Good. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for those who didn't prioritize saving? Private charity is fine, but there is no reason for the government to supplement this.
Because society learned quite a while ago that allowing people to die starving on the street and similar fates has some significant downsides for society as a whole. Saying that they just should have saved better or suggesting private charity should handle it might be emotionally satisfying for some people, but it doesn't address the actual problem and the downsides that go along with it.
Person A: I save and live below my means, purchase elderly care insurance at a premium, and am set for later years.
Person B: I live a lavish lifestyle, spend my money on experiences or depreciating assets, and have nothing left saved for a likely future event, such as elderly care. But it's okay because the state will steal from Person A to pay for me.
I argue that Person B having to rely on charity, family, or ultimately starving is a better outcome than the present model.
This is a clear false dichotomy. You’re saying this as if everyone is able to find work that can actually pay the bills and provide a savings.
I’ll suggest a third “way”: 25 yo with medical problems working a full-time job, living with their 30 yo partner who is working a full-time job. 25 yo has medical issues with weak insurance coverage and their partner helps with expenses; they struggle to make rent every month (two thirds of the rent for their apartment because they live with a third person).
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which side of the proposed false dichotomy these people land on.
These people land on neither side of what I proposed, except that their taxes are subsidizing Person B, causing them to have less money leftover for things like rent.
A 25 year old with medical problems that is able to work full time is good news; the fiscal penalty of the reality is likely just their yearly deductible and time lost to medical appointments. Thankfully they can work!
Losing 2/3 of their income to 1/3 of a rent share makes it seem like they should move, however. Our that they should try to find a better paying job.
Is ypur point that this person is in such a destitute situation that they cannot possibly save for retirement given 40+ years of career ahead of them? Does this person have no family upon which they can lean? Do they not belong to any community that can help? Do we expect someone with their medical condition to even make it to their golden years?
This situation seems unlikely for the majority of folk. And I always recommend LTD insurance to everyone, regardless of whether it would apply here.
We tried it for the first couple thousand years. Turns out it really sucked, which is why 100% of civilizations (in which you’d have any desire to live) figured out alternatives.
We tried what exactly? I think the mideval church, for all its well known bads, did a great job at encouraging charity for the less fortuned. Americans tend to be some of the most charitably giving on the planet as well.
The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need instead of governmental violence is always: but someone might starve. Why is it preferable to steal under threat of imprisonment/death rather than let society funnel alms to where it is most needed, where most is dictated by those that actually give?
I thought the medieval church was adept at funnelling money towards the church - that's why so many Roman Catholic churches are dripping in gold and jewels. There was also the racket of them selling "indulgences" - salvation for a price.
> Luther did an excellent job of correcting that at the expense of a schism.
Well, that was pretty much at the end of the medieval period, so for the vast majority of medieval times, the church let poor people starve and die whilst hoarding money, power and land. The church only really started to embrace charity and social care from around the 12th century or so. If we say that the medieval period was approximately 500AD to 1500AD, then it's a stretch to claim that the church was a bastion of social care.
> The reposte I receive when suggesting that society utilize charity as a vessel for ensuring the poor get what they need
Well you're kind of begging the question in your proposal. Sure, if we could ensure (the word you used) that needs would be met by private charity, that would be great. But the government IMO is a useful backstop to prevent the absolute worst case outcomes, and there's no reason private charity can't stack on top of that: which indeed it does.
If requesting private charity is sufficient to solve the problem (let's say... homelessness?), then why isn't it solved already? Is your contention that if people didn't have to pay taxes, they'd charitably give enough to solve the problems that today's combination of government and private charity cannot? It seems like if we're going to charity our way out of these problems (not that I believe that's necessarily the right directional solution), we need at least both of the forms we currently have.
I personally have not met anyone ever who believes private charity is undesirable, so not sure what change you're proposing.
> The problem is that the rich have been getting govt charity for decades
I agree. This is also a massive problem! The government should not be in business or the business of subsidizing private companies, such as Tesla, simply because they want specific private market products. It definitionaly creates biased markets amd breeds politicla corruption.
The government has no responsibility to look after their citizens beyond offering public goods/services, which Healthcare is decidedly not.
The article itself is a bit rubbishlike. To date Congress has repeatedly stated they are not going to cut ss, Medicaid, Medicare. This article posits that Medicaid must be cut with no citation or logical argument:
> While the depth and scope of potential Medicaid cuts are unknown, House Republicans can’t meet their target of $880 billion in savings to pass President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda without making significant cuts to programs like Medicaid. All states rely on federal matching funds to finance their Medicaid programs.
