Michael Sertic, a college senior studying economics, is young and healthy, and he doesn’t want the government forcing him to buy health insurance.
He is among a group of people on both the right and the left ends of the political spectrum who object to proposals in Congress that would compel nearly every American to buy health insurance or face a fine.
“I happen to believe it’s unconstitutional. Government shouldn’t be forcing someone to pay for someone else’s health care,” said Sertic, 24, a member of Students for Liberty, a club at California State University, Sacramento, that espouses libertarian values.
[blockquote] I happen to believe it’s unconstitutional. Government shouldn’t be forcing someone to pay for someone else’s health care. [/blockquote] In that case, we’ll just have to toss out medicare and medicaid.
Ah, for the days when we didn’t run things on the basis of the irresponsibility of 20 year old unmarried college students.
I wholeheartedly agree with Sertic.
Good to know that the Millennials are coming along nicely.
#3 – Sarah, do you believe the Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional and should not be allowed?
Absolutely, Charles.
And besides being unConstitutional, what a sign it is of the state of society that the mature and adult have decided to live off of the backs of the young and just-starting-out-in-life. And positively revel in and demand it, too.
[blockquote] what a sign it is of the state of society that the mature and adult have decided to live off of the backs of the young and just-starting-out-in-life. And positively revel in and demand it, too. [/blockquote] And what a sign it is of the state of our church that an otherwise “traditonal” Christian should deny the fifth commandment’s call to care for one’s elders, and by extension to care for those elders who have no up-and-coming young to care for them.
Charity belongs in the church rather than the state. However, no Christian denomination in the United States has taken that Biblical call seriously, and no Christian has a moral leg to stand on when they complain about the charitable expenditures of the State. (This is with the possible exception of the Latter Day Saints, who can hardly be called Christian.)
I do revel in and demand that the word of God be followed, and am looking forward to some day being a burden to my children, just as they were a burden to me when they were young.
What sign is it of the state of society when our American culture has erased the obligation of caring for the elderly and replaced it with a lifelong obligation to become wealthy enough to be independent in our old age? This is the fundamental mistake of American/capitalist “enlightened self interest.” It has no foundation whatever in the Bible.
Those with a Biblical worldview will see that caring for one another (especially Christians), and caring for the poor (especially aliens), are fundamental requirements laid down by God in opposition to a concentration on the acquisition of wealth.
Sertic and Sarah do make a point. Assuming they have or will have jobs and pay income tax, they already are helping to pay for others’ health care (which accounts for a huge chunk of the federal and state budgets and deficits). Almost all of us are helping, or have helped, to fund the systemic inefficiency, fiscal irresponsibility, greed, fraud, inequities, and other government failings in health care management that have brought us to this point. Without real reform (including in Congress), mandating private insurance coverage for everybody is just more of the same old same old that will land us in a deeper hole. No wonder our kids are complaining.
w.w.
RE: “And what a sign it is of the state of our church that an otherwise “traditonal†Christian should deny the fifth commandment’s call to care for one’s elders, and by extension to care for those elders who have no up-and-coming young to care for them.”
What an odd claim. Where have I said that individual Christians should not care for one’s elders, Br_er Rabbit?
Or . . . do you mean by that actually . . . “I want to take other people’s money out of their pockets and force them to give it to others who are the objects of *my charity* and therefore I will get the awesome power of the State to take that money out of those people’s pockets and give them to the people whom I wish to care for.”
If so, then I have my own opinions about that sort of “charity” of yours, Rabbit. Sad that a Christian would deem that sort of behavior as fulfillment of God’s law.
The Church, as it is now stuctured in our society, does not and will not make a meaningful contribution to the needs of the poor and the elderly. That might be the “way” God set it up … but it is not the way, in this culture, we have responded. So???? …. how as a Christian can I call for no government assistance when I am not a part of a structure that responds to the edict of scripture? Do we let people die?
Hi Julia,
The dirty little secret in those two programs is that they *prevent* the poor and elderly being properly cared for.
The prevent it in the appalling handling and investment of the money which the State has taken from those people’s paychecks.
They prevent it with their dreadful programs, which could be significantly better if run by the private sector.
And they prevent it through draconian laws that greatly hinder and sometimes *PREVENT* care by physicians and other healthcare providers for the truly poor.
