Jackson Free Press

Small business owners are nervous about a potential new round of taxes connected to H.R. 3200, the embattled health-care reform bill being knocked around in Congress.

The bill, which creates a market for buying insurance as well as a publicly financed insurance option for those who can't afford private insurance, funds itself through a new tax on people who refuse to take insurance through their job and aren't eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. The government calculates individual costs through the use of a sliding scale that heavily favors individuals with annual incomes around $14,400 or less. Someone making more than $43,320 benefits from no sliding scale, and must pay 2 percent of their adjusted gross income or the national average cost of a basic health care plan—whichever is cheaper.

The second funding mechanism essentially rolls back tax cuts for the rich, initiated during the Bush administration, amounting to 1 percent for incomes between $350,000 and $500,000, 1.5 percent for incomes between $500,000 and $1 million and 5.4 percent for any income over $1 million.

But the third means of revenue, which has some business owners concerned, is generated through the placement of a new tax on businesses who choose not to supply their employees with some form of insurance that meets federal standards. Only businesses with a payroll exceeding $250,000 have to face the new tax, and only then if they choose not to offer coverage for their people.

The tax breakdown in H.R. 3200 is fairly simple. Businesses with payrolls between $250,000 and $300,000, which don't provide insurance, suffer a 2 percent tax on that payroll. Businesses with a payroll between $300,000 and $350,000 see a new tax equal to about 4 percent of that payroll. That same tax goes up to 6 percent of the payroll for businesses with a payroll between the $350,000 and $400,000 mark.

Bigger businesses with a payroll above $400,000, which also choose not to provide insurance for their employees, get hit with the full brunt of the tax, a total of 8 percent of their payroll.

Companies have the option to limit insurance to one or more departments, but that gives little comfort to Garrett Enterprises Owner Socrates Garrett. He said many small businesses don't offer insurance plans "because they can't afford to." He says the financial drain on his business, if he should choose not to supply health insurance, would be hard to cover.

"If my payroll is at $900,000, they're going to charge me $72,000? This is a very difficult scenario," Garrett said. "On one hand, I can't afford to pay $72,000, but on the other hand, health-related issues make it hard to attract the quality employees we need. Something needs to be done, but I'm not for taxing the small businesses to get it done. We got to very careful with how we fund this program."

Garrett later acknowledged that the new government tax would likely not apply to his business, however, which offers insurance to its full-time employees. But he insists that businesses sometimes need option to leave their employees without insurance in order to maintain a profit.

Diann Irving Alford, owner of Two Sisters Kitchen, also feared the new taxes would clean out just enough cash from her bank account to put Two Sisters Kitchen under the water.

"I'm running a fine line as it is with the economy like it is. We just went up on minimum wage, and then this right on top of it, things are not looking really good for me," said Alford, who offers no insurance plan to her employees. "I'm going to do my best to try to pay for it if it happens, but it seems like every time you turn around the brunt of economic pain is falling on the small business person, and we're going to eventually get to the point where there no longer is a small business person."

Alford learned during the course of the interview, however, that because her payroll likely falls beneath $100,000, she would be exempt. She laughed at the concept of a $400,000 or more payroll, and says she is lucky if her business "makes $400,000 a year."

Her payroll size excludes her from any new taxes imposed as a result of H.R. 3200 or from the requirement to provide insurance to her small staff. She said that she does not have any personal health insurance either, and falls into the category of about half a million Mississippians, including children, who have no insurance or government healthcare.

Relieved, she admitted she is not happy with the state of the health-care industry as the years go by.

"I'm in my late 50s, and it's getting critical because I do need insurance, and I am shopping, but money is so tight right now that I've got to take care of my people. I've cut hours, and there are no new hires. We kind of pull together just to stay in business," Alford said. "I've had to have gall-bladder surgery. I've afforded it by making a small down payment and making a small monthly payment to the doctor. Thankfully, I don't have to go to the doctor very much, for now."

The Main Street Alliance, a national group of small-business advocates that lobby on behalf of smaller companies for health reform, claims a recent survey shows almost 60 percent of small businesses actually favor some form of health care that could cut losses in employee time.

Sam Blair, the director of the organization, says its survey of 1,200 small business operators and self-employed entrepreneurs in the 12 states where it operates found that 59 percent prefer a public option, with only 26 percent wanting more private plan choices alone.

