Author Archives: admin

What Are NFL Player/Protesters Really Protesting?

When Colin Kaepernick began the protests during the national anthem last year, he said,
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Let us be clear about what he is saying. He is not saying that random acts of of oppression by individuals occur – something like that would not justify a protest against the country. What he is saying is that there is an ongoing, systematic oppression of blacks and people of color.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-protest-of-national-anthem

After the game, in the dressing room, Kaepernick listed the names of black people who have died in police custody over the past few years.

“I can’t see another Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Eric Garner,” he said. “At what point do we take a stand and, as a people, say this isn’t right? You [the police] have a badge and you’re supposed to be protecting us, not murdering us.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/18/colin-kaepernick-nfl-black-lives-matter-protests-recall-rebellio/

Colin Kaepernick’s charge is that the foregoing are instances of ongoing, systematic “oppression.”

After being stopped for a very minor traffic violation, and altercation between officer Brian Encinia and Sandra Bland led to her arrest, and a three day jail sentence. Encinia was later placed on administrative leave for failing to follow proper traffic stop procedures.

Sandra Bland, a black woman, was found dead in her jail cell serving a three-day sentence for a traffic violation. Her death was ruled a suicide, an act that, under the circumstances, seemed very unlikely. On the other hand, notwithstanding a motion sensor camera in front of her cell, there was no evidence any other explanation, either. Bland’s death was investigated by Texas authorities and the FBI, which found violations of procedure, but no alternative explanation. Presumably on this basis, Bland’s family settled with the municipality for $1.9 million. In describing his explanation for his arrest of Bland, Encinia, was found to have committed perjury, and was fired.

Does this account support a charge of ongoing, systematic oppression of people of color? No, for the following reasons:

1 – Encinia failed to follow proper traffic stop procedures.
2 – Encinia, surely aware of the potential penalties for perjury, nonetheless, in describing the reason for the arrest, committed perjury.
3 – Due to his perjury regarding the traffic stop, Encinia was fired from the Texas state troopers.
4 – Because, presumably, of the jail procedure violations, the municipality settled with Bland’s family for $1.9 million.

In short, it appears that, based on a false statement by Encinia, Bland was unjustly arrested. Beyond that, the municipality was lax and some of its procedures. It paid a $1.9 million penalty for those procedures. And the arresting officer paid with his job. Such facts do not suggest a system of ongoing, systematic racial oppression.

5 – Moreover, because Kaepernick says that America oppresses “blacks and people of color” – leaving only whites as the supposed oppressors – it must be noted that Encinia identified himself on voting rolls as Hispanic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sandra_Bland#Incarceration_and_death

Tamir Rice

A 9-1-1 caller, who was sitting in a nearby gazebo, reported that someone, possibly a juvenile, was pointing “a pistol” at random people… The caller twice said that the gun was “probably fake”.[22] According to police spokesmen, it was initially unclear whether or not that information had been relayed to the dispatched officers, Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback, and it was later revealed that the dispatcher had not elaborated beyond referencing “a gun”. [It’s debatable whether the dispatcher should be faulted for this; as a rule, policemen can hardly ignore a weapon pointed toward them on the probability that it is fake in any case.

Rice was 5’7″, 195 pounds. When told to raise his hands, Rice appeared to be drawing out the pistol, which appeared to be genuine, Loehmann shot Rice twice, and he later died. The city paid the family $6 million.

On discovery that the shooting officer, Timothy Loehmann had not left his prior employment as a police officer in another municipality for “personal reasons,” but because the municipality’s Police Department I determined that Loemann
“an inability to emotionally function” as an officer.

Does this support a charge of ongoing and systematic oppression of blacks and people of color? No:

1 – Rice was described by the caller as “probably a juvenile,” which meant it was not clear he was a juvenile – which, at 5’7″, 195 pounds – would not be clear.

2 – The pistol he had appeared to be genuine.

3 – Loehmann failed to disclose that he had been terminated from his prior employment as a police officer due to emotional instability.

4 – The family received $6 million. Even though the city had no culpability, it required taxpayers were required to pay the family $6 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice

Walter Scott

Walter Scott was stopped for a traffic violation, and ran away from the police officer, .
Police officer Michael Slager stopped Walter Scott for a traffic violation. Scott ran away, and Slager pursued, firing both his Taser cartridges. Behind the pawnshop, the two became involved in a physical altercation. Slater tased Scott, and Scott started running away again. Slager shot 8 times, hitting Scott 5, including three in the back, leading to Scott’s death. There is no doubt that Slager committed murder. There is also no doubt that his position as a police officer gave him authority to do so. Slager was tried for murder in state court but, due to an 11-1 hung jury, was not convicted, and the judge declared a mistrial. A new trial was scheduled, but was dropped when, under a plea bargain, Slager pled guilty to a federal charge, with the penalty of up to life imprisonment.