The two programs are a massive fraud on the poor and elderly from beginning — their youth and working ages — to end.
Not to mention that as a Christian I can’t countenance the elected officials of our country who vow to uphold the Constitution grossly and repeatedly violating those same vows. If we’ve decided that the rights to private property that were enshrined in the Constitution should be revoked and that using the power of the State to take money from the citizens in order to fulfill the goals of an elitist minority in the country is a good idea, then we should go through the proper means of amending our country’s founding documents.
Regardless, and either way, the argument of course among Christians is not “should we Christians care for the poor” — the argument is “by what means is it moral, useful/helpful, and Constitutional to care for the poor?”
[blockquote] Regardless, and either way, the argument of course among Christians is not “should we Christians care for the poorâ€â€”the argument is “by what means is it moral, useful/helpful, and Constitutional to care for the poor?†[/blockquote] This is a formula that serves as a cover for a callous disregard for the poor. The proper response for “should we Christians care for the poor” is the more responsible question, “Do we Christians care for the poor?”
The answer is: No, we don’t.
And until we do, we have no moral standing to complain that the government is doing it for us. Nor should we place our reverence for the Constitution above our obedience to the call of Scripture.
Government care for the poor is inept, inefficient and wasteful. It is a terrible way to do it. But until we start doing it ourselves, we are wasting our breath complaining about the government doing it for us.
RE: “This is a formula that serves as a cover for a callous disregard for the poor.”
Wow — so we shouldn’t ask ourselves if something is moral or helpful before we set out to do something helpful? [Setting aside the Constitution thingy as it’s patently obvious that that trifling little founding document has been set aside as irrelevant despite the oaths of office and country’s agreement to abide by it.]
More oddity from a fellow Christian.
RE: “The answer is: No, we don’t.”
Speak for yourself, Br_er Rabbit. I grew up in a family that easily gave much more than a tithe, and gave vast sums to help others, including constant free services, bags of groceries, medical care, sums of money, practical assistance in the form of donated items and labor, and on and on and on and on and on. The image of my mother personally delivering groceries to a seedy hotel room is forever branded on my memory — and this was long long before local charities like Meals on Wheels and such. I’m not going to go into things I’ve done as it’s ridiculously self-serving, but if I could ever rise to the levels of my family’s service to those who are in trouble I would be privileged.
I’m sorry that you don’t help the poor. Might I recommend that before you announce that the State should take money out of your fellow citizens’ pockets to use for their grandiose, bureaucratized boondoggles of outrageous unhelpfulness and poverty-maintenance, and to use for your particular individual desires and goals, that you try doing something individually and through your church?
[blockquote] No, we don’t. [/blockquote] I’m sorry if I was unclear. I was referring to the institutions of the church in America today, and not impugning yours or anyone else’s personal level of charity. There are a few churches that are stellar examples of care for the poor, but few of them are Episcopal.
Not long ago I helped out in the territory that had been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The government was woefully inadequate in what it had to offer for those who had been wiped out, especially on an immediate needs basis. The churches stepped in and did a much better job than the government ever could have done–and this did include Episcopal churches.
If Medicare, Medicaid, and government welfare were cut off tomorrow–and I mean zero dollars–what would happen? Perhaps the church would wake up to its responsibility. Or perhaps they would continue to worry about the color of the carpet and the pipe organ that needs to be rebuilt.
Well the facts are that Medicare/Medicaid are unconstitutional and should have never have been done. The churches and Christians as well as the goodness of the people took care of the needy in the past. Granted, it was better if the poor were connected to a church group, but the reason for that is another discussion. Remember all the Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, et. hospitals? They mostly reverted to corporate structures and closed their free clinics. I worked in one at a Baptist Hospital and it was wonderful. Now they are closed. The Plymouth Brethren had six hospitals in the Chicago area and they had to sell them off because of not being able to survive with Medicare.
What is amazing is the Christians who think violating the constitution and our heritage and using the force of the state (fascism) to do “charity” for the poor is OK with the Lord God. Senator Mark Hatfield, who went strongly under the banner of Christianity, voted against the balanced budget ammendment under Regan. He used the same argument that since the churches, and volunteer groups were not doing the social work (not true) then the state should step in. The law failed by one vote. The rest is history. I think this thought comes from the old idea of state/ church power. Our nation is great and not slipping into third world satus (yet) because we are the product of the northern European Prostestant/Puritan doctine of keeping the power divided up and restricted to a constitution. The idea of private ownership of property and all the other Bill of Rights flowed from this and was quite succesful. Now the Marxist/non-protestant pragmatist want to leave all that and make us like the failing countries in Europe.