"Our research shows us that even if companies pay the maximum 8 percent of their payroll to finance public health care, it would still be cheaper than providing insurance to their employees," Blair told the Jackson Free Press. "The national average that insurance costs a small business is about 10 percent of its payroll, a 2 percent increase over the maximum cost of H.R. 3200."

Even the U.S. Small Business Administration, initially sought by the Jackson Free Press to provide a counter argument, apparently defends the language of H.R. 3200.

Karen Mills, administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, co-wrote an editorial defending the need for health-care reform, and pointed to the legislation endorsed by President Barack Obama as a good example of how to get it.

"Health care is the number one concern for small businesses today," the editorial claims. "The current health care system places a heavy burden on many small business owners because it does not provide access to affordable coverage for them and their employees. Small businesses pay up to 18 percent more for insurance coverage for their workers compared with large firms. These higher insurance costs mean lower profits for the firm and lower take-home wages for employees. As a result, many small businesses face a competitive disadvantage in both the market for their products and the market for hiring the most talented workers."

The editorial references a new report by the Council of Economic Advisers, which looks at both the challenges faced by small businesses under the current health-care system and the likely benefits of health care reform.

Small business owners—because of the higher insurance costs they face—are far less likely to provide health insurance for their workers than large firms, according to the CEA report. Less than half of firms with three to nine workers offer any type of health-care coverage, while 99 percent of firms with 200 or more employees offer employer-sponsored insurance. The report claims that more small business owners are reducing or dropping coverage for their employees as costs continue to rise, and workers are increasingly left to the individual insurance market, where prices and restrictions are comparatively high.

"Any successful health-care reform must improve access to affordable coverage for small business owners and their employees," the U.S. SBA states. "Health-care reform, as envisioned by the president and the current draft legislation, does just that."

But Garrett disagrees, arguing that businesses still need the option of being able to refuse insurance coverage to their workers in order to stay competitive.

"In this economy, you need to have every advantage you can get in order to stay above water, and any new financial requirement imposed by the government takes away a little more leverage you need to get by," Garrett said.

Previous Comments

ID

151815

Comment

More myths busted; be sure to read and share, all.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-11T13:08:13-06:00

ID

151817

Comment

I have always wonder why is it a business owner's responsibility to provide health insurance for workers?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-11T13:46:48-06:00

ID

151818

Comment

Because, Bubba, it is an employee benefit, like sick leave, holiday leave, employee spending accounts, retirement plan options. Some employers opt to pay part of the health care costs, I suspect, and/or slice the salary a bit and fill in the slice with insurance. Seems to me that covering employees allows an employer to support the quality of life of an employee, which can result in increased committment to the business and its success and more money to offset the health insurance premium. "Only businesses with a payroll exceeding $250,000 have to face the new tax, and only then if they choose to not offer coverage for their people." according to the article. Seems pretty fair to me. What I find intersting is that the two individual business owners mentioned who were initially worried about their businesses being taxed are, according the article, exempt.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-11T14:11:17-06:00

ID

151819

Comment

Those are choices, not responsibilities.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T14:13:15-06:00

ID

151821

Comment

thanks, mgeoffriau, yep, the employee benefits listed above are choices. The health care coverage for employers with payrolls over $250,000--according to the article's information--would require health care coverage or the employer would be subject to a tax. Right. Thanks.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-11T14:16:46-06:00

ID

151822

Comment

So then the question stands -- what is unique about health insurance that makes it the responsibility of the employer to provide?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T14:18:51-06:00

ID

151823

Comment

What I find intersting is that the two individual business owners mentioned who were initially worried about their businesses being taxed are, according the article, exempt. That is very important to see, J.T. There are so many half-truths and lies out there that people are scared to death. And some people are scaring them to death on purpose. We don't all have to agree, but we deserve to start with the same set of facts and debate from there.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-11T14:25:26-06:00

ID

151824

Comment

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure you are as upset as I am that we were repeatedly told that 47 million Americans were uninsured, before suddenly being downgraded to 30 million uninsured Americans. Now I'm curious how many it will be next week. Still, I'd hate to follow your example by assuming I know Obama's intentions -- then I'd have to believe that he was purposefully telling a half truth in order to scare people to death.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T14:42:08-06:00

