Tag: NPC

Categories
national politics & policies Popular

MediocreCare — Guaranteed!

npc, march, Health Care, Medicare,

When Senator Bernie Sanders demands that the government “guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege,” does anyone think about how governments currently provide more basic services as rights? 

You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in America — or so we say — but 

  1. our police aren’t legally obliged to defend us,
  2. prosecution and compensation for real crimes is iffy, 
  3. one can ruin oneself in court either as plaintiff or defense in civil cases, and
  4. the whole legal system is kludgy in the extreme. 

And this is the core function of government!

Why expect better government performance in medical care?

Bernie’s plan, which Democratic front-runner Senator Elizabeth Warren wafflingly endorses, is “Medicare for All.” But the current Medicare-for-seniors doesn’t cover all of seniors’ medical bills. Seniors pay out of pocket for a portion of their medical costs, often buying “supplemental” insurance to help in the process. If they can afford it.

Medicare does not pay for all medical costs incurred at the supply end, either. The federal government operates with schedules of compensation, limiting charges and procedures in customary bureaucratic fashion. That’s why doctors and clinics increasingly refuse to take Medicare patients. This is what we want to roll out to the whole population?

“Polls show that voters are more willing to pay higher taxes in return for lower cost health care,” Jake Novak explains at CNBC. “What they won’t tolerate are reduced services, especially when it comes to health care, higher taxes or not.”

What assurance can politicians provide that mediocre-care, their latest schemes for socializing medicine, won’t amount to higher taxes for reduced services?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

npc, march, Health Care, Medicare,

Based on a photo by Molly Adams

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
national politics & policies Popular term limits U.S. Constitution

The Court-Packers

Supreme Court, NPC, packing the court, FDR, law, justice, constitution

“What if there were five justices selected by Democrats,” presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke explored at an Iowa campaign stop, “five justices selected by Republicans, and those ten then pick five more justices independent of those who picked the first ten?”

Beto, meet FDR.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried something similar with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would have added six new justices to the nine-justice U.S. Supreme Court. It failed in the Senate, even though FDR’s Democratic Party controlled the chamber.

This “court packing” gambit may have been the most unpopular action of FDR’s whopping three-plus terms. 

Despite the obvious self-interested power grab, “Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand . . . would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president,” Politico reported.

“It’s not just about expansion, it’s about depoliticizing the Supreme Court,” Sen. Warren explained . . . with a straight face. Yet Beto’s suggested reform would officially turn the nation’s highest court into a partisan, two-party political institution.

To the good, Democrats are also bantering about term limits for the nation’s High Court. Trouble is, term limits require a constitutional amendment, meaning a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress as well as 38-state ratification. 

Court packing, on the other hand, only requires simple majorities of both houses and the presidency. Which Democrats threaten in 2020.

“You need to gain power,” Washington Examiner columnist Philip Wegmann reminds, “before you can abuse it.”

So the abuse, for now, is merely promising.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Supreme Court, NPC, packing the court, FDR, law, justice, constitution

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
general freedom ideological culture Popular too much government

Socialism Is Anti-Democracy

NPC, socialism, democracy, freedom

Common sense politics must peer beneath the superficial attractions of “democratic socialism.”

In “Civil Liberties and Socialism Don’t Mix,” Matthew Harwood explains why those who call themselves democratic socialists may “say they believe in civil liberties” nevertheless “will always be hostile to individual freedom.”

In this short Reason piece, Mr. Harwood starts out by showing that socialism cannot merely be “a more generous welfare state along Nordic lines.” For “socialism” to remain distinct socialists must offer a Unique Selling Proposition. You cannot plausibly push a “new” philosophy and stick to pushing the old liberal stand-bys of private property and markets.

Their own pretensions force them back to central planning, to economic planning for all by a few.

Which is not democratic, of course. It goes far further, to anti-majoritarian.

Actual economic planning requires micromanagement. Harwood quotes socialist economist and luminary Robert Heilbroner, who expresses this requirement as “the necessity to intervene deeply, and probably ruthlessly, into the economy in order to establish the socialist order in the first place.”  

But it cannot stop there. Once established, a socialist state must feel a “need to continue a policy of painful intervention” to adjust to “the constricting limits of the environment.”

“Democratic socialism is not freedom,” Harwood concludes. “It is authority paternalistically dressed up in the language of liberation and wielded on behalf of that fuzzy abstraction, ‘the people,’ regardless of what flesh and blood individuals want.”

Sure, democratic socialists may hope that majorities will allow their elites to plan for everybody. 

But once that handoff is made, the power obtained, then the tyranny.

Inescapably.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob

 

PDF for printing