Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Gideon Granger on Aug. 13, 1800 explained his concept of the division of our branches of government. “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, & from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer & overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens, and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder and waste. And I do verily believe, that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being in force in the U.S. (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the State governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government) it would become the most corrupt government on the earth. You have seen the practices by which the public servants have been able to cover their conduct, or, where that could not be done, delusions by which they have varnished it for the eye of their constituents. What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building & office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the general government Thomas Jefferson.
The so-called Affordable Health Care Act was passed on Christmas eve of 2009 without having been debated or even read by the Democrat controlled Congress with no Republican votes. That contradicts Mr. Obama‟s campaign promise about transparency. It will be administered by the Health Human and Services Department.
The Health and Human Services Department has many other responsibilities than AFDC. Medicaid and Medicare are both under the HHSD and now Obamacare will also report to HHSD. The Food and Drug Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental Health, Aging, Toxic Substance and Disease, National Institute of Health and the Inspector General are all part of HHSD. None of this was listed in our Constitution and so should be evaluated concerning how appropriate all of these agencies are.
The Democrats have been crafting this national health care bill during 2009 and it has little to do with health care and lots to do with government control. There will be about 132 different agencies created by the bill and about 150 thousand bureaucrats would be added. The IRS will add 16,000 employees to make sure that everyone is covered. The Democrats indicate that the bill would save money but if they really wanted to save money they would make insurance portable and allow insurance companies to sell in all states.
Large companies that have operations in several states are permitted to have a single insurance policy to cover their employees in all of the states where they operate and that privilege should be available to everyone. Also, tort reform should be enacted placing a cap on “pain and suffering” awards and malpractice law suits. Texas, Mississippi, and Missouri did that and their insurance costs were reduced about 50%. In addition, class action lawsuits should be abolished since they really are a way to enrich trial lawyers and provide little benefit to the plaintiffs.
However, the Democrat party receives huge contributions from the trial lawyers and will not take those actions. If the federal government were kept out of this the separate states might enact some of these proposals.
The claim that the bills being considered will reduce our health costs is just a flagrant lie. The costs start in 2010 and the benefits start in 2014 so the Democrats compare six years of benefits with 10 years of expenses. Based on what we have the following ten years would have both benefits and expenses which would lead to the conclusion that that ten years would have four more years of benefits which would increase the costs substantially. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) calculates that the real cost of the bill for ten years is $2.3 trillion. He indicates that the first ten year costs of the Senate bill has a $460 billion deficit and the second decade cost has a $1.4 trillion deficit.
Senator Jim DeMint stated,” The plan will explode the national debt, raise $569.2 billion in new taxes, force taxpayers to fund abortions, and impose unconstitutional mandates on every American. There has never been a bill enacted by Congress where the forecasted costs came close to the actual and there is no reason to think that this bill will be any different. The most recent projection is that Medicare will be bankrupt by 2024. That is still far enough away for our present irresponsible Congress to postpone action since most of them will be out of Congress by then.
In Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels introduced a Health Savings Account for the state employees and now about 70% of the state employees participate. The state pays the insurance premium (which is essentially catastrophic insurance) and deposits $2750 into each employees account which becomes the employees‟. Above $8000 health cost the state covers completely and shares costs above the $2750 with the employee. Since the employee is now responsible for the initial costs of his health the results have been excellent. Employees will save more than $8 million and Indiana will save $20 million in 2010 and overall health costs are much lower. Making people responsible for their own costs has a significant effect on costs and this program should be promoted nation-wide.
Wellpoint, an insurer, obtained actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. A healthy 25 year old in Milwaukee would see his costs rise by 178% and a small business in Richmond with eight employees in average health will experience a 23 % increase. Our Congress never tells the truth about the real expenses when they want to pass a bill and they certainly are not telling the truth now.
One easy way to understand how bad the bill is can be determined by the exemptions granted. At this writing there have been 1300 waivers granted to big businesses and labor unions and to 38 hotels and restaurants in Nancy Pelosi‟s district. The requirement to have small businesses file a 1099 form for every transaction over $600 has already been removed and the HHS Department has now added $6.7
billion to the bill so that the hundreds of Medicare Advantage Plans that would have been in danger of being cancelled will not be removed before the next election. That is a temporary fix and after the next election that that problem will be there again.