ID

151825

Comment

Exactly, you hit it: The baseline issue, separate and apart from process of achieving it and/or funding it, is that health care for all Americans is a God given right. ALL of us--individuals and busineses will have to step up to the plate to assure that. It stands to reason that if a business has a payroll exceeding $250,000, it can afford to pay for health insurance coverage or not pay and cough up the additional tax. Nothing is free. All of us will have to pay. Not just businesses. See the info above about the sliding scale on those who refuse to take coverage and the re-placement of the 1% tax on the wealthy. My, My, how I cry over the rich having to kick in. And they weep the loudest and kick and scream and holler like kids while some of heir brothers and sisters scrape and scrounge around to put food on the table and can't find a penny over and above to buy health care coverage. To have men and women and children in America without adequate health care or the liklikhood of getting it because they have no health insurance and/or dying and/or going bankrupt because of health bills is, in my mind, unconscionable. If a CEO of a company that is failing can leave the company with millions in bonuses and we (not you and me, all of us) are debating "whether or not" to cover all citizens with health insurance, our country's morals are squewed (sic). If a company has a payroll less than $250,000 and it does not cover its employees and it pays no tax, then, in that event, the employee will face decisions and choices (whatever those end up being if a bill passes) that will shift that economic burden in a different direction. Businesses aren't being singled out. They are a piece of the puzzle. I hope that, in addition to this end of things, the other end--exhorbitant insurance rates, dropping insureds, denying coverage, waste in the medical arena, etc. are all addressed. There's a big piece of the problem. Maybe, it is the crux of it.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-11T14:44:08-06:00

ID

151826

Comment

I'm sure you are as upset as I am that we were repeatedly told that 47 million Americans were uninsured, before suddenly being downgraded to 30 million uninsured Americans. Now I'm curious how many it will be next week. Still, I'd hate to follow your example by assuming I know Obama's intentions -- then I'd have to believe that he was purposefully telling a half truth in order to scare people to death. Ah, the magic of Google -- it can even cut through sarcasm! ;-) Why the different number? Because of the distinction between "don't have insurance" and "can't get coverage." This, from the AP: OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage." THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance. It's worth noting that under his proposal (which now includes mandatory insurance) those 46 million or so would become insured.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2009-09-11T14:51:06-06:00

ID

151827

Comment

Whew! I was worried there. Glad to learn that, as I suspected, Obama's intentions were nothing less than honorable.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T14:53:18-06:00

ID

151828

Comment

And, by the way, this is a very poignant question... So then the question stands -- what is unique about health insurance that makes it the responsibility of the employer to provide? ... one which is also asked by single-payer proponents.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2009-09-11T14:54:38-06:00

ID

151829

Comment

Whew! I was worried there. Glad to learn that, as I suspected, Obama's intentions were nothing less than honorable. I don't know what his intentions are, but you've got to give him props for updating the number based on the latest data. That's the kind of behavior we don't always see from our WH residents.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2009-09-11T14:57:54-06:00

ID

151830

Comment

Glad to learn that, as I suspected, Obama's intentions were nothing less than honorable. Geo, what evidence do you have or can present that the president's intentions are "less than honorable." Why in the world do you think he is fighting such a conservative tide in order to insure people who don't have it that is NOT honorable? Sometimes, y'all don't make a licka sense. I can understand disagreeing with methods, but calling trying to help sick people dishonorable is just weirdo, baby.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-11T14:57:55-06:00

ID

151832

Comment

Sorry, I'll cut the unnecessarily and ultimately ineffective sarcastic tone and make my point: I reject the idea that healthcare, or any other kind of goods or service, can be considered a "God-given" or a "natural" right of man. The ability to provide medical goods and services costs those individuals something; time in school, tuition, their own labor. To mandate who they must provide it to, and at what cost, is to violate their right to self-determination and private property (which, by the way, being actual natural or God-given rights, don't require anyone else's work or money to provide).

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T14:59:56-06:00

ID

151833

Comment

"Geo, what evidence do you have or can present that the president's intentions are "less than honorable." Why in the world do you think he is fighting such a conservative tide in order to insure people who don't have it that is NOT honorable?" What evidence do you have that conservatives are trying to "scare people to death"? Isn't trying to protect an industry from the death-dealing bureaucratic hand of the government honorable? I've seen how the government operates in "cooperation" with private industry -- I don't want my healthcare system run like the Post Office.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T15:02:22-06:00

