Some St. Thomas students are wary of the universal health care bill that President Barack Obama is expected to sign as early as Tuesday.
House Democrats sent the legislation to Obama after a 219-212 vote Sunday. All 178 Republican lawmakers opposed the bill, as did 34 Democrats.
The bill establishes a 10-year, $938 billion program to extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. The bill also outlines a plan to reduce deficits and prohibit insurance companies from charging more based on sex and denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
Former U.S. Sen. David Durenberger, R-Minn., is the chair of the National Institute of Health Policy at St. Thomas. He said this bill could change health care at St. Thomas, especially in the long run when more opportunities are available to large employers and educational institutions.
“I am surprised and quite pleased by [the bill’s passing],” said Durenberger, who served in the Senate from 1978 to 1995 and spent three terms as a health policy expert.
“We will have access for the first time in a long time where people can make informed choices,” he said. “The biggest thing, however, for young people and others is that we are finally on the verge of changing the cost curve in health care.”
The bill addresses the lack of universal coverage by proposing American citizens purchase mandatory insurance. The money generated by the bill would go toward subsidies, which would help families with incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay for insurance premiums.
“I’m definitely not happy they passed it,” senior Zach Neugebauer said. “I think a lot of people in this country want health care reform, but I think the bill they passed is not what the people want. I am in favor of health care reform. I just wish that this bill wouldn’t have gone through.”
Neugebauer, who owns a small business, said the new bill will take away the incentive of a good health program he offers to his employees.
“I can’t afford to pay my employees maybe what bigger businesses can, but one of my big benefits was that I had a really good health program,” he said. “Well, now that that is going to be open to everyone, that’s no longer a bargaining trick I can use to attract good employees … that takes my incentive away to provide decent health care to my employees.”
Senior Adam Johannsen, who wants to be a doctor, agreed.
“I think our system’s essentially broken as it is and we need change but I don’t know if this is the best way to go about this change.”
Freshman Austin Kammerer doesn’t support the new bill either. Taxing affects his family because they make a high enough income to be considered “wealthy.”
“The bill costs a lot of money … and the main way to pay for it is taxing,” Kammerer said. “I don’t like it because of the repercussion it’ll have on my family, and people like my family.”
Ben Katzner and Stephani Bloomquist contributed to this report.
Ben Katzner can be reached at bekatzner@stthomas.edu
Yes, the bill will cost more money for families in the upper tax bracket. But an increase in taxation of high income families seems a small price to pay when the result is health care for millions of people who cannot afford it right now, including children. What’s more important here, money or the health of our nation’s citizens? The answer seems pretty easy to me.
I agree whole heartedly with Stefan. Incentive for employees? Look around and step outside of the St. Thomas bubble. Our country is suffering. Desperately. Even people in our own community. Maybe it’s because I work with some of the people who suffer most from our current system– I see their faces and hear their stories. I’d be more than happy to give up some of my paycheck to help someone in dire need of services. In fact, as someone who has been blessed with an education and steady income, I believe it to be my responsibility. I find that far more fulfilling that funding the war we’re fighting.
Social Security… broken, Medicare…broken, Post Office… broken! The government has proven they can’t run anything effectively and people think they now should run 1/3 of our economy… that seems crazy to me. I agree that people deserve to have their basic health needs met in a country as grand as ours. However, having the government take over this sector will raise taxes year after year (just like every other program) and it will eventually burden the middle class as well. Why does every decision have to be so drastic? The President campaigned on group rates, holding insurance companies accountable, and stronger competition…not on a massive government takeover! This bill was wrong in every sense of the word. Votes were bought and the best interest of the American people was not taken into consideration. There were many other simpler ways to fix our current health care problems without a government take over. This is a sad day in our country.