The bill contains unconstitutional requirements and should be repealed.
We now have about a year and a half to find out what was in the bill and the adjustments that are already being made indicate some of the problems we can expect.
There is one area where I would recommend that the federal government become involved. Congress passed a law in 1986 which requires hospitals to treat everyone who requires treatment. That includes illegal immigrants. That law has led to the closing of 60 hospitals – mostly along our Mexican border for the hospitals treat them but no one makes the illegals pay for the treatment.
Since the government forces them to treat everyone then we should make the government responsible to collect from those who do not pay. In some areas hospitals are unable to collect from over 25 % of their cases. The government is also responsible for protecting our borders and preventing “invasion.” Thus, they are responsible for the illegal immigrants that are here and should be responsible for the costs they incur and do not take care of. In the case of illegal immigrants the government could seize their assets to pay the bills and then deport them. I suspect that would encourage many of them to buy insurance.
Removing this responsibility from hospitals would significantly reduce the costs incurred in collecting from patients and also reduce the costs where the patient avoids paying. That would also help us to identify the real costs of health care.
One of the proposals in the health care bill is that insurance companies would not be able to refuse insurance to any applicant regardless of their “previous condition.” That sounds very compassionate.
New York has that law and the results are that they have the 2nd highest insurance costs in the nation.
About 70% of people are covered by their employers and the other 30% wait until they have an injury or an illness to apply and buy insurance and frequently they will cancel the insurance when their medical problem is fixed. Based on New York‟s experience it would appear that about 20% of their families do not carry insurance and if that were applied to the national level there would be 60 to 70 million that would not be insured.
The Congress recognizes this and has proposed a penalty to those who do not purchase insurance (which is unconstitutional) but the penalty recommended is so small that it would be cheaper to pay the penalty and wait to buy insurance when you need it – when you are sick or injured. So, instead of the present 30
million who are uninsured we would probably have double that amount. This problem could be solved with state-based high risk pools to provide affordable coverage and tax credits where needed. Medical Saving Accounts could also help this problem. Something will be required for as companies realize that they can reduce their costs by stopping insurance for their employees and paying the fine they will do that and then employees will lose the coverage they have in spite of the promises from Obama that this will not happen. They can also lose their coverage if the employer changes insurance companies or changes benefits or raises deductibles.
Whatever the problem that exists the Congress could address that particular problem and solve it without destroying the best health system in the world and creating the biggest bureaucracy in our government.
Let‟s keep the federal government out of health care except for collecting from those who do not pay.
There are probably some cases where insurance companies have mistreated people. If so, those cases should be identified and Congress should pass laws correcting those situations. Leave all the rest of our laws alone for the 80 to 90% who seem to be satisfied with the insurance coverage and the health care we have.
The bill has now passed and the Democrats have attained that by using the federal treasury to bribe their members. We have the “Nebraska cornhusker,” the “Louisiana Purchase” the “Florida gator aid” , the
“Michigan airport maintenance deal” and all of those votes were obtained by granting money or removing costs from those states. With control of Congress the Democrats have access to the federal treasury and can spend money or exempt some from costs that other states will have. These Democrats really are “for sale.”
Medicaid is run by the states but the federal government reimburses 57% to 83 % of each states costs.
This system encourages each state to overstate its costs and it appears that they do so. The fraudulent system works by having the state overpay the health care providers and then submitting those costs which are then reimbursed by the federal government. Then the health care providers rebate the overbilled money to the state. The Government Accountability Office has documented those practices going back to the Clinton Administration (29 states were found to have done this).
Significant waste, fraud, and abuse pervade Medicaid in providing health services to 44 million poor Americans. Gov. Perdue of South Carolina has started using a computer program to review medical files to determine whether patients or physicians are gaming the system.
The simplest answer to this is to eliminate Medicaid at the federal level since it is administered at the state level anyway and thus do away with a federal agency. This elimination should also help to reduce the anticipated cost (for 2007 it was $199 billion). The State of Washington has passed Senate Bill 5596, a Medicaid block grant bill that would accomplish this. The state will apply to the HHS for the block grant and allow Washington State to administer Medicaid instead of being bound by ObamaCare. In 2009 Rhode Island was granted a block grant and saved $100 million in the first 18 months Since this is a program that is for the poor it is possible to reduce the program by reducing our federal government‟s involvement and increasing the wealth of our citizens. For the first years (three to five years) that the program is transferred to the states the federal government would need to reimburse the states for the amount that the states could not cover with the intent of eventually having the states completely cover all costs. That could be done through raising taxes or reducing benefits.