ID

151834

Comment

"Exactly, you hit it:" that intro was intended to respond to mgeoffriau's question "what is unique about health insurance"? Separately, in response to your later post, mgeoffriau, my observation is that the people who are scaring us to death are the right wing Republican scaremongers. I was moved, almost to tears, by President Obama's straightforward no holds barred address to the joint session Wed and by his intent to solve a problem that others have shied away from because they found it politically inexpedient. If we want to look at half truths, maybe we should look at the propaganda from the wingnuts like Wilson whose behavior has bordered on the insane. While the President of the United States was speaking, he yells, "You lie." This yeller aka yellow is the same man who has insisted that aliens who are in this country illegally are one of the groups the health care bill is designed to cover. Presdient Obama claified that, for sure. But in the past, Wilson's attack has been so pervasive that I have actually gotten emails from friends out of the area who are scared to death about that happening. Interestingly, from his record in Congress, that is about all he's ever done. When the right wingnuts propagandized about the plan providing for death panels, they reached a new low, scaring the elderly. Unconscionable Hogwash. Anything to detract and keep our eyes off where the real money is and what the real needs are. It is really shameful. And, it is shameful that in a debate as important as this one, which could shape the economic future of our country, right wingnuts are personally attacking President Obama. I am reminded of the adage. If you can't handle the message, attack the messenger.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-11T15:02:36-06:00

ID

151835

Comment

Todd is right on the mark about why employers must provide insurance. In essence, that is what business has demanded. In most other advanced democracies, health care is guaranteed by the government, which taxes individuals and businesses to provide care. In the United States, health care is provided as a benefit of employment instead. Businesses receive enormous tax benefits for providing such coverage. Conservatives are suddenly enthralled with health care reform, but their proposal is a radical experiment whereby every citizen would be left to purchase insurance on his own, with no employer or government involvement at all. The voters have soundly rejected such proposals. But let me flip the question on its head. Why should business not be required to provide insurance?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-09-11T15:09:21-06:00

ID

151836

Comment

"But let me flip the question on its head. Why should business not be required to provide insurance?" That's a meaningless question. Some employers provide retirement plans and company cars. We might as easily ask, "Why should business not be required to provide 401K's and Ford Tauruses?"

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T15:11:31-06:00

ID

151837

Comment

mgeoffriau, I haven't heard anthing about the government wanting to "run" the healthcare system. What I hear is the government wanting to make healthcare available to individuals by their doctors and hospitals. I.e., assuring citizens have access to it and part of that access is being able to pay. By the way, maybe I'm wrong, but a doctor's wife told me this week that the AMA is in favor of health care reform. I watched the CEO/President/ringleader/whatever of Mayo Clinic recently on Charlie Ross and my understanding was that they are in the mix trying to find ways to reform the health care system to achieve health care reform. Donna posted stats on another blog this week about the uninsured, etc. in MS, mgeofriau, that are worth a look. Will knock you over to realize how the situation affects us here at home. One culprit is the health insurance companies. They are running the show and have been for a long time. They need to come to the table. So, too, the medical community. Big people come to the table. Little people hide and gripe and try to kick and scream. The issue is on the table. We all need to come to the table.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-11T15:12:13-06:00

ID

151838

Comment

Geo, your libertarian argument about the rights of individuals does not get us anywhere, because your view represents a tiny minority of the electorate. The Supreme Court long ago found programs such as Medicare to be constitutional. Obviously, you disagree. Your radical view of the Constitution is not shared by most Americans.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-09-11T15:12:28-06:00

ID

151839

Comment

JT, how did health care become a God-given right? I understand the idea of taking advantage of any government program available to pay whatever benefits you are eligible for, but a God-given right? Please explain.

Author

JDLW

Date

2009-09-11T15:15:02-06:00

ID

151840

Comment

"Big people come to the table. Little people hide and gripe and try to kick and scream. The issue is on the table. We all need to come to the table." From what I can tell, one is discouraged from "coming to the table" unless one also supports some kind of hydridized government/private system. Or am I again misunderstanding Obama's words when he says that those who "created the problem" need to be quiet and get out of the way? I'd rather see some serious medical malpractice reform and the state-line regulation lifted before making such hasty and wholesale changes.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T15:15:46-06:00

ID

151842

Comment

"Geo, your libertarian argument about the rights of individuals does not get us anywhere, because your view represents a tiny minority of the electorate. The Supreme Court long ago found programs such as Medicare to be constitutional. Obviously, you disagree. Your radical view of the Constitution is not shared by most Americans." Sorry, I was just trying to come to the table. I guess my marginalized opinions make me a little person.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T15:28:06-06:00

ID

151843

Comment

I will note, however, that your line of reasoning regarding the Constitution must then also apply to other issues as well. The abuses of eminent domain (a favorite of Ladd's when she's pointing out her libertarian tendencies), for example, must be considered legally and constitutionally valid, regardless of the fact that individual rights have been trampled.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T15:30:22-06:00