I think people need to realize that bill wasn’t the answer to our nation’s health care. I agree with Mr. Neugebauer in that our government should not, or ever run healthcare. It’s too big a task. Miss Ross, people ARE suffering, but passing a bill that will cost almost a trillion dollars to help 32 million people (about 11% of our population) is outrageous. The reason people are “suffering” is due to insurance companies hiking up their prices. Reform of the insurance industry is more in line in my eyes. As college students, we have no idea what living in the “real world” entails. When we start paying roughly 40% of our income in taxes on our hard earned money, then we can be having this conversation. Miss Ross and Mr. Wolf, I am not criticizing your comments, but I will respectfully disagree by saying raising taxes is not the answer to everything in this country.
Please re-evaluate your views. Our governemment just hasn’t been successful in taking over programs in the United States. Is this really a victory? The one thing about this bill you should know is that health care costs MAY increase. This will depend on whether the gains from increased efficiencies and increased competition is outweighed by the cost of providing additional benefits.
Why should upper income families who have worked for their money lose their investment and hard work because some people in our country won’t work hard enough to take care of themselves?
Oh my. Matthew, your comment is ridden with ignorance and is absolutely offensive. If you think people who are poor aren’t “working hard enough”, you’re living in a dream world. I hope one day you are able to humble yourself and step into the lives of those who aren’t as fortunate to live the life you and I are living. Educate yourself. Read statistics. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I’ll honor anyone’s opinion if it’s based on facts. Your statement, Mr. Plese, is not grounded in reality.
I am a huge advocate of healthcare reform. I believe this bill is imperfect. This is certainly not the last step, but it is the first. And for that I am tremendously thankful. Ultimately we all want each other to be happy and healthy, regardless of our political preference.
Bottom line is the bill is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution does it say you must buy something in order to be a citizen? Under Obama care, you will be punished with fines if you don’t follow the Government mandate and buy healthcare. 10 states have already stated they will sue the federal government if Obama signs the bill. I sincerely hope more states follow their example.
I agree with Emily and Stefan, the American citizens who will be taxed as a result of this bill are only families who make over $250,000 a year, or individuals who make over $200,000 a year. So is asking them to pay a small 3.8% of their income so that everyone in our country has the opportunity to have healthcare really too much to ask? I don’t think so. In fact, as Emily previously stated, I believe it’ s our duty as American citizens to help out those who are less fortunate if we have been fortunate enough to be provide with healthcare. And Mr. Plese, the people who you are referring to that “won’t work hard enough to take care of themselves” are mostly small business owners and those who have been laid off as a result of the recent economic downturn and are currently looking for a job. I’m pretty sure they’re some of the hardest working people in our country and shouldn’t be denied something as valuable as healthcare just because of the fact their their line of work makes less money.
Last night during the health care debate, Republicans acted like the Saviors of Medicare and Medicaid, programs that they opposed when they were first passed. Like these programs which have become a staple in American society, it is only a matter of time before this historic health care reform law becomes part of American folklore. When polled, a majority of Americans say they do not like the health care reform law, however, when asked about the specific provisions in the bill, a majority of Americans support every one. This has been a fantastic lies and fear campaign by the GOP, but I guess, who expected anything different from the party of ‘no’? Finally, to respond to Mr. Plese: Who expected anything different from the privileged elite of St. Thomas. I’m sorry you may have to spare your next North Face jacket or UGG slippers so that people can get regular check ups and can be covered in the case of catastrophic illness.
Mr. Plese,
Does someone being poor mean that they have not worked hard? Does it mean that they are lazy? Of course not. There are many people who work 60+ hour weeks at hard labor jobs to attempt to pay the bills, yet they still can’t make enough. This is obviously not laziness nor unwillingness to work. We need to get away from the American “me first” mentality. Why should well off families give a little more to help out those who aren’t as well off? Why shouldn’t they is the question. There is no reason not to sacrifice a little bit of luxury so other people can meet basic needs. Hard work and achievement is not measured in monetary value…it’s measured in relationships that one builds and the kind of person that one turns out to be.
Matthew–I challenge you to visit a homeless shelter, a kitchen soup, or a social services center, and I challenge you to look those people in the eye and ask them why they won’t work hard enough to care for themselves.
