AIP column: Declaration of Dependence
posted at 10:55 am on September 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
What does the more moderate health-care overhaul plan from the Democrats say about their view of the nation and the American character? My new AIP column looks at the implications of the Baucus plan, released this week, and its structure of federal subsidies. The bill promises to turn the US into a real welfare state:
However, two aspects of Baucus’ proposal are shocking departures from the traditional American relationship with its government. First, the Baucus plan imposes a mandate for all Americans to buy insurance. No authority in the Constitution gives Congress this power; it would be akin to having Congress mandate that all adults buy a cell phone. In fact, the Constitution only allows Congress authority over interstate commerce, a clause routinely abused but never before used to argue for a mandate on individuals to buy anything – especially not health insurance, which Congress has forbidden to be sold across state lines in the first place.
The second departure is more subtle and insidious. Baucus has proposed that the federal government supply subsidies to needy individuals and families for the purchase of the now-mandated insurance. However, the definition of needy defies both math and common sense. The Baucus plan proposes those subsidies be available to households at up to 300% of the poverty level of income – or about $66,000 per year income.
If that sounds like a pretty good annual household income, you’d be right. In fact, the 2007 median household income in the US was $50,233. Roughly half of all households in America are above this income level, and half below it. It is a solidly middle-class income by definition.
How many people make $66,000 per year or less, and therefore would be eligible for federal health-insurance subsidies? According to the Census Bureau’s 2007 survey, 72.1 million of the nation’s 116.8 million households earned $65,000 or less. The Baucus plan would make 61.7% of American households dependent on government assistance, far more than half and well on the way to two-thirds.
And that’s an improvement over the House plan, which sets the limit at 400% of the poverty level. That plan would put 87.3 million households into a government welfare plan to pay for the health insurance Congress mandates. That would come close to three quarters of all Americans receiving government assistance.
Most Americans would support some sort of public role in supporting the poor, but this goes far beyond that impulse. No one in their right mind would call a family earning $66,000 per year “poor,” especially not in today’s economy. The Democratic vision for America and Americans is a vast dependent class, not independent individuals, and class warfare rather than equal opportunity.
This data should be shouted from the rooftops. Do we really want to make America a country where 62% of the people are dependent on the federal dole? Is that the Democratic idea of prosperity?
I want to thank the folks at AIP for a quick turnaround on this column, which I submitted shockingly late for publication. Don’t forget to read the other fine writers at AIP, too. John Hanlon notes that Obama’s speech last night worked well — back in March, when he first gave it. Karen Untereker has a new reading list for conservatives. Rick Moran warns that the FHA needs a bailout, and that we’re continuing to ignore the lessons of the collapse.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
My question is assuming the worst and some form of this monstrosity is passed, can this be challenged as an assault on our Constitution?
search4truth on September 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Guys, there’s no way obama care passes. It’s dead.
Count the votes. Too many Heath Shuler, Mike Ross, Blanche Lincoln, and Chuck Grassleys exist for the dems to do anything more than vote on the color of the Capitol carpet.
intrade is actually DOWN since last night’s speech, to 24%.
http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/timeAndSalesForm.jsp?contractId=683800&tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com
battleoflepanto1571 on September 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I believe that the reason that health insurance (like most other insurance) is not sold across state lines is that state regulators forbid it. Congress could probably under the commerce clause require states to allow cross-line purchases.
levi from queens on September 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Yes it can (even though it wont pass to begin with), but it can and will.
This puppy is unconstitutional.
battleoflepanto1571 on September 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Nanny state, soup lines and more “opportunity” for all….. here we come Nicaragua, here we come Guatemala, here we come Columbia.
Hey kids, remember back in the United States of American, when men and women were free…? lemme tell you about it.
ted c on September 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Oh, Ed, that wouldn’t be polite, would it?
Just go, cap in hand, to the White House and say “please, sir, am I missing some aspect of Your holy wisdom here?”
I see Jonah Goldberg is following the party line re Joe Wilson, too. Why am I not surprised?