In Governor Mitt Romney‟s book No Apology, he relates that Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, proposed that each state annually be given the Medicaid dollars it had received during the prior year, adjusted for inflation and changes in the state‟s population of the poor. The state would then be allowed to fashion its health-care program for the poor as the state chose. Romney reported that many of the governors were very interested in the proposal but the Congress was unwilling to enact the proposition. Removing Medicaid from the federal government would save lots of money by eliminating the high paid Washington bureaucrats as well as allowing the states to design programs suited to their poor which could also save money.
We know that the Congress will never make adjustments to the program until it finally goes bankrupt.
Turning it over to the states would have a very beneficial effect.
Medicare is partially funded through taxes. There is a 2.9% Medicare tax on all income earned by workers; half is paid directly by the workers and half by the employer. The benefit applies to seniors and covers hospital insurance and seniors can purchase for a modest premium supplementary insurance or Medicare part B which pays physicians‟ fees and outpatient care.
Part D (prescription drugs) was added and became effective in 2006 and in 2007 it is estimated it will cost $392 billion. The Government Accountability Office estimates that Medicare faces $28 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years and the Medicare Board of Trustees predicts that it will be bankrupt in 2020. Why did our politicians enact such a program? Are they trying to make us as poor as Europe? Were people dying because of lack of drugs? Was insurance not available to take care of hospital and physician costs? Our politicians seem to be totally irresponsible in enacting such legislation if it will lead to these kinds of deficits. Those presently benefiting from these programs will very likely vote for them but someday, someone else will pay.
Since Medicare is partially funded by payroll deductions it would be possible to increase the deductions or increase the age for coverage since it functions with Social Security. Each state could determine and take the necessary action for the state. Medicare spent $309 billion in 2004. There is a problem which our politicians refuse to address and which should be fixed.
Representative Paul Ryan has proposed a plan that would keep Medicare the same for those 55 years and older and then when they turn 65 would switch to the same kind of program that our Congressmen have where each person would be given a voucher worth $7500 and then would buy their own insurance. The Democrats hate that for it would eliminate the government from health care.
As with Medicaid fraud is rampant. In July of 2009 arrests were made in Detroit where the cases involved about $50 million in fraud and a case in Florida involved over $100 million. Since March of 2007, the government‟s special antifraud teams have produced more than 250 indictments involving Medicare claims totaling more than $600 million At the federal level the Government Accountability Office found that more than 21,000 providers of Medicare‟s physician and outpatient services failed to pay more than $1 billion in taxes owed through September 2005. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services which manages Medicare is now being asked to adopt the federal levy system. A better answer would be to disband the federal organization and turn it over to the states.
If we transferred Medicaid and Medicare to the states there are several steps that could be taken to help.
The first action would be to reduce the health costs.
Obviously, there would be a nice reduction if we eliminated the federal offices associated with Medicare and Medicaid and turned it completely over to the states.
In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney instituted a program to include everyone in health insurance. One of our problems is that many people (30 Million) do not have health insurance but still receive treatment at our health facilities and do not pay. It would also help if those who had private insurance were able to deduct the cost of that insurance for income tax purposes. If we stopped businesses from providing health insurance for their employees and made employees responsible for their own insurance and thus enable them to purchase the kind of insurance they wanted we could also reduce the overall cost of insurance. The Congress is only going to add to our costs and increase the size of the government associated with that.
Individual states could also enact laws to reduce lawsuits and personal damage awards such as has been done with class action lawsuits. That would have a significant effect on insurance costs as has been demonstrated by Missouri, Texas and Mississippi. The Congress will never do that for lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to election campaigns. Thus, there is some hope that transferring these functions to the states could reduce costs and thus aid in solving our health cost problems. There is no hope for that from our present Congress regardless of which party is in power.