I support some sort of healthcare reform, and there are things that I like about this bill, such as making it illegal to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and making it illegal for insurance companies to cancel someone’s healthcare coverage if they get very sick. However, I am very concerned about several things about this bill. First and foremost, President Obama’s executive order extending the Hyde Amendment to the healthcare bill does not alleviate my concerns about public funding of abortion being allowed under this bill, as the executive order can be rescinded at any time, and I don’t think it would survive an expected court challenge. Secondly, I am concerned about giving the government an unprecedented amount of power over the healthcare system. That power is extended to the government with good intentions, but I’m worried that in the future that medical decisions could be made by government bureaucracies rather than a patient and his/her doctor. Thirdly, I think taxing other peoples’ health insurance plans in principle is wrong, and the whole prospect of doing that disgusts me. Taxing candy, fine, taxing tanning beds, fine, but healthcare coverage for anyone should be off limits for taxes.
I think we can all agree that making healthcare affordable for all is a great need. I think what we disagree on, though, is how to do it.
Reading the responses to this article from students in favor of the health care bill, I find it curious that Ben Katzner only quoted three UST students who all happened to be opposed to the bill. It does makes me wonder if there was an agenda in your article, Mr. Katzner.
The Original constitution also doesn’t say the word “Democracy” not once. in 4,440 words “Democracy” does not appear. Are you going to tell me that calling the U.S. a democracy is unconstitutional? The State of Minnesota requires that every automobile on the road be insured. Is that unconstitutional? It saves money, and minimizes complication. Every person who I have ever heard complain about “having to buy insurance” already has insurance… if health insurance is so terrible… drop yours and see what happens when you need a doctor.
This bill is not about poor people and rich people; we shouldn’t get catch up in that. This bill really should be about health care and health care only. Yes, there are many Americans that are having a hard time affording health care. However, health care prices are only a very small part of the problem. The overall economy is a big part of our current problem, which this bill will hurt and not help. Daniel brought up a really important part that people need to pay more attention to. THIS HEALTH CARE BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Government cannot force the hand of the private sector in the manor they have. I am involved in my local government back in South Dakota and our attorney general spoke on this very matter. There will be 20+ states that will be filing a lawsuit against the Federal Government for breach of our constitution. They’re not fighting the health care bill because of a “Republican–Democrat” thing, solely because as attorney generals they were sworn in to protect the United States constitution. Americans need to re-think this Health Care bill. We are going down a road that will lead to many more Government run programs and over a period of time we will lose our American innovation and freedoms.
I am, in no way, a politically minded person (and I will not pretend to be). However, I know that hundreds of thousands of peoeple die each year because they don’t have access to good healthcare facilities. And I know that many more people fall into outstanding debt because of high medical bills. How can we place a dollar value on someone’s wellbeing? Is it easier to do so because you’ve never been exposed to poverty? Or is it because, somewhere down the line, we lost sight of what’s truely important: human life. How can we sit back and say that it is unfair to have to pay for this bill when there is a mother sitting next to her daughter’s hospital bed wondering how she’s going to pay for her child’s treatments? THAT’S unfair. If this bill means that I have to pay extra in order to support my brothers and sisters, I’ll do it. I can sleep better at night knowing that my money went towards helping those in need rather than collecting in a bank, not being of service to anyone. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:25-27). The answer: Nothing. At the end of life, we are not able to take any of our earthly belongings with us. We will be judged based on our deeds, not…
….dollars
Please use some common sense… you don’t have to by car insurance because you don’t have to buy a car. Only people that choose to drive on state and federal roads have to buy insurance… that is quite a big difference that forcing everyone to have it. For the first time in U.S. history the American people are being forced to buy something or get penalized. Find that power in our constitution.