Although the city had no culpability, it agreed, in an out-of-court settlement, to pay Scott’s family $6.5 million.

Does this support Kaepernick’s charge of ongoing, systematic oppression that would justify his protest?

Even though the city had no culpability, it required taxpayers were required to pay the family $6 million.

Do these facts support Kaepernick’s charge? No.

1 – Scott ran away; became involved in a physical altercation with Slager, and ran away again. And Slager murdered him. But did he murder him because he was a person of color? If that had been his purpose, once they were behind the pawnshop, he could have murdered Scott before there was any altercation, or second attempt at escape. So we have to conclude that that altercation and the second attempt was the reason.

Of course, this does raise the question, would Slater have done the same thing if it were a white man ran away, got in a physical altercation with the policeman, and then ran away again. We really do not know the answer to that question.

2 – Slager was charged for murder. When the first trial was declared a mistrial, a second trial was scheduled. And in the circumvention of double jeopardy, he was charged by the federal government on other charges, but which were still sufficient to put him away for life.
This is reminiscent of the trial of O.J. Simpson, a black man who was also clearly guilty, but which the jury did not convict. But there was no mistrial declared, and the federal government did not step in to convict Simpson of related charges. Simpson’s victims, which included his wife, were white.

3 – Although there was no culpability by the city of Charleston, it required its taxpayers to pay Scott’s family $6.1 million. (Why does this not, not as some random act, but as a matter of law, constitute oppression against taxpayers? And if these taxpayers are disproportionately white, then why would that not be racial oppression?)

Eric Garner

[Police Officer Daniel] Pantaleo approached Eric Garner from behind and attempted to handcuff him, Garner swatted his arms away, saying “Don’t touch me, please.”[25] Pantaleo then put Garner in a chokehold—which is prohibited by NYPD regulations—from behind.[26] Pantaleo then pulled Garner backward in an attempt to bring him to the ground;[27]… After 15 seconds,[28] the video showed Pantaleo had removed his arm from around Garner’s neck; Pantaleo then used his hands to push Garner’s face[27] into the sidewalk.[29] Garner is heard saying “I can’t breathe” eleven times while lying facedown on the sidewalk.[30] The arrest was supervised by a female African-American NYPD sergeant, Kizzy Adoni, who did not intercede.[31] Adoni was quoted in the original police report as stating, “The perpetrator’s condition did not seem serious and he did not appear to get worse.”

When an ambulance arrived on scene, two medics and two EMTs inside the ambulance did not administer any emergency medical aid[40] or promptly place him on a stretcher.[40] According to police, Garner had a heart attack while being transported to Richmond University Medical Center.[41] He was pronounced dead at the hospital one hour later.[42]

Garner’s death was found by the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office to be a result of “compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police”.[50][51][52] Asthma, heart disease, and obesity were cited as contributing factors.[53] There was no damage to the windpipe or neckbones.[54]

In an interview with CNN, Garner’s daughter Erica felt that it was pride and not racism that led to the officer choking her father. She continued: “It was about the officer’s pride. It was about my father being 6’4” and 350 pounds and he wants to be the top cop that brings a man down.”[97]

A grand jury was empaneled, but decided not to charge Pantaleo. He was moved to desk duty,

In October 2014, Garner’s family announced their intention to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of New York, the police department, and several police officers, seeking $75 million in damages.[129] The parties announced a $5.9-million out-of-court settlement on July 13, 2015.[130][131]

As a result of Garner’s death, Police Commissioner William Bratton ordered an extensive review of the NYPD’s training procedures, specifically focusing on the appropriate amount of force that can be used while detaining a suspect.[89] An unnamed NYPD official quoted in the New York Post said that the $35 million retraining efforts were ineffective and a “waste of time.”[90]

