Category: Entitlement

Populist propaganda

This could have been an interesting story from NPR regarding rising water prices and the shift of infrastructure costs from the federal government back to the local municipalities (where it belongs). Unfortunately, it’s not.

America is not about “free”; it’s about “freedom” –  the freedom to make your own way in the world, without the baggage of an overbearing government or societal freeloaders. It’s where when you work your earnings are yours – not your neighbors. And yet NPR suggests that this is not the case with a “…woe is me…” story regarding delinquent water bills. In it they imply that we are all our brother’s keeper, and are therefor responsible for a collective unpaid water bill requiring the use of our hard-earned tax dollars. I reject this premise.

The article cites the case of one woman who “…received a $5,000 bill…” for their water service. It does not mention how it got to be so high, and it leaves the reader to assume that this was a single bill. However, later they note that bills in this area for a family of four run between $1151 and $1317 per year, or between $96 and $110 per month. How did this woman’s water bill get so high? I’ll leave that to your imagination. But I will say that your water bill should not be anyone’s responsibility but your own. Interestingly, the article notes that the woman was spending $80/month on bottled water; if she had paid that towards the water bill to begin with it seems likely the water would still be on.

The article also dwells on the fact that local water infrastructure has not been maintained, and as it needs replacement the costs are passed to customers. The result is the inevitably higher (and less affordable) water bills. It is hard to deny that local water users should be responsible for their local water infrastructure costs (who else?), but the article seems to blame the federal government instead. If anyone is responsible it is the local government, which chose to kick the can down the road rather rather than increase rates early-on to build a reserve necessary for such repairs. Now the full cost must be borne immediately by the local residents, and they’ve got no one to blame but themselves. They elected their own local representatives.

This “… it’s not my fault…” entitlement mentality has got to stop. It is not the federal government’s responsibility to bail you out when you elect poor representatives or make bad financial decisions. Learn a lesson and choose better representatives  – ones that do not hide the true cost of water (or any other publicly-run resource) or kick the can down the road. And pay your water bill before it hits $5000, please.

Universal Healthcare

I’m not completely opposed to universal healthcare, aka: Medicare for all. If people want to use the purchasing power of the United States government, representing all of the people in the U.S., to drive health care costs lower (hopefully), so be it. It is little different from a large corporation shopping for the most cost-effective insurance company with the lowest cost network of services. However, given the government’s penchant for bureaucracy and overpaid employees, I wouldn’t hold my breath on any actual cost savings…

But there is a difference between what corporations do when they sponsor employee health insurance and what Democrats like Kamela Harris are proposing. With employer-provided health insurance, employees are reaping a benefit as a result of being part of a large group that can shop for the best insurance agreement (much like the government would). However, the employees all understand that the benefit purchased by their employer is in lieu of wages; they know the cost is actually paid by them. With the “medicare for all” plan proposed by Democrats, new medicare recipients expect someone else to pay for their health insurance. The big question is, who?

There is also another problem with government-run health care that is seldom discussed: if the government is responsible for your health care, can they assert control over your life to limit costs? For instance, can they ban sodas to reduce cases of diabetes? Force exercise regimens to reduce the risk of heart disease? Limit alcohol consumption to reduce liver disease?

When we ask the government to provide for us, we are risking our freedom to choose – not just our insurance policy and its associated direct or indirect costs to us but also our freedom to live as we see fit, at our own risk and at our own cost.

Expanded criteria proposed for defining “public charges”

At present, potential immigrants to the United States are deemed a “public charge” if they depend on cash assistance programs or long-term health care funded by the federal government. The designation as a public charge is grounds for refusal of a green card or admission to the United States. From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services web site:

“For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.”

The current administration has proposed expanding this rule to include Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies. Such rules and their expansion to consider contemporary means of government-funded support are necessary to insure the viability of the country. No social system can survive by allowing itself to be overrun by those who produce less than they consume and depend on the public for support.