I think it’s a little extreme to say that the government can’t run anything correctly. There are a lot programs that we take for granted everyday. The link below showcases a few of those programs for the naysayers.
http://i.imgur.com/590Ev.png
One note on this bill: As stated in the Preamble, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I would like to point out that it says, we the people… must secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The Posterity is us. Future generations. This bill costs almost 1 trillion dollars. Is this protecting future generations? Our generation is being attacked with this huge debt burden to pay back. BTW, Promoting general welfare is not providing health insurance to people that qualify for it if they make less than a certain amount of money. This bill isn’t right. It goes against what our Constitution so perfectly says.
I mentioned the piece about opposing taxing healthcare plans because that’s what finances this bill, beginning in 2018. There will be a tax on so-called “cadillac” healthcare plans, and I think that’s wrong.
Taxing healthcare plans is like taxing food, clothing, water, shelter, because healthcare is a basic need, and taxing basic needs, I feel is unethical. I agree that universal access to healthcare is a good thing, and I want those that don’t have healthcare to have it, but I oppose this bill because it could provide for public funding for abortion and it is financed by taxes on healthcare plans and cuts to healthcare for the elderly (Medicare). These three things, I feel, are unethical. Universal healthcare is a good end, but unjust means should not be used to achieve that end, This bill uses unjust means to achieve a good end, but because those means are unjust, I oppose this bill.
I agree with Emily that this bill is not perfect. I also agree that it was the first step taken and not the last. But since when should healthcare be a privilege? Excluding people from receiving services is more problematic and reinforces the “individualism” of our country. We need to stop being greedy and selfish and think of others wellbeing and not just our own.
The question really is not whether or not the Health Care needs to be reformed, obviously something needs to be done. The problems are with the Health Care bill (HR 3590), and the Reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed on Sunday evening. The Health Care bill is flawed as written. One such problem is the blatant disregard for the 10th amendment to the Constitution regarding rights of states, the end result of one such previous case where this issue came up was The Civil War occurring. Another issue that is involved is the use of an executive order by BHO promising to make sure the bill does not intend to use Federal funds for abortions except in cases which already exist i.e where the mothers health is a cause for concern. For reference of what executive orders are or how they have been viewed in the past please view this video of BHO discussing them in ’08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc. The final issue I will bring up is that reconciliation is being misused, this is a violation of liberty. To avoid a failed vote where Democrats no longer hold a super majority in the Senate this trick is being used in the guise of a “fix it” bill usually used to fix the budget of an accepted bill, not to force a bill through! Yes something needs to be done, but at what costs to…
“Excluding people from receiving services is more problematic and reinforces the “individualism” of our country.”
I agree that the rampant individualism in our society is extremely problematic, and that universally accessible healthcare is a need and ought to be pursued, but this bill uses unjust means to achieve a good end. Because it uses unjust means to achieve that end, albeit a good end, the bill is unethical.
Mr. Carpenter et al., your use of the term “unconstitutional” without any citation to support your claim is actually quite comforting. As a supporter of this bill, or should I say law now, and its constitutionality opposition based on a knee-jerk reaction to its passing affords me great comfort. As for your question, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution allows for Congress to regulate commerce among the states. If you are thinking something along the lines of “this doesn’t apply, because you can’t buy out-of-state insurance,” think again. Gonzales v. Raich was a Supreme Court case which maintained that under the same clause Congress may ban the use of cannabis, even when permitted by for medicinal use by the states. This law is constitutional because Congress was within its enumerated powers and/or the Supreme Court interpretations of said powers. There is a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce with health insurance activities which supports this law’s constitutionality.
One may disagree to their hearts content about the value of the current law, in fact, I encourage it. However, the constitutionality cannot be intelligently debated without some semblance of thought. Fortunately, the naysayers have to contend with 70 years of legal precedence.
For everyone who keeps referencing the cost as an objection: “Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion dollars in the second ten years.” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html
One of the points of this bill is to prevent paying for emergency care for people who can’t afford it, by paying subsidizing preventative care. You can’t legally be denied emergency care- so you if don’t have health insurance, don’t get a minor problem taken care of because of it, and end up in the hospital, that cost gets passed on. The same principle applies to medicare- subsidize preventative care so people don’t have massive health problems that are far more expensive to treat when they qualify for medicare.
