revenues for SS and Medicare are spent elsewhere and the debt the government owes itself for future liabilities in those funds earns interest. (I am not certain that it works that way, so please correct me if I am wrong.) It doesn't make any sense to me that the government could come out ahead in that kind of situation since it is borrowing from itself. Even if the bonds are real and represent actual debts (not just in accounting ledgers as some people claim), the same government has to pay those bonds that is collecting taxes or borrowing from the public now, so it all just looks like a scheme to delay the inevitable to me.
The thing that is clear to me is that no one has any plans to let the full cuts required by the 'sustainable growth rate' formula actually go through. Whatever ends up passing to deal with the issue, it will cause more spending than the bill admits to. That is my problem with the issue and why I think that it is totally dishonest to leave it in as a deficit reducing factor.
The same thing (but to a lesser extent) applies to the other cuts to Medicare spending that are in the bill. Like most of the bill, I read the tables in the CBO report as showing most of those cuts occurring starting in 2014 or so. Therefore, any pain associated with those cuts, in terms of how it would affect Medicare services, will be delayed until after 2 more Congressional elections and Obama's reelection campaign. There will certainly be a great deal of pressure on Congress and whoever is President at the time to be sure that those cuts don't end up having a negative impact on the care seniors receive. That is why the cynic in me thinks that the cuts required in the bill won't be as deep as the bill assumes. I'll admit that there is nothing in the bill itself to support this, but I don't feel that I'm going too far out on a limb to believe it.
Posted by: JasonTD | March 27, 2010 12:19 PM
Bullfighter,
I thought I had been clear that I didn't believe that the CBO was doing anything wrong or inappropriate, but that we can't take the CBO report at face value. My contention was that a bill can be written in a way that makes all sorts of unrealistic assumptions about what future Congresses and Presidents will do and have it come out of the CBO process smelling like a rose. I am not suggesting that the CBO operate in any other way, but I do demand that the media questions the assumptions written into the bill. It is part of their job is to be sure that what the government claims to be fact really is fact.
For the specific issues I brought up, see my response to Michael Heath above.
It was somewhat amusing to me that I saw this video yesterday on the web for NBC. NBC is hardly right-wing and they have a report that basically states the same issues. Of course, this report comes out AFTER the bill passes, but hey, better late than never, right?
That NBC report I linked also considered it double counting. I honestly don't know how the Medicare cuts are treated in the bill or CBO report in respect to Medicare's solvency itself. But it is obvious that you can't use those savings to pay for a new program and, at the same time, claim that it also reduce the spending imbalance in Medicare itself. As I argued above, it would be like cutting your food budget for the month, using that money to add HBO and Showtime to your cable service, and then claiming that you've come out ahead.
Posted by: JasonTD | March 27, 2010 12:44 PM