A recent NPR article brought to light this rule change and sought to garner public support against it by consulting with various medical industry and community groups. However, these groups are self-serving in their responses given that many provide medical care funded by government programs, or direct beneficiaries of such programs to member service providers. I would expect these groups – who have businesses dependent or built upon these welfare benefits – to be strongly against any rule changes that could affect their financial viability.

But what about the American public, who have to fund these “public charges”? I imagine that some Americans – for instance, those who themselves benefit from public assistance programs – would support the expansion and maintenance of such programs, even if to do so would add an immigrant population to the roles. Alternatively, those who pay little or no taxes, or have such high incomes that they simply are not affected by the tax impact of these programs, will have little reason to oppose such government-funded “humanitarian aid”. However, those in the middle class – who understand that there is no such thing as “government money” and who’s taxes would fund such a system – might agree with this administration’s efforts to oppose immigrants who would make a net negative contribution to our economy.

This does not mean that immigrants who might need some initial assistance should be refused if they can demonstrate that they have the ability to assimilate into the productive workforce. However, we should adamantly oppose their being granted permanent residence (green card) status until such time that they accomplish this feat, and there should be a strict timeline for compliance.

Alternatively, those who wish to support additional immigrants who do not meet these conditions should be allowed to sponsor them financially, independent of the government welfare system. In this way charitable organizations, funded by like-minded individuals, can risk their own funds rather than those of the general tax payer who might not agree with their criteria.

Government-provided healthcare vs. freedom

One of the potential concerns regarding health care as an entitlement is that it gives the government the (apparent) right to control and limit our activities. Think of it: if the taxpayer is “on the hook” for your health care, then why shouldn’t they be able to limit activities deemed as potentially expensive (from the perspective of health care costs)? For instance, if alcohol consumption creates a potential for increased health care costs, then why shouldn’t the government be able to limit this activity? How about inherently dangerous physical activities, such as skydiving, motorcycle riding?  Or even higher-risk activities, such as illicit drug use or unprotected sex with strangers?

If you think that this is hogwash, think again. This article from the Times [UK] shows the potential for government oversight of your health-effecting activities.

Paid family leave

NPR is running a story on paid family leave, telling the sad story about how a father had no paid leave with which he could assist in raising his new child. These stories generally call for a government-mandated family leave program funded by a tax on earnings. However, I would argue that this is solely the fault of the parents, and their failure to properly prepare for a child should not result in additional laws and taxes.

The reality is that if someone chooses to have a child, their decision must (at least it used to…) involve some planning on the part of the parents to insure that sufficient funds, time, and services are available for *their* child. It is not the responsibility of the public to raise the children of individuals, and the public should not bear the cost.

Given that some planning is required, why then would these parents-to-be not simply save for a few years to make sure that sufficient funds are available for the necessary time off work? How would a government program – with substantial overhead and cost, that takes money out of our paychecks –  solve this problem any better than the parents simply saving the money themselves in preparation? And why are these “family leave” demands receiving such attention and traction in the media?

The answer is simple: the people most loudly calling for such “family leave” programs hope to gain more out of the system they put into it. This is the typical effect of such socialist programs; a redistribution of wealth to those unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. If this is what they want, then the government should tax them alone for the program (people having children). Let’s see how much traction a “paid family leave” program gets when the people asking for it realize that it is they who will have to pay for it, overhead and all.

Obamacare update

From a recent news item on Obamacare’s death-spiral:

As for rising premiums, many Democrats including presidential nominee Hillary Clinton favor offering a government public option that would compete directly with for-profit insurance companies.

“If a public option could bring premiums down, primarily by paying doctors and hospitals less and having lower overhead and no profit, that would lower federal government costs,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The only way for a “public” option to bring down premiums is for the government (that’s you and me) to subsidize premiums further. As for a public option having less overhead – well, “government efficiency” is an oxymoron.

Notice, too, that the supporter of this premise is a private insurer. Go figure.