Sorry, forgot- John R.- since the executive order affirms what’s already in the bill- I don’t think that clip is relevant.
I agree that the health care reform is not perfect. but I also do not see how is it not an improvement. People who have suffered will be given the right to health care…isn’t that enough? I agree with everyone who would said they would be more than willing to share some their paychecks for an effort that is helping someone who needs it. Why wouldn’t you? They are your brothers and sisters of this country who are suffering. It is not by choice, use your heads and take off your blindfolds. If that is what you truly think, I would suggest you to look a little deeper and realize where those thoughts and ideas come from.
What is the logic that we need to spend money to save money? This isn’t an investment. It’s a redistribution of wealth. It’s socialism. I am for the reform of the healthcare insurance industry, but it should not take a redistribution of wealth to do it. What it should take, in my eyes, is putting an emphasis on keeping insurance companies in check. It will be a glorious election day for the GOP this November.
I totally agree with Matthew Eldred. Years ago, when Medicare was being introduced, what were the GOP saying? “No! Its a totalitarian take over!” and now? Its broken, Zach? Ask any senior citizen. Hannity often rants about how “Medicare is bankrupt, how can we trust the government with our health care?” Reality check: In the last ten years, health insurance companies more than doubled their premiums. So the insurance companies massively increased their revenue stream. Have Medicare taxes doubled? No. Have appropriations for Medicare doubled? No.
Michael Blissenbach, “That power is extended to the government with good intentions, but I’m worried that in the future that medical decisions could be made by government bureaucracies rather than a patient and his/her doctor.” The only thing you EVER talk about is your hope to ensure that the most important, personal decisions women and their doctors need to make (reproductive choices) are taken over by government bureaucracies!!! And c’mon, Hyde hasn’t been touched for decades, and nor will it be with this HC bill, so don’t you worry.
Rob, I have to LOL when I see the whole “unconstitutional” thing
Matthew Plese :’( :’( :’(
The logic is that we pay for it either way (via medicare and emergency treatment that isn’t paid back by patients who can’t afford it) so pay for preventative care to reduce costs overall (i.e. insure that health concerns are treated quickly, because the longer they go on, the more costly the are to treat). And there are a number of measures in the bill meant to keep insurance companies in check.
If you all have a minute, take a look at this interesting article from The Atlantic magazine. It address the possibility that lack of health insurance is not a cause of death in this country. Quote: “But we should have had a better handle on the case for expanded coverage—and, more important, the evidence behind it—before we embarked on a year-long debate that divided our house against itself. Certainly, we should have had it before Congress voted on the largest entitlement expansion in 40 years. Unfortunately, most of us forgot to ask a fundamental question, because we were certain we already knew the answer. By the time we got around to challenging our assumptions, it was too late to do anything except scream at each other from the sidelines.” Take a look…
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/myth-diagnosis/7905
One more thing…I haven’t read the entire huge string of comments above so I don’t know if this has been addressed already. Many are not aware that this bill provides only 6 years of benefits for 10 years of medicare spending cuts and increased taxes. What will happen in 2020 after that 10 years and $1 trillion is gone? That is a mystery…democrats would have you believe that in future periods, the bill will be able to run “balanced” year to year. This seems pretty unrealistic, however, given that for the first 6 years benefits are extended, they are only funded to 60%.
Ms. Tibebu, for you abortion and contraception, which you call “reproductive health”, are part of healthcare. However, if one defines the purpose of healthcare as improving and saving lives, then I would argue that neither abortion nor contraception would accomplish those goals. Abortion destroys at least one life every time it is performed, and contraception has helped cheapen sex into something as casual as handshaking rather than its intended purpose of an expression of self-sacrificial love between a man and woman given to each other completely in marriage. Both have weakened human dignity and have made lives worse for many people, and do not belong in the domain of healthcare.