On December 3, 2014, after the grand jury decided not to indict Pantaleo, the United States Department of Justice announced it would conduct an independent investigation.[3][133][134] In January 2015 it was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s New York Field Office was reviewing the incident and events thereafter.[135] The investigation was overseen by local United States Attorney Loretta Lynch until she became the United States Attorney General[136] The local FBI investigators and federal prosecutors determined that charges should not be brought in the case, prompting strong disagreement from attorneys in the Washington, D.C. office of the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.[136] In October 2016, Attorney General Lynch removed the local FBI agents and federal prosecutors from the case, replacing them with agents from outside New York.[136] Lynch’s intervention has been called “highly unusual”.[136]

On December 20, two NYPD officers were killed in an ambush in Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. The suspected gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, cited Garner’s death at the hands of police (as well as that of Michael Brown) as reasons to kill police officers.[81] Brinsley then entered the New York City Subway and committed suicide.[82][83][84]

Garner’s death has been cited as one of several police killings of African Americans protested by the Black Lives Matter movement.[85][86][87][88]

Does this support Kaepernick’s charge? No. Pantaleo used excessive force, but presumably did not realize that he was doing so. Garner’s death cost the city of New York over $40 million, and almost certainly the lives of two or more police officers. Police officers are often in highly vulnerable situations, and have no incentive to antagonize the public; quite the opposite. But they have to enforce the law.

So, covering a span of about two years in a nation of over 300 million, this is the best that Kaepernick can come up with? These instances don’t prove his charge; they disprove it.

T was before he 49ers issued a statement about Kaepernick’s decision: “The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.”

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-protest-of-national-anthem

In any of the NFL protests, players refuse to stand for the flag during the national anthem, but they say they are not disrespecting the flag, they are only protesting “police brutality” and “racial injustice.” (So to speak. Actually (as there are no such public charges of ongoing, systematic police brutality when whites, Hispanics, or Asians are injured or killed by police, but only when it occurs against blacks) what the protesters are really charging is “police brutality against blacks.”
(Coupling this charge with the vague charge of “racial injustice “ – not a charge addressing injustices that, based on race, might occur against any race – whites, blacks, Asians and (usually) Hispanics – but only those against blacks, the implicit “police brutality against blacks, and blacks alone, i tacitly re-inforced.”)
By the same token, the protesters aren’t using the term “racial injustice” to charge racially-based injustices against whites or Asians, but rather to charge such injustices when committed against blacks and sometimes Hispanics. Putting the two together, the charge seems to be ) ji protesting against injustice toward whites, Asians, and Hispnacepublic demonstrations when whites are shot by they appear to be protThat is to say, presumaLeaving the merit of those two accusations aside, the protesters seem to be operating under the belief that no other Americans – those who stand for the anthem, have any deep concerns and objections themselves about things that are happening in this country.
But that belief is incorrect; they do. But, the problems and shortcomings of America notwithstanding, they stand for the anthem anyway. They stand because, the problems and shortcomings notwithstanding, the anthem and the flag stand for something more – for the ideals of a nation “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” They stand, out of devotion to those ideals. And they stand in honor of those who have sacrificed, and those who have fallen, in order to preserve and advance them. When they stand, they acknowledge that, notwithstanding the deficiencies of America, it still stands for these ideals, and that we still sacrifice, and some still fall, to preserve them.
Not everyone believes this. And if a person does not, then he or she should not stand for the anthem and flag. In this country, such persons would be free to do so. That’s one of the reasons America is great. But if such persons do not stand, they should not then turn around and say “Oh, I wasn’t protesting the country; I was protesting something else.” The protesters can’t have it both ways.
One Team’s Solution

The Deal on Illegal Immigration America Needs
Bert Peterson

WHO DECIDES IMMIGRATION POLICY?

The first responsibility of government is not that of providing welfare, nor education, nor even a legal system to protect citizens from criminals and redress grievances. The first responsibility of government is to protect the national sovereignty, for without that, none of the other things the government does matters. And the most fundamental protection of the national sovereignty is through the protection of its borders. The protection of borders means that it is not foreigners who decide who will enter the country, but that it will be American citizens who do so.

For some reason, we seem to be coming to the conclusion that if a person is here illegally, that equation somehow changes. We can keep foreigners out of the country, but once a foreigner is in the country, then we forfeit our authority, for, well we could freely exercise it prior to such illegal entry, we cannot – after some arbitrary length of time – exercise that authority, because it would be “cruel.” It is as if, once in the country, the American government forced the foreigner to remain in the country, to put down roots and build a life. But the American government did not do that. The foreigner made that decision – those multitude of decisions over time – in reliance of the hope that the immigration law would never be enforced. Each new day, he or she makes the decision to continue to “live in the shadows.” That decision places no obligation on the American government to bring such persons “out of the shadows.” Yet some argue now that the foreigner’s reliance on this hope places an obligation on the American people. Under this thinking, it is not Americans who are determining what our immigration policy will be; it is foreigners living among us who are doing so. This constitutes nothing less than a surrender of national sovereignty.