ID

151844

Comment

mgeoffriau, Obama said in his speech, "The time for games is past." I agree with him.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-11T15:40:58-06:00

ID

151846

Comment

Mgeo, Ladd is against the abuse of eminent domain. Trust me: She told me. ;-) (Eminent domain is one of many reasons I'm against the Two Lakes project, by the way.) As for evidence that conservatives are trying to scare people to death -- darlin', it's everywhere. Not every conservative, of course -- more the astroturfers who are putting out the bad information, whether about small businesses such as Diann's or death panels or "socialism." Our health-care package this week is *filled* to the brim with the evidence, starting with our own local Rep. Harper. And that Joe Wilson is a perfect national example: he was yelling at Obama when the president was correcting the bad information that conservatives are spreading everywhere about illegal immigrants benefitting from the insurance-reform plan. And nice try (and logical fallacy) to try to answer my challenge to prove that the president is being "less than honorable" by trying to turn it i n a question of proving that conservatives are scaring people. You answer your questions, and I'll answer mine. I can; you?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-11T16:35:03-06:00

ID

151851

Comment

I know you are against the abuse of eminent domain; that would be why I mentioned how you often cite it as an example of your libertarian tendencies (ie, recognizing the validity of individual rights despite the current legal or political climate). I'm not sure what exactly you were intending to correct by reasserting it. This will likely be my last reply until Monday. Weekends mean my only internet access is via Blackberry and therefore tediously slow.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2009-09-11T16:51:48-06:00

ID

151852

Comment

From what I can tell, one is discouraged from "coming to the table" unless one also supports some kind of hydridized government/private system. No, it seems clear that he means to come to the table serious about reform, and not some B.S. alternative such as Coburn's that protects insurance companies more than individuals. He was elected to change health care in this country, and everyone needs to be at that table, and being honest about what the proposals actually are. And your words are funny in another way, too: Republicans tend to *love* public-private partnerships when it's moving from public to privat(ization), but they loathe them when it means that a private enterprise that is failing and hurting/killing people with greed and apathy should move toward being more public, or publicly accountable. I'm not a fan of every public-private partnership, but this one that makes a helluva lot of sense.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-11T16:53:14-06:00

ID

151853

Comment

For those of you interested, here's a link to a paper about the history of health insurance in the U.S. Here's what it says about how businesses became "responsible" for insurance: During World War II, wage and price controls prevented employers from using wages to compete for scarce labor. Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term "wages" included pension and insurance benefits. Therefore, when negotiating for wages, the union was allowed to negotiate benefit packages on behalf of workers as well. This ruling, affirmed later by the U.S. Supreme Court, further reinforced the employment-based system. The other part of the equation, I think, is that businesses are natural "pools" of people to insure, lowering the insurers risk and thus, the individual's cost of insurance. Lastly, regarding Obama's 30 million uninsured figure, here's what factcheck.org says about it: “Citizens” is the operative word here. And even so, the 30 million figure is an understatement. The official Census figure for 2007 was actually 45.7 million persons in the U.S., but that figure includes an estimated 10 million who are not U.S. citizens, including 5.6 million who are here illegally, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. That still leaves about 35.7 million U.S. citizens without health coverage in 2007, well above the president’s figure. And hours after the president spoke, Census released new figures for 2008, showing the total number of uninsured went up slightly, to 46.3 million.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-09-11T16:53:30-06:00

ID

151854

Comment

Geo, my point is that you haven't really come to the table at all. If your only contribution to a debate on health care reform is that you think programs like Medicare are unconstitutional, what else is there to discuss? Your point about eminent domain is incoherent. The question is whether eminent domain has been properly applied, not whether the government has any right to use eminent domain at all. Donna has not claimed that eminent domain is unconstitutional, but rather that in some cases it has been abused.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-09-11T16:57:34-06:00

ID

151855

Comment

Any chance I get to remind anyone of the things the supporters of the Two Lakes thing won't tell them. ;-) I should also say I'm not against eminent domain in every instance. But I am against it for private development, even that disguised as a community services like, you know, flood control that may well not work and is too costly to the taxpayers. Put eminent domain and higher property taxes together for said development, and good golly. Nobody who supports such a thing can call themselves "conservative." Not and actually mean it. But I digress.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-11T16:57:35-06:00

ID

151857

Comment

Donna and I cross-posted, but we made the same point on eminent domain! That's trouble.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-09-11T16:58:58-06:00