There really is no other answer than transferring Medicaid and Medicare to the states. Well, there is the possibility of letting it go bankrupt but if the problem is to be fixed it has to be transferred for the Congress (Republican or Democrat) will not fix it. We have all of our past experience to prove that and the reason is simple. None of the 535 people in charge of our Congress wants to have it known that they have voted to fix this for the recipients of these programs would vote them out of office. Since they do not want to be voted out it will be necessary to transfer this to the states who will be forced to fix it because they can not print money and are forced to balance their budgets.
Then, there is Social Security. Enacted in 1935 it applied to those over 65 and since the people lived to be an average age of 62 there was little expended to seniors and lots was collected. Over the years the amount collected has been increased to 12.4% (6.2% from the employee and 6.2% from the employer) on the first $102,000 in income. As our population grew the amount collected was much greater than the amount paid out and our politicians could not resist taking the amount collected and spending it. (Not just the excess but the whole amount). Supposedly, each employee receives credit for the contributions but the money contributed is not invested to their account.
The Congress “borrows” it and issues a note which pays around 1.2% and each employee is given credit for that amount. Our politicians anticipated that our population would continue to increase but it stopped increasing at the old rate and this has led to a larger number retiring than are contributing to the system.
It is now predicted that sometime in the next 20 to 25 years the system will be bankrupt. (The Social Security Board of Trustees estimates the money will run out in 2041). In fact, that actually happened in 2009. It is now forecast that 2010 and 2011 will also have less income that what will be paid out. The deficit will be made up from the government. Due to the large unemployment the amount collected exceeded the amount disbursed. The future will be more of a problem due to the rate of retirement and the number paying into the system. The income will then not be sufficient to pay those retiring at the present rate. Since there is no money in the social security funds something will have to be done to obtain that money or it will be necessary to reduce the payments to those retiring. If the Congress had not taken that money and spent it there is a good probability it could have been invested at a safe 3% in Treasury notes and earned enough money to have taken care of the problem.
Over the years our politicians have ignored this and refused to act responsibly to fix it. They must all think they will have retired before the collapse. (The politicians and federal employees are covered under a different program). In 2004 Social Security collected $657.7 billion in taxes which should have been invested for those paying. Instead, Social Security paid out $501.6 billion to retirees and the Congress spent the rest of the collection - $156.1 billion- on non-Social Security items.
There are no words to describe this process- maybe dishonest or crooked or irresponsible – or all the above. To make it worse they have now been informed that a problem looms in the future and they have taken no steps to fix it.
In our last Congress Congressman Ron Paul (R-TXC) introduced a bill in the House (HR 219) and a bill was also introduced in the Senate (s.292) that would have retained the Social Security income, invested it in interest bearing securities and not allowed the Congress to spend it. There were 60 Republicans that voted in favor in the House and a similar amendment was defeated in the Senate by 53 to 46. Thus, we know that the politicians know of the problem and are deliberately refusing to fix it.
We really do not have to invent anything new. There are 31 countries that have effectively privatized their social security systems and we could adapt and/or copy from them. ..The government of Chile was the first to adopt a private system and it has worked wonderfully. In 1981 (long enough ago to be able to evaluate it) Chile started deducting 10% of each employees pay and investing it in a private system controlled by the employee. The government contributed the amount they determined would be a minimum pension. That personal account belongs to the individual and not the government. In our system if you die prior to age 65 you receive nothing (since most blacks die before age 65 they really are cheated). The individual in Chile can pass that account on to his heirs and can even withdraw some if needed.
In Sweden the worker contributes 7 percent of his pay and the employer contributes 10.2 percent and the government contributes the amount that they estimate is needed for a minimum pension. In Poland both the employee and the employer contribute 9.8 percent of the employees pay and the government contributes a minimum amount. In Singapore the employee contributes 20 percent and the employer contributes 13 percent of the employees pay and the government contributes nothing.
All of these programs are under the control of the individual and the government is not responsible for them and thus has no obligation for them. To introduce them to our country we would need to establish an age (50 or 55 years of age?) where those who are older would be covered by the existing system and the existing contributions would be used to fund it. Then all those under that age would be placed in the new system – or allow them to continue in the existing system – and have private accounts they control.