FROM ANCHOR BABIES TO ANCHOR CHILDREN

One of the greatest incentives for illegal immigration is the policy of granting citizenship for anyone born in the United States, whether their parents were in the country legally are not. Once such a child is born to parents who are not in the country legally, that creates a situation where the government cannot deport the parents without deporting an American citizen – commonly referred to as an “anchor baby” – at the same time. For, if the government does so, then it is “breaking up families.” (For some reason, it is never the parents that – in order to retain the benefits of American citizenship for the child – are seen as doing so.) Under this policy, the authority for deciding the nationality of a couple’s or single mother’s children has been delegated to whoever has been able to enter the country. Again, a surrender of national sovereignty.

“Surrender” is probably putting it mildly. It is almost as if we are asking for foreigners to violate our borders. We are creating not a deterrent for lawbreaking, but an incentive. And what an incentive — American citizenship for one’s children. It is the dream of many if not most parents that their children have lives better than their own (even if only to support them in their old age;) who then who could blame a couple for succumbing to such a temptation? The point here is not to criticize them, but to criticize a policy that does not punish, but rewards them for violating our borders.

In the past, there has been talk of eliminating such an incentive to illegality. But, instead, under former-president Barack Obama, we went in a different direction. Obama created a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in which foreign-born children of illegal immigrants received legal status,renewed every two years. Under DACA, the children of illegal immigrants are afforded temporary legal status, even if the parents are not. So we again come to the same situation – if the parents are deported, and the child remains, then we are “breaking up families. Instead of abolishing the legal basis for the creation o fanchor babies, we have expanded it.

Such a policy was never enacted by Congress, but was enacted instead as an executive order by Obama. This was an action that, up until the time he did it, he – as a former constitutional law professor – said was unconstitutional. Then, he enacted it, supposedly as an executive order anyway. Obama never explained how his legal thinking changed, or if, in fact, it did. Since he didn’t, we can only conclude that he decided that it did not matter if DACA was unconstitutional; the DACA program, at least in his own mind, was more important than some piece of paper – even though his own authority derived from that piece of paper.

In doing so, Obama created an additional incentive for the violation of immigration law. As we have noted, immigration law – the protection of our borders – is the most fundamental responsibilities of our government. If a president can unilaterally take action on an issue such as this, then there is nothing that a president might not take unilateral action on.

Under the Constitution, enacting such a policy is, under the separation of powers, a shared responsibility between Congress and the president. If the separation of powers does not prohibit the president taking an action such as this, what does the separation of powers prevent?

Barack Obama was followed by Donald Trump, who has said he will, after a six-month delay, resend DACA. If we are to have constitutional government – a government following the rule of law – Trump had no choice. Had he let DACA stand, he would have been reporting President Obama for his abuse of presidential authority. And, with such reward, he would have been setting a precedent for all future presidents, telling them: “If Congress doesn’t pass the legislation you want, go for it; enact yourself through (wink, wink) executive order. At least when you will create a situation that will make it politically difficult to reverse – such as granting large numbers of people things or legal status that they did not have before.”

Trump did not want to set such a precedent for lawlessness, and so will rescind the program. (Ironically, it is a loose-cannon, reality-TV star who will reverse an abusive presidential authority committed by a constitutional law professor and graduate of Harvard Law.) Trump will rescinded it, but with a caveat – he would delay the rescission by six months to allow Congress to act. He will be placing the onus on Congress, where it belonged in the first place. But only he will be doing so only after 800,000 DACA recipients have been created. So it is not as if they will be coming to this issue with a clean slate. There stronger pressure Congress to reward the recipients for the illegal entry of their parents then there would’ve been had not Obama issued his unconstitutional executive order. So, even with the passing of the responsibility back to Congress, Obama did receive a benefit from issuing that order.

In light of that fact, and in light of the illegality of the underlying entry of hundreds of thousands of parents with their children, it would have been better for Trump to have rescinded the program – not with any six-month delay, or, (as Trump has given,) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers.html?_r=0
– indications of support for any legislative reincarnation of DACA but simply to have rescinded it, period, and with a promise to veto any legislative attempt to revive it.