ID

151858

Comment

Geo, my point is that you haven't really come to the table at all. If your only contribution to a debate on health care reform is that you think programs like Medicare are unconstitutional, what else is there to discuss? This is true. There is no discussion to be had with someone making that assertion without interest in whether it's accurate or not. That's just rhetoric. And, thanks, Brian for again expressing what I believe better than I can. You've done that very successful several times over the years. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-11T16:59:36-06:00

ID

151859

Comment

I reject the idea that healthcare, or any other kind of goods or service, can be considered a "God-given" or a "natural" right of man. Geo, I agree with you to the extent that people do not have a "natural, god-given" right to services. Where we part company is that I *do* believe that all people have the right to be healthy. They have the right to life, and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the U.S. Constitution, which includes the the right to keep themselves and their families from harm. In 2009, living a healthy life must include access to adequate, responsible health care. Medicine and pharmaceuticals are among the advances of the last century that have enabled people to live long, healthy lives. Life expectancy in 1909 was about 50. In 2009, to deny people access to the very things that allow long life is simply barbaric.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-09-11T17:13:49-06:00

ID

151860

Comment

JDLW, you asked of JT, how did health care become a God-given right. Remember that doc called The Declaration on Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . ." Based on our God-given rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, I would suggest that health care would fall under all 3 and govt's assuring access to it would be as appropriate as is, e.g., police protection.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-11T17:38:37-06:00

ID

151861

Comment

Thanks J.T. for the correct citation to the Declaration of Independence. The preamble to the Constitution says: "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." Scholars generally agree that "general Welfare," in this context refers to: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-09-11T18:36:12-06:00

ID

151862

Comment

What evidence do you have that conservatives are trying to "scare people to death"? Isn't trying to protect an industry from the death-dealing bureaucratic hand of the government honorable? Evidence? Where have you been the last six or so weeks? You have people like Sarah Palin talking about death panels, Sen. Grassley of Iowa talking about pulling the plug on grandma and Astroturf protesters shouting down debate at town halls. No one is talking about getting rid of private insurance. Like them or not, they have the right to exist and do add a service to the American economy. The health insurance industry profits are soaring, but more Americans are finding affordable and reliable health insurance out of reach. What are these people to do?

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-09-11T18:41:16-06:00

ID

151863

Comment

“The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is indeed from the Declaration of Independence, which was superseded by the Articles of Confederation (that had no such personal guarantees) and the Constitution which, in the 5th and 14th Amendments, does contain prohibitions against government depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, which to me, does not seem to be the case when it comes to health care. The preamble does, however, differentiate between 'provide'(for the common defense) and 'promote'(the general welfare). While I do believe that we can agree that the 'death panel' propaganda is nothing but 'trash talk', but as a libertarian, I believe that government intervention in the market is never a good thing and will ultimately lead to shortages in the availability and/or quality of services and will lead to increased costs. The question is not whether you have a right to health care, but who will pay for it? Libertarians recognize that since government produces nothing, it becomes a question of who will be deprived of their wealth through taxes to provide for those that, in the government's or some bureaucrat's view, are more deserving of that wealth. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Whole Foods Market CEO John Mackey recently wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal that outlines a very libertarian approach to health care reform based upon what Whole Foods does for their employees (http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/2009/08/14/health-care-reform-full-article/), because of which many of those on the left decried him and called for boycotts. For my part, I think that he made a lot of sense.

Author

Macedonian

Date

2009-09-11T19:13:57-06:00

ID

151864

Comment

"... protect an industry from the death-dealing bureaucratic hand of the government..." Nothing like a little hyperbole. It's not the government that's been killing industry lately, now has it. The auto industry seems to be doing just fine on their own ;-)

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-09-11T19:39:47-06:00

ID

151868

Comment

J.T. the Supreme Court has ruled many times we have no right to expect police protection. Castle Rock vs Gonzales most recently. So health insurance might not be a right under the Constitution. :)

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-12T19:54:34-06:00

ID

151869

Comment

Bubba T, I read up on the Supreme Court case you cited, and as in a lot of cases with the Supreme Court, this decision was narrow and specific to the way the Colorado law was written. Go to Wikipedia or the Supreme Court website for specifics.