When will you “principled conservatives” decide that the Chicago Jesus’s lies, distortions and dangerous tactics should be vigorously shown for what they are? What will he have to do to galvanize you into public resistance, not just “reasonable” words to the already converted?
Calling a president a liar, booing and other “not-nice” tactics did work for the Democrats, you know. Sweet reason has put us on the outside and, as long as our civility lets the Dems run free, they will stay there.
MrScribbler on September 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM
I’d like to know if Congress will still be able to get their gold-plated, private HC plans on my dime?
You jerks like this scheme so much, sign yourself and your families up first.
Broom the lot, this is getting way out of control.
Bishop on September 10, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I like how Obama mocked the accusations that some had about Social Security and medicare leading us all to socialism,, in the same speech he is pushing a government take over of health care! I could not stop laughing at that one! Great joke!
JellyToast on September 10, 2009 at 11:07 AM
http://www.anncoulter.org/
I could write a one page, neh, one paragraph plan that is 1000 times better than anything the Trojan Donkey’s come up with.
Obama – all heil, I mean hail, the Great Divider! I mean Uniter…
kirkill on September 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I think we all know the answer to that one! “Let them eat cake”
search4truth on September 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Unlike 99% of the stuff justified under the Commerce Clause, such an action would, in my opinion, actually fall under the authority granted by the Commerce Clause.
MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Depends on where, and how many kids. It’d be tough to raise 4 kids on 66,000 in NYC. Sh*t I find it tough to make 40k work for my damn self with prices what they are in this town.
ernesto on September 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Classification by income levels becomes chaotic when hyperinflation kicks in. Also, make sure to read the 5 pages of plans to enhance government revenue the Baucus plan contains.
a capella on September 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Obama Liar
ppaint on September 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Unlike 99% of the stuff justified under the Commerce Clause, such an action would, in my opinion, actually fall under the authority granted by the Commerce Clause.
MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I agree. It would actually be refreshing to see such a routinely abused section of the Constitution used in its correct, intended sense to accomplish something positive, namely, forbidding states to artificially limit competition in this particular industry. You’ve got my vote.
jwolf on September 10, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Depends on where, and how many kids. It’d be tough to raise 4 kids on 66,000 in NYC. Sh*t I find it tough to make 40k work for my damn self with prices what they are in this town.
ernesto on September 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM
No, no, no, a thousand times no. Do not insult those who are genuinely poor with this false equivalence. 66K is not poor anywhere. It may mean a lifestyle much less comfortable than you would wish or think you deserve, but it is not poor, nor is it remotely close to poor.
jwolf on September 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM
I am not a lawyer but is passing this bill even legal?
And why pray, is NOONE pointing this out in any paper of repute?
nyx on September 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Any time you have to analyze federal legislation through the Commerce Clause cases there’s no simple answer. But recent cases (cf. Lopez: Gun-Free School Zones) suggest there may be some limits on federal power. That insurance is explicitly regulated to not be interstate commerce is a significant fact, IMO of course.
The problem is that the Commerce Clause has long been (since FDR) the hungry (not to mention obese, rude, and foul-smelling) exception swallowing the rule of a government of enumerated powers with reserve power to the states and people. Fact is, most things Congress does these days doesn’t easily fit within powers enumerated in Article I, Section VIII.
Beagle on September 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
First, it doesn’t appear to break out the number of households already depending on Medicare or Medicaid and thus essentially unaffected by this. You can make a case against those programs, but it has nothing to do with the president’s proposal.
Second, the column assumes that all employers will drop coverage and therefore every American whose income makes them eligible will move immediately to a subsidized plan. This is ludicrous.
A reasonable number might be 10-15 million households (30 million uninsured divided by 2 or three members per family) or less than 10% of American households actually taking advantage of this.
Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Broom at 11:07
Your point is excellent and needs to be made more often. It is so unfair that even children understand it.
I framed the healthcare reform debate in neutral terms to my grandkids, and then asked them to guess what group of people the government excluded from its new healthcare rules. They guessed lots of groups but did not get it right. They were dumbfounded when I told them that the government was going to exclude itself from its own new rules.
GaltBlvnAtty on September 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM
The latest National Healthcare horror story from the UK, this about says it all. This is not what America is all about. What the hell are those soon to be unelected idiots in Washington thinking?