I do believe that anyone – even the poorest of people – can become the most successful if they work hard enough and study hard enough. This bill will support people that have “used” the welfare and public services systems for decades. Many of these people simply do not want to work hard as they prefer to get a free ride. And thanks to this new law, those of us who work hard (like those of us here at UST) are still giving them a free ride. This law is an affront to capitalism!
After reading all of the comments I am starting to wonder why we even have a private sector. Wouldn’t it just be easier to have the government run every sector of our economy and we could all just go to work from 8am to 5pm? That way we could all be treated the same, limit our risk, and reward everyone equally regardless of their individual efforts. I have 62 employees currently and I work many long weeks in attempt to keep every last one of those jobs in our company. What people forget is that entrepreneurs take enormous risk everyday to create jobs and there are only two outcomes of that risk; 1) go bankrupt and lose everything (or) 2) your risk pans out and you make a larger profit than the average person for your efforts. If you continue to mock, tax, and redistribute the profits of those who take the risk they will eventually give up and quit; aka no new jobs or innovation that built this country. At that point I guess the governments will just employee us and we can follow a completely different model than what our fore fathers have provided us.
Michael- Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree because I think that is the farthest from the truth. Would be interesting to hear from HIV/AIDS survivors and those who couldn’t gain a safe & legal abortion (if they survived the illegal ones) about your statement, “However, if one defines the purpose of healthcare as improving and saving lives, then I would argue that neither abortion nor contraception would accomplish those goals.” Too bad that you think its just a handshake now, because some people still value sharing a self-sacrificial, loving experience yet in a safe way. Made lives worse?! And I would argue it has made lives much better!
Matthew- Haha I think that is an all-time low for TM comments! Good job.
catholiccharitiesusa.org
mnwithoutpoverty.org
uspoverty.change.org
Now that the deed is done, we know which of the politicians’ brilliant ideas will become law. Here is one of the most harmful: Mandates will raise costs. The bill forces all insurance plans to cover “at least… maternity and newborn care… Mental health and substance disorder services… behavioral health treatment… preventative and wellness services and chronic disease management… pediatric services, including oral and vision care.” In the real world, some people want these and some don’t. By requiring insurance companies to pay for all, we guarantee vast increases in wasteful spending. Also, the future offers endless new mandates — the bill gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to create them. [Page 105.]
With problems like those, the disgusting earmarks in the bill – like the $100 million “Cornhusker Kickback” and the $300 million “Louisiana Purchase” seem barely worth a footnote.
The New York Times editorial board says that the bill “has some imperfections but is worthy of support.”
Give me a break.
Neugebauer: It’s unfortunate that a big employee incentive of yours is no longer a perk for your employees. However, many would say it’s a good thing that healthcare is now a right, and not a privilege. I see your situation as similar to bar owners, that used to rely on smokers being able to smoke in their bars for significant business. After the no smoking ban, the whiner bar owners that wouldn’t change were run out of business, whereas, those that were able to evolve given their new set of circumstances survived. Will you be a whiner, or a survivor?
Plese: “Many of these people simply do not want to work hard as they prefer to get a free ride.” Please provide evidence to substantiate your conclusion. I have worked for a number of non-profits that serve the poor, and the type of people you describe were not “many,” but very few. That’s just my experience. I dont claim to know these people’s work ethics. You seem to, so, if you have evidence to back your assumption, please provide.
What happened to personal responsibility? Men and women died fighting for our freedoms and rights guaranteeing us the pursuit of happiness – I don’t believe they gave everything so I can be guaranteed happiness regardless of my actions. The entitlements have to end or debt and mediocrity will destroy or country. Behaviors have consequences. I hope America does the right thing and votes for a smaller Government in November.