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-09-13T08:19:10-06:00

ID

151870

Comment

Bubba, Castle Rock vs Gonzales deals with whether or not a person could sue the police under 42 Section 1983 regarding the way the police responded to enforce a restraining order in a domestic case. Not on point with this debate. Anyway, I quoted The Declaration of Independence to explain to JDLW why I personally believe that "access" to available health care is a God-given right. Many advanced countries in the world--from the media's reports--provide health care for their citizens as a basic of citizenship and their health care rates much higher in certain aspects than does ours. E.g., among United Kingdon, Australia, Canada, German, New Zealand, we rank last in one 2007 survey. See http://www.needymeds.org/noteworthy/49.shtml

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-13T12:46:08-06:00

ID

151871

Comment

Casual- I have read up on it too, and read up on many others, search " right to police protection" to find more cases. But in all cases the court has found you have no right to police protection.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T13:09:57-06:00

ID

151872

Comment

J.T. no not really a point in the debate until you say health care is a right like police protection and police protection isn't a right according to the Supreme Court. ;) Your right, the court and case were about the right to sue, and the court said there was no right to sue because there was no right to police protection.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T13:16:01-06:00

ID

151873

Comment

[quote] Scholars generally agree that "general Welfare," in this context refers to: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [/quote]Speaking of context, do you believe the limited Federal government-minded Founders who wrote the Preamble envisioned that same Federal government to be directly responsible for guaranteeing medical services for all its citizens?

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-09-13T14:00:50-06:00

ID

151874

Comment

Bubba, I said govt's assuring our God given RIGHTS TO LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS by assuring access to health care would be as appropriate as having police protection. The govt programs themselves aren't the rights. They are the processes by which the govt tries to assure the basic underlying rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You and I are talking apples and oranges. By the way, just to play devil's advocate, is it your understanding, then, based on your assessment of the law and all legal precedent that govts at every level should immediately cease providing police protection? Why have we ever had it in the first place?

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-13T14:18:42-06:00

ID

151875

Comment

Jeff, I suspect they didn't envision health care of the Federal Communications Commission or the Homeland Security Division or Federal Aviations whatever it is called, but the beauty of our founding documents is that they fenced in the basic rights and expectations and left wiggle room to accommodate the responsibilities of govt to the people as we evolved. Though, based on some of the craziness that we all deal with today, I sometimes question whether we have actually evolved.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-13T14:25:06-06:00

ID

151876

Comment

J.T. The police aren't there for our protection, they exist to enforce the law after they have been broken. God-given means something God gave you. Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shall have these rights" or "Thou shall have health care" ?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T14:29:40-06:00

ID

151877

Comment

How does a policeman "enforce the law after they have been broken"? So, am I to understand that you only want a government program that is listed in the Bible? Must they also be listed in the Zohar, Torah, Kabbalah, Quran, and Tao Te Ching, but not limited thereto?

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-13T14:58:22-06:00

ID

151878

Comment

J.T. they enforce the laws after they have been broken by arressting people for breaking the law, that's a really simple concept to understand. No the Bible has nothing to do with government programs was just wondering how something that is given by man in his laws can be considered God-given?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T15:10:59-06:00

ID

151879

Comment

Bubba, you didn't answer J.T.'s question. I'll repeat it: So, am I to understand that you only want a government program that is listed in the Bible? Must they also be listed in the Zohar, Torah, Kabbalah, Quran, and Tao Te Ching, but not limited thereto? And if you poke around enough in the Bible, Bubba, you'll find plenty about caring for the weak, sick and needy, and not just to individuals. I'm sorry: It is impossible for me to understand those of you who are cool with the government building interstate highways but not with insuring -- pardon the pun -- that everyone has access to health care. With due respect, I think y'all have some moral screws loose.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-13T15:58:08-06:00

ID

151880

Comment

J.T. The police aren't there for our protection, they exist to enforce the law after they have been broken. Bubba, that's a non sequitur.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-13T16:00:09-06:00

ID

151881

Comment

Oh, Bubba, funny thing, as I was just shopping at McDade's at Maywood Mart, a JPD car was parked there in the parking lot with an officer in it, just sitting there. I think the officer was protecting those of us walking to and from our cars with packages, but I could be wrong. Should I contact JPD and tell them to stop protecting. That is not part of their job description? I'm confused. Is a law enforced if we wait for someone to break it? If you were not inferring that the Bible has something to do with govt programs, why did you ask "Where in the Bible does it say 'Thou shalt have these rights' or 'Thou shall have health care'?" I'm confused again. I guess since I believe God created us I don't have a problem with being "endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights . . among them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Seems like a pretty good idea. But, really, to answer your question, you'd have to ask the framers of the Declaration of Independence how their thinking helped them arrive at those words. They aren't mine. I just live in this country.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-13T16:03:40-06:00