So if Christians won’t help the poor, then why is that? Maybe the churches need to be teaching on this. Maybe Christians know they can’t compete with the state and just give up. Maybe they need to also be dealing with the root causes of poverty, rather than stealing assets by the force of the state (or the Church for that matter), from productive people and giving it to government drones and much of the indolent non-producers. Yes, the Lord said we would always have the poor. No system will work 100% of the time. Foolishly going to the all powerful state or church for our problem is not good for all. Is life so dear or peace so sweet that it must be bought at the price of chains and slavery? Lord prohibit it. Liberty or death. We need to get rid of the leaders who will sell us out and that goes for so called church leaders who show their ineptitude in dealing with the problem of helping the poor. Sheeeeesh!
It does seem that Medicare/Medicaid is unconstitution on the grounds on a states rights issue.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
But this amendment has been trashed to the point of irrelevancy.
Regardless, what is reprehensible is for one generation not to pay enough into the system and assume the next generation will take up the slack.
Congress can tax and spend to provide for the general welfare. I know that’s not what a lot of people want to hear, but that is what the courts have decided. Providing Medicare and Medicaid is no more unconstitutional than, purchasing the Middle third of our country and Alaska, annexing California and New Mexico after the Mexican-American War, or sending in FEMA to help out in time of disaster. Under such a restrictive reading, the US as we know it would never have existed in the first place. We would be left with Thirteen states grouped along the east coast, and the rest of the modern US would belong to some other country, or be its own country.
If you believe these programs are unconstitutional, the answer should be simple; get the Supreme Court to agree with you. Oh, but wait, under a restrictive reading of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no power to interpret the Constitution and protect your constitutional rights. So long as the President and the Congress agree, they can do anything they want. Together, they get to decide what is Constitutional, and there is no one to appeal to except the voters on election day and rebellion by the States; which the Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to suppress.
So I guess in reality you are where you believe you should be. The Congress takes action, the President determines its Constitutional and your options are to vote against them in the future. How is this different from your interpretation of the Constitution?
RE: “So long as the President and the Congress agree, they can do anything they want. Together, they get to decide what is Constitutional, and there is no one to appeal to except the voters on election day and rebellion by the States; which the Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to suppress.”
Yup. Just like Schori and Beers get to decide on what the Bible and the Canons say, Mitchell — “words written in water.” But don’t I recall that you approve of that heartily too? Heh.
But hey — thanks for agreeing with my premise, which is that our Dear Leaders have violated the Constitution using a callow, crude deconstructionism that in no way mitigates or absolves their deceit, fraud, fascism, and violation of their oaths of office.
And yes — it’s either votes or rebellion.
Good to see that we agree. The former is certainly what I and others will work on.
But what a relief that the discussion is no longer about how “Christians need to go ahead and just violate the Constitution and enact the power of the State to take money from others’ pockets in order to offer ‘charity'”, eh? ; > )
Now we’re on to the good stuff. Voting to throw out on their ear the horrible, lying, oath-breaking, stealing legislators in the House and Senate. As a Christian I am greatly looking forward to it.
[blockquote]The rational creature parktakes of a share of providence by being provident both for itself and for others. — Thomas Aquinas[/blockquote]
When I am twenty I am in good health. When I am fifty-five I am still in reasonably good health but must work through a large menu of preventative care and procedures, most of which I can’t pay for directly. When I am seventy-five, I will, in all likelihood, require surgeries and maintenance care which I can’t even conceive of paying for directly. It so happens Mr. Sertic is twenty and at the front end of that curve, but it applies to him as much as it does to any of us. It is his responsibility to participate in the pooled medical exprenses that he will in fact incur later in life.
It is at least a relief that the true dimensions of the “forty-five million (or whatever) uninsured” is being brought to light by the debate we’re having right now. We can debate the exact shape of the mandates and whether the current “reform” completely abdicates any attempt to control costs. But the notion that I can somehow claim the privlege to not age as my constitutional right is patently absurd.