Blissenbach: you’re a one issue guy, huh? That’s fine. Whatever floats your boat. But how can you still be worried about this bill funding abortions? The language in the bill says that EVERY person having their healthcare subsidized by gov’t funds must pay for all of the abortion out of their own pocket. Plus, obama signed the exec. order. Exec. orders are not repealed by the presidents that order them. The only possibility of repeal would be by one of Obama’s successors. Repeal of exec. orders are still very rare, so you’re trying to hang your hat on something that probably wont happen. But even if it was repealed, the plain language of the bill bars federal funding for abortions. So you have double protection on what you worry about most, but you’re still worried? Seems irrational. I’m guessing you just cant go against the party that generally has been anti-abortion, despite the fact that most catholic groups, except for the council of bishops, acknowledge that this bill will in no way fund abortions, and have thereby lent their support to the bill. So, where does your loyalty lie? is it with the Church or with the party? They are in disagreement over the bill.
Mr. Carpenter,
The enumerating of powers in section 8 of the constitution does not limit congress’ powers as much as one might think. This is because of the catch-all phrase at the beginning of the section. Somehow the tea-baggers forgot to read the first, and most important line in the section. It reads, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Do you see the term ‘general welfare’ in there? This basically allows congress to tax 4 anything, so long as they claim it is for the “general welfare” of the US. So, the enumeration made it look like the framers were trying to limit congress’ powers. But the clause above negates the effect of enumeration. Admittedly, this broad interpretation of “welfare” is subjective interpretation. However, “welfare” is objectively defined in the const. dictionary as ‘health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.” See that? The first word defines “welfare” as “health,” so it appears congress can enact law that provides health to the people. And I’ll go out on a limb and assume that we passed healthcare to…
provide just that.
To add to this debate about people benefiting from the bill not being hard-workers, etc…
The bill provides some level of assistance to all families earning less than $88,000 per year. This is not just homeless or poverty stricken folks. How can you make $88,000 and not be able to support your family with necessities including health insurance?
Mr. Ziezulewicz, The United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is the only voice that matters to me, because, unless the Holy Father or Roman Curia personally weigh in, the bishops and the bishops alone are the voice of the Catholic Church in the United States, by virtue of the teaching and governing authority proper to the sacred office of the episcopacy. So, if the USCCB says that the bill funds abortion, after careful analysis, then I trust their judgment.
This bill forces American taxpayers to act as a charity. Charities exist for the reason to provide for those in “need” and citizens who feel compelled to give to them have the option. I as a taxpayer should not be forced to give my money to assist those who do not heath care. “He who does not work should not eat.”
Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamp Programs, etc, etc are socialist policies that destroy truly American principles. They should be removed.
I’m not against people giving to charities to help the poor and those without insurance but neither the government nor anyone else should force me to give a dime.
And how exactly would you suggest they get tuition to go to college, Mr. Plese? How can they fill out a FAFSA if their school was so poor it couldn’t afford computers of technology educations? And if they are plagued by a mental or physical illness, how could they possibly be successful in college? If they choose not to pursue further education, how can they cover their living expenses with a full time job that pays minimum wage? And what about the constant ridicule they must endure from individuals who discriminate and ridicule tirelessly, with minimal experience or facts to back up their bigoted statements?
St. Thomas has certainly done you a disservice then, Mr. Plese, if you cannot find it in either your moral compass or your brain to actually consider the things you are asserting. You’re statement is simply incorrect. Numbers and common sense can show you that. For resources to educate yourself on the REALITIES of poverty, see below.
Unfortunately, it is these same selfish and ignorant views, based in arrogance and greed that will prevent our world from truly eliminating poverty and insuring the health and wellness of all Americans.”
“And how exactly would you suggest they get tuition to go to college, Mr. Plese? How can they fill out a FAFSA if their school was so poor it couldn’t afford computers of technology educations?” Answer: simple. We have public libraries that have computer access. They can go there
How do we eliminate poverty? We eliminate it when everyone works to his full potential in a free market. Making me give them a hand-out is a disservice to them since it gives them no incentive to work harder. And it is a disservice to me since it does not motivate me to continue working harder and taking risks in the free market. This new law is socialism incarnate.