To such an unyielding response to this unconstitutional program, some will point out that it is not the DACA recipients themselves who broke the law, and so should not be punished. But of course, in this response, they would not be punished; they would not be sent to prison, they would be deported to their nation of birth. If, because of the disruption to their lives, this is seemed to be a “punishment,” this is not a punishment that the United States is responsible for; the United States did not require that the parents of the DACA recipients bring them into this country; this is the responsibility of the parents.

Some will say that even though the United States did not require the DACA recipients to remain in the country, it certainly facilitated it by providing temporary legal status, and so shares some of the responsibility for the current situation. Such facilitation, however, was provided outside of the clearly-understood legal authority that then-president Obama had. The United States cannot be held responsible for the rogue actions of a president; doing so would only reward such actions. Consequently, the responsibility in this regard is not on the United States, but is on Barack Obama, who – thinking he would be able to get away with it – acted beyond his authority.

As a matter of law, the DACA recipients should be returned to their nation of origin, at which point they would be free to apply for reentry into the United States in the same manner that law-abiding citizens do so. In point of fact, however, that seems very unlikely. In all political likelihood, the DACA recipients will, at the least, receive a right to permanent residence. In any case, for the sake of argument, let us assume that to be the case.

THE DEAL WE NEED; PART 1

Upon receipt of such legal status, that there would probably be immediate agitation for citizenship; for a “path to citizenship.” There should be no path, not ever. Aside from voting, such residents should be legally indistinguishable from citizens, and that can be written into the legislation. They would be free to run for political office, but, in federal elections, they themselves could not vote. There are several reasons for this.

1 – It is an open secret that, not just Obama, but Democrats generally have been facilitating illegal immigration for the purpose of advancing their political agenda – that is, creating a demographic that would support a government with greater, if not unlimited powers – particularly with powers for the redistribution of wealth. In this despicable, if not treasonable enterprise, the Democratic Party should not be rewarded with the additional political power that it has betrayed Americans to obtain.

(Alternatively, if Democrats deny this charge and contend that their only purpose was one of compassion – that is, to provide an opportunity to desperately poor people, then they have no reason to object to such a restriction.)

2 – The rewards of illegal immigration should not be greater then the rewards of legal immigration. Even with only permanent residence, the DACA recipients will receive an advantage unavailable to the children of law-abiding immigrants. There is no reason to add to that by granting the vote also as well. That should be open only to children of illegal immigrants. This is only fair, for there should be some benefit for legal immigration over illegal immigration.

3 – We need to (contingent on reforming our educational system) allow for assimilation. Third World societies are very different than American society, and those ideas and values that have developed over generations do not disappear in a few years. Some will deny the importance of this reality. Their denial is based on a belief that democracy simply requires that you vote in your own self-interest, and that immigrants from the third world have no problem in doing that. But democracy is not about simply voting in your own self-interest. Democracy requires that we vote in the common interest, and that we understand what serves the common interest. If such attitudes were easily adopted, and such understanding easily attained, the United States would be such an exception of freedom and material success as it has been.

4 – Not being able to vote is not oppression; it was the condition of the majority of Americans during the early years of the Republic, when only landowners could vote (and women generally could not own property.) Though they could not vote, they did not see themselves as oppressed. They had the essence of democracy – that is, they had freedom of speech. And, in the spirit of democracy based not on self-interest, but the public interest, they “formed opinions about questions under popular consideration and shared in the discussions that went on in country in town.” Charles and Mary Beard, The Beard’s History of the United States, Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1944, 74.
The residents originating from DACA would have the same opportunity.

To put it another way, the essence of democracy is not voting; it is free speech. It is better to live in a society that has no voting, but has free speech than it is to live in one with voting but no free speech. The DACA recipients would have free speech.

5 – If the residents of DACA insist on a path to the vote, we can, given their Third World heritage, and past experience, safely assume it would be for two reasons: First, to vote for more taxpayer-funded benefits for themselves. Secondly, to open the borders for relatives and others. If they have no such purposes, and, aside from voting, are treated in the same manner as American citizens, then they have no need to vote. If residents of DACA object to that, that suggests that they have come not just to care for their families, but to take over. Americans would be fools to assist them in that endeavor.

THE DEAL WE NEED; PART 2

Not only may the residents originating from DACA not vote, but their children may not vote as well. Only the third generation – that is, their grandchildren – with the voting rights of American citizenship. This is a provision that should apply not simply to the children of DACA recipients, but to all children born to illegal immigrants. (In this regard, notwithstanding any subsequent deal granting permanent residence, DACA recipients would still be recognized as having entered the country illegally.)