Well said, Champlin. As a society that cares for one another we are obliged to care for the aged and infirm, and the lot for the expense of that falls on the young and the able. Since we have left that task up to the State (the Church having retired from the field) it is necessary and correct for the state to take, by force of law, the money out of the pockets of the young and able, who, motivated by short-sighted self-interest, will not otherwise give it up.
For those of you who claim that the government does not have that right, or that it is in some way against the constitution, I invite you to prove it. It is simple to do. It only takes $30 thousand to bring a matter before the Supreme Court (I have done that myself) and they are the arbiters of whether your case has any merit or not.
As Champlin observes, the notion that the young and able are not obliged to assist the aged and infirm is patently absurd, not to mention quite un-Christian and anti-Biblical.
On second thought, that was a while ago that I and a tiny group of activists brought our case before the Supreme Court. I propose that about $40 to $50 thousand should do it today. And if you libertarians are as committed as you sound on the blogs, it should be a snap to raise that pittance.
[blockquote] RE: “So long as the President and the Congress agree, they can do anything they want. Together, they get to decide what is Constitutional, and there is no one to appeal to except the voters on election day and rebellion by the States; which the Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to suppress. . . . †And yes—it’s either votes or rebellion.[/blockquote]
No we do not agree. My point was that under your hyper-restrictive reading of the Constitution, only the President and Congress would get to decided what is Constitutional. Thank god, that is not our system. We have courts of law to protect our Constitutional rights, thanks to the first activist judge, John Marshall.
[blockquote]Yup. Just like Schori and Beers get to decide on what the Bible and the Canons say, Mitchell—“words written in water.†But don’t I recall that you approve of that heartily too? Heh. [/blockquote]
You do not remember correctly. I have never taken such a position. In fact I have never even discussed the Cannons. I have no training in Cannon Law and consequently my opinion would add no material value to that debate. Also, for that matter I do not believe I have ever discussed Schori or Beers or their beliefs. I really have not had time enough to study their writings to know what those beliefs are other than what people who call themselves Orthodox say they are.
I have discussed health care in the past, and I believe the statement
“The dirty little secret in those two programs is that they *prevent* the poor and elderly being properly cared for.” is untrue. By any reasonable measure, and even given its current financial problems, the Medicare program has to date been a huge success. Medicaid is more complicated, but I believe we are better with it than without it. Not as clearly a success as Medicare, but still the only source of long term care coverage for the vast majority of Senior Citizens, most of whom worked their entire lives, but could never have saved enough to pay for it themselves at $6000 to $10000 per month.
I have also spoken about the Constitution in the past. I do not believe the Constitution is written in water. But I also do not believe it is as narrow as you believe. In fact I believe had the nation followed your hyper-restrictive reading of the Constitution there would be no United States today, or we would be a dictatorship or some form of oligarchy. Yes it is true that during our history our courts have issued controversial interpretations of the original document, but by and large those decisions have served the cause of democracy and freedom; and it is the combination of that original document, amendments, and the court opinions of the greatest minds in American Jurisprudence that has brought into existence the only nation in the history of the world to ever elevate the rights of individuals over the needs of the State and the wants of the majority.
[blockquote]But hey—thanks for agreeing with my premise, which is that our Dear Leaders have violated the Constitution using a callow, crude deconstructionism that in no way mitigates or absolves their deceit, fraud, fascism, and violation of their oaths of office. [/blockquote]
I do not agree with you. Yes during our history some of our leaders have attempted to lead us down the path of tyranny; but most of the time those people have used speech filled with words designed to elicit anger, hate or fear rather than reason. Because in the presence of these emotions, people are willing to voluntarily give up rights they will never get back.
[blockquote] Good to see that we agree. The former is certainly what I and others will work on. . . .
Now we’re on to the good stuff. Voting to throw out on their ear the horrible, lying, oath-breaking, stealing legislators in the House and Senate. [/blockquote]
I am truly happy that you feel so strongly about voting, and participating in the political process. Fortunately you have that right and courts to defend it. Two things the framers of the Constitution did not think you should have. I can’t imagine why we ever question the wisdom of the founding fathers. With every amendment we have taken the country further and further from their vision.
Good points Mitchell.
It’s been a while since someone has reminded me that by going back to the Founding Fathers we would get rid of all the women voters and all those prospective voters who did not own 20 acres of land or the equivalent–not to mention three-fifths of “all other persons” who were definitely excluded from the vote.