ID

151882

Comment

Ladd, I followed up on JT's "no right to police protection" and he appears to be correct. State laws provide "soverign immunity" type protection to police to protect against individuals suing for police failing to protect individuals. So it appears that the Supreme Court, finding no Constitutional right of individual police protection, defers to the rights of the states to define the limits of police protection, responsibility and liability. I do agree with Ladd's opinion that universa lhealth care is a moral issue, more than a legal issue

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-09-13T16:21:14-06:00

ID

151883

Comment

Donna I did answer it I said the Bible had nothing to do with gov. programs, and no other religions books or laws do either. There are no govt programs talked about in the Bible. J.T. you are confused, you said God-given I didn't. For it to be God-given I would think it woud have be talked in the Bible or what ever holy text your religion uses, so no I am not inferring the Bible has anything to do with govt programs if anybody is you are by stating the health insurance is a God-given right.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T16:27:13-06:00

ID

151884

Comment

Casual- that was me not J.T.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T16:38:18-06:00

ID

151885

Comment

Donna- I have never said all people shouldn't have access to health insurance. I just disagree with who should be responsible for providing it and funding it. I don't think it a God-given right nothing about man's laws are God-given.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T16:46:54-06:00

ID

151886

Comment

Bubba says, "For it to God-given I would think it would have to talked in the Bible or what every holy text your religion uses." The Bible says: Do unto others as you have them do unto you. If you do it to the least of these my breathren, you do it unto me (Jesus speaking). So my take is that when I deprive my neighbor of health care , I deprive Jesus of health care. I have come to give you life abundantly. (Which by the way kinda jives with the Declaration of Independence writers' thinking.) God requires mercy not sacrifice. Etc. When the Bible and the other texts become living documents, living directions to us, it changes how we live. We still screw up. We still don't know. We still make mistakes. But, it is hard for me to know that if I allow my neighbor to go without health care because he/she isn't rich enough to afford it, then I might as well have done the same to Jesus, if we take the Bible literally. If I recollect, Jesus spent a lot of his life healing people. Healing people. Healing people. Isn't there a message there somewhere????? And, if the Bible is correct, he got really really mad at the money changers in the Temple. Wonder how mad he'd get today if he walked into our lives. And the Bible says God is love. Now get that to jive with depriving people of health care.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-13T17:07:51-06:00

ID

151887

Comment

Jesus doesn't need health care. :)

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T17:24:09-06:00

ID

151888

Comment

Oh, Bubba, I forgot Matthew 19: 16-26, where Jesus recites the 10 commandments and then tells the man to sell what he has and give to the poor (today, those marginalized greatly because of the health care dilemma). When I hear Christians objecting to helping others with universal access to health care, I have a hard time reconciling the message of their Jesus with their take on this health care issue. And, I am amazed that all Christians (as well as other religious) aren't knocking on the doors in Washington insisting that all have access to health care. Maybe I am just expecting Christians to want to follow their Bible.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-13T17:33:27-06:00

ID

151889

Comment

"Jesus doesn't need health care. . ." you said, Bubba. But people in America do.

Author

J.T.

Date

2009-09-13T18:11:17-06:00

ID

151890

Comment

J.T. yes they do

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-09-13T19:26:28-06:00

ID

151891

Comment

... do you believe the limited Federal government-minded Founders who wrote the Preamble envisioned that same Federal government to be directly responsible for guaranteeing medical services for all its citizens? First, not all of the founders were federalists. Second, of course they didn't; In 1776, medical "care" was practically nonexistent and life expectancy was about 35. You could also pay a doctor (or healer) with a chicken or a bushel of corn. I'm sure none of the Founding Fathers foresaw the mess that U.S. health care has become in 2009.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-09-13T20:16:06-06:00

ID

151892

Comment

First, not all of the founders were federalists. No, but based on the document as written it is clear who won the argument between the federalists and the anti-federalists. Given their general distrust of centralized federal power, it's my opinion that they wouldn't have supported a federal public option for public health care if it existed in their time, or justified it as part of "promoting the general welfare". And they were pretty careful to use the word "promote" rather than "provide" as if to say that government had an indirect role in people's happiness and pursuits. Besides it's a moot point anyway since the "limited gov't" boat sailed a long time ago. The question is whether we can provide such a program in response to the here-and-now crisis of affordable healthcare.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-09-13T21:43:58-06:00