That’s your definition of “the government” and it’s wrong at the very least in the sense that things aren’t that simple, except maybe if the government you’re talking about a military junta. But in a mature, stable, functioning society the government is part of society and serves a myriad of purposes, in a myriad of ways. And that’s actually OK.
It’s the basic math of the funding bill. The amount required to continue operating does not equal the amount allocated for social security, Medicare or Medicaid. So no matter what anyone says about “not cutting” there will be cuts. Lawmakers have been asked about this repeatedly with no answers.
I thought that bill was tabled for a continuing resolution that maintained spending through Sept?
It seems like the moonshot is for doge to cut enough non ss/medicare/medicaid over the next several months so that end of summer can pass a bill that keeps welfare unchanged with much of the rest of the gov gutted. But maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I suspect the plan won't work out as the Republicans hope and midterms will put them into a lame duck situation.
>The government has no responsibility to look after their citizens beyond offering public goods/services, which Healthcare is decidedly not.
The responsibilities of the American government are (presumably) determined by the voting public, Congress and the Constitution. Congress decided in 1965 that the responsibilities of the government would include providing healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare, and the majority of the American people support it.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers granted to Congress. Exactly zero of the powers authorize social security or Healthcare spending. These programs are entirely unconstitutional!
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare. Healthcare is often cited as being part of the general welfare.
The same article also creates the foundation for Congress to create spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid as being "proper and necessary" to carry out its enumerated powers, which include providing for the general welfare.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of this interpretation as far back as 1937 with regards to the Social Security Act, and has not declared these programs unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court alone determines what is and isn't constitutional.
> 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;
What is the point of drafting enumerated powers that have a catch-all phrase as the first enumeration? Literally anything can be argued to be for the "General Welfare" of the United States, because why would Congress pass something that wasn't? Why later state the gov can establish a Navy when you've already stated that Congress can provide defense? Why would you need that explicit authorization? The preamble sets the precedence for the actual powers. One cannot enumerate a catch-all, as it no longer requires enumeration.
But I do agree: the Supreme Court, being the only such construct with the capacity, declared it Constitutional, just like they blew the Wickard v. Filburn decision. But I still consider them unconstitutional because these landmark decisions were only judged to be Constitutional by traitorous corwards that abandoned the Constitution in and of itself!
> I still consider them unconstitutional because these landmark decisions were only judged to be Constitutional by traitorous corwards that abandoned the Constitution in and of itself!
This is dangerous thinking: 'my proclamations are truth, everyone who disagrees is a traitor'. With that mindset, how do you expect to change your mind when you're wrong?
The $880 billion is the amount that the House Republican budget plan adopted on February 25 directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find ways to cut. That committee has jurisdiction over Medicare, Medicaid, and a few smaller programs.
Republicans have ruled out Medicare cuts. With Medicare off the table Medicare accounts for 93% of the funding that the House Energy and Commerce Committee can cut to reach their $880 billion target. That other 7% is way way below $880 billion meaning that to actually cut $880 billion from programs that committee has jurisdiction over must involve cuts to Medicaid.
As far as SS goes, the current Republican party platform does say it is safe: "FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE" (yelling from the original). (BTW, note that they mention Medicare but not Medicaid).
However there is a good reason to not feel reassured by that. The Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House whose membership is around 60+% of House Republicans had repeatedly said that there are three ways to address ~2034 expected insolvency of the SS Trust Fund which are (1) increase revenue to the fund, (2) cover shortfalls from the general budget, and (3) reduce benefits. They also repeatedly say that #1 and #2 are off the table.
If #1 and #2 are off the table, and Congress does not reduce benefits, then there will be a benefit cut when the trust fund runs out. I suppose technically they could argue that letting that happen through inaction rather than passing legislation to cut benefits would mean that they didn't violate their promise not to cut benefits.
Even if you think the system wasn’t set up perfectly, destroying it in a way that affects vulnerable people can’t be called “good”. That’s sociopathic.
By your logic, the government can never take away a welfare program without that action being not good, since necessarily some vulnerable people will be impacted.
But let us not forget the poor Floridans! Lots of elderly move to Florida to retire, which means that the tax dollars from the state are being spent disproportionately on folks that did not pay into that system during their working years. How is that fair?
Government subsidy of Healthcare necessarily raises prices by removing competition from the market. So not only are Floridans paying for people that didn't pay in, but they're paying more to do it!