Those in the new system would be given credit for their past contributions (at the prevailing interest rate of 1.2 percent) and then be in a private system for the future or in some combination which allows some private investing and some government contributions. Obviously, the existing liability would be greater than the future contributions so the government would have to borrow money to pay off that debt but at least at sometime in the future the debt would disappear and those in the new system would have an adequate pension and the government would not have the present problem that exists today.
At the end of February 2006, the government owed $1.879 trillion to the Social Security Trust Fund. In 20 to 25 years the amount collected will be less than we receive which means something will have to be done to obtain that money or reduce benefits or something. President Bush campaigned in 2005 about the problem of Social Security but he never really presented a specific program which indicates a lack of political acumen and which could not then be voted on or approved. President Bush‟s proposal did increase benefits over the years which would have made the problem worse but it would not be right to decrease the future benefits.
President Bush did discuss the possibilities of privatization which could help. The Republican Congress did nothing and made no presentation of legislation and so nothing was done. The only thing the Democrats have ever done was when they started to tax social security benefits in 1993 and so the logical conclusion is that neither party is going to do anything about Social Security If something is to be done it will require someone other than the Congress to do it.
While recommendations have been made to transfer the other “money departments” to the states Social Security is so far in debt and so messed up that it will have to remain with the federal government. This must be an example of the success of bureaucracy. Mess it up so bad that no one else can ever correct it.
They have been very successful in failure.
Chapter 7 G Government by Presidents
Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine
Executive orders
Executive orders have been used by our presidents since George Washington but their use has generally been to implement administrative matters relating to the presidential office. That would be perfectly legitimate. However, there are many other presidents who have issued executive orders as if they were dictators. President Lincoln issued executive orders mobilizing state militias, suspending habeas corpus, and erecting a blockade of southern ports and his famous Emancipation Proclamation which did not even pertain to this country but applied only to another country – the rebel states.
Those executive orders marked their issuer as a dictator and that has been the case with many other executive orders as well. President Wilson issued over 1800 executive orders which expanded the authority of the President. One of those authorized the arming of USA vessels which Congress had refused to authorize.
President Franklin Roosevelt issued 3700 executive orders. In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, which ordered the cancellation within two years of all existing “powers and authorities possessed by the President,…as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency executive order…” That removed many of the orders issued by President Roosevelt.
Some of Roosevelt‟s orders were seizing an aircraft plant in California, a shipbuilding firm, cable company and 4000 coal companies. In 1933 he issued an EO which made it illegal for our citizens to own gold. In 1942 Executive Order 9066 was issued by Roosevelt which placed Japanese – American residents in detention camps and seized their property.
In 1952 President Truman issued an order to seize the steel industry. A federal judge voided it. In 1980
President Carter issued a proclamation imposing a fee on imported oil. A district court nullified the order. President Clinton has been one of the biggest users of executive orders. One of his aides, Paul Begala, stated, “stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”
Our Constitution reads, “Article 1, Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” In 1866
that doctrine was explained by the Supreme Court in “Ex Parte Milligan.” “The power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the President…. But neither can the President, in war, more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Congress….” Our presidents are not supposed to be able to write legislation but the executive orders are usurping that Congressional right and must be stopped if we are to retain three branches of government.
President John Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force which has led to unions throughout the government. President Clinton issued orders dealing with health, food labeling, restrictions on guns, barred the awarding of government contracts to businesses that have replaced striking workers (overturned by a three judge panel) and has made a national monument of 1.7 million acres in Utah. E.O. 13083 gave all sorts of power to federal agencies and cancelled E.O. 126112 which had been issued by President Reagan which restated the importance of the tenth amendment. The uproar from Congress was so great that Clinton cancelled it. Executive order 12938 declared a national emergency and granted all sorts of power to the President. One of this most ridiculous orders was EO 13166 which required federal agencies and recipients of federal assistance to provide all information in other languages (Spanish) .California MVB alone pays $.2.2 million annually in translating costs.
Executive Order 13087 awarded homosexuals “special protection” Executive Order 13107, entitled
“Implementation of Human Rights Treaties” contains many orders to put into effect treaties issued by the United Nations which have not been approved by our Senate. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not recognize the right to own property. There is the ungratified UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women that would be included in the EO. President Clinton also included a statement declaring the EO “does not impose any justiciable obligations on the executive branch” in an attempt to avoid any judicial r