In other words, part of the deal would be that, for purposes of voting, no “anchor babies” would qualify.(For their own elections, states or localities, they take a different position.) They would, as discussed above, be permitted to stay as permanent residents. And their children would be born with the same voting rights as those of citizens. But no child of a person in the country illegally would, at least that federal elections, be able to vote. The reasons for this are the same:

1 – It is taken Western nations centuries to develop democratic societies. Those societies rest ultimately on a respect for human individuality, as expressed particularly with regard to free speech. As we see today, even those whose ancestry goes back far more than two generations, this is not such an obvious concept. And, in the world today, it is still a rare one. If we accept massive numbers of immigrants, even illegal immigrants, we cannot expect assimilation unless a commensurate amount of time (and a reform of our own public education) is allowed.

2 – Some Americans appear to believe that the right to vote can be passed out as easily as party favors; while mouthing the word, they really have a little regard for democracy. Such a policy would treat that right with the respect it deserves, and a recognition of the responsibility it incurs.

3 – If illegal immigrants object to such a policy, they aren’t that desperate, and/or they haven’t come to assimilate.

4 – If we are to have laws, there must be some appropriate consequence when such laws are broken. Only then will we remove the incentive – or at least a part of it – for breaking them. What price do you put on living in a free and democratic society for the rest of your life, and the lives of your children?

CLOSING

Let us keep in mind that Americans have not kidnapped the parents and children of DACA, or others. They came here of their own accord; because they believe we have a better society than the one they left. And we do. That means that Americans set the standards, not those who come to America. And it certainly suggests that, in setting those standards, Americans should strive preserve the distinctive nature of our society that has led to such success. That means, above all, two things – that we respect and affirm our laws; that, if we do not punish lawbreakers, we at least do not reward them. And that, if we take in massive numbers of illegal immigrants from Third World nations – nations with anti-democratic traditions – we require a commensurate time of assimilation. Let us raise such standards.

Last-Priority Loans and Obamacare

In a recent article, I argued that, whatever healthcare scheme we decide upon, it should be funded not with direct subsidies from the taxpayers, but rather with loans. If, in other words, a medical consumer had expenses that were covered taxpayers, that assistance did not come in the form of an outright cash “gift,” but rather as loans. To prevent entry to credit rating, and to minimize financial hardship, I argued that such loans should be subordinated to all of the loans, even to debt obligations occurring after the medical debt obligation, and that, during the lifetime of the debtor, no collection action be taken; the only such action would be against the estate of the debtor, if there was one. (I also proposed that inter vivos payments could be encouraged by offering a discount.)

Since the original proposal, there have been two additions: 1) on the rationale that, if you owe money, you shouldn’t be giving away money to others, there would be a special gift/bequest tax for medical debtors. 2) the medical debt of an individual that is not covered by his or her estate must be assumed by the first generation of the debtor’s descendents. The limitations placed on the original debtor will be placed on them. If the descendents do not assume such debt, they will be in eligible for any medical assistance, loans or otherwise.

What?! Hold the children accountable for the debts of a parent? That’s outrageous. But is it anymore outrageous to spend beyond our current levels of tax revenues, and pass our current debts on to the “children of taxpayers” – that is to say, to those – whether they are children of taxpayers are not – those who are yet to be born, who will be covering the expenses of the current generation. If it’s all right to pass the tax obligation on, then it should be all right to pass the debt obligation on as well.

At the present time, it looks like we have decided what are healthcare approach will be, which is Obamacare, which is financially unsustainable, and so will lead to fully-politicized medicine, that is to say “single-payer” (which, that current levels of medical care, will also be financially unsustainable, and lead to rationing (particularly for out-of-power political groups.)) It’s not so much that the current Congress has actually chosen such a path, but that it appears to be incapable of choosing any alternative to it.

In any case, for whatever reason, Obamacare remains. That’s fine, but there is still no reason why this approach should be funded by outright subsidies, as opposed to loans. We’re all supposed to believe in personal responsibility, aren’t we? So why don’t we change our system of financing so that it reflects that belief. Instead of requiring taxpayers to provide outright subsidies, require them to provide last priority loans instead. Under that system, those receiving subsidies to purchase medical insurance policies would be incurring a debt, one that, if not paid, would be passed on to their children.

Enact a policy such as that. Then we will see if some more cost-effective alternative to Obamacare can be found.