Tommy_G on September 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM
The whole thing’s a fiasco. Turns out Odinglenuts is every bit the leader I thought he might be back when I first started finding out about him.
mr.blacksheep on September 10, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Explain your analysis, on what basis do your “reasonable” numbers rest?
Bishop on September 10, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Solution is simple.
Move.
MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Blue,
The column said this:
Why would an employer continue to pay for health insurance if they can drop the plan and the employee would get subsidized by the gov’t? Believing that such would not happen is ludicrous.
Moreover, as to whether some of these same individuals are already eligible for Medicare or Medicaid – probably some are. But not nearly the 61% that the Baucus plan would cover.
The point is, republicans would probably support something along the Baucus line if the mandate was eliminated and the subsidy eligibility was reduce to, say, 150% of the poverty level.
Add in to the Baucus plan an allowance for insurers to sell across state lines and some tort reform, and there is probably a compromise bill everyone could support and that would achieve some real benefit.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM
What is annoying about this topic and many of today’s political issues is that a moderate position is one that is defined a person who will ignore the constitution and founding principles of this country. A “far right” person is one that sticks to these principles. It is all backasswards. We need a President that is willing to use constitutional arguments to defend or refute bills.
WashJeff on September 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM
It can be challenged, though I note that Social Security and McCain-Feingold were also challenged on similar grounds, ultimately unsuccessfully.
The best time to defeat this is before it gets out of Congress.
steveegg on September 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Perhaps that $66,000 is indexed for after the massive inflation hits. Todays $66K is tomorrows $20K.
loudmouth883 on September 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM
This is part of the Democrat/socialists strategy to solidify perpetual power. Once a majority of Americans don’t pay taxes and still get free stuff from us poor bastards who do, they have no incentive to ever vote for Republicans/conservatives.
It’s too bad that there were no income taxes in 1776. The Founders would have prohibited non-taxpayers from voting. They thought of everything else although contemporary politicians routinely trample all over the Constitution.
Once the socialists get enough of America sucking at the public teat, we’ll be in real trouble.
orlandocajun on September 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Its definitly unconstitutional to make people buy health insurance. Great column!
becki51758 on September 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Since they voted themselves exempt from ANY ‘public option’ plan, what else do you expect them to have? Those poor politicians need some form of healthcare.
Phil-351 on September 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Also,
What would be the reasoning to subsidize at up to $60k /year. At that income range, most jobs are already providing health insurance.
It is the minimum wage type jobs that would not provide health insurance (i.e., the working poor) and who are likely not eligible for some other program currently. There does not seem to be any real rational to cover people making more than $30k a year (and I even question whether there are many jobs paying over about $25k a year that do not offer health insurance).
I would also seek some de-regulation of what has to be included in plans. For instance, let mental health be separated out and be an extra that people can purchase – much like people can get just liability vs. comprehensive auto insurance.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Americans these days have no clue what poverty is. Ask your grandparents…or any relatives from Apalachia during the depression. Hear about kids taking turns going to school because the family only had one suit of clothes for the kids to share or the family that only had turnips to eat IF and WHEN there was food.
The poverty-stricken in our cities have indoor plumbing, shelter, transportation, HEALTH CARE, food, and clothing (not to mention flat screen TVs, tatoos, cigarettes, manicures, and designer handbags).
Laura in Maryland on September 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Broomkeel haul the lot, this is getting way out of control.Bishop on September 10, 2009 at 11:07 AM
FIFY
Laura in Maryland on September 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM
“Hey buddy, can ya spare a trillion bucks? I haven’t had a bite all day.”
So I bit him.
Akzed on September 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM
…and chrome wheels that keep on spinning after the car has stopped.
WashJeff on September 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Setting aside constitutional arguments for the moment, I would almost be willing to support an individual mandate, if people were allowed to purchase only catastrophic care coverage rather than a regular comprehensive plan. That way young, healthy single people would not have to buy expensive unnecessary insurance but would be covered if they were struck with a major illness – but would not have to pay (and I would not have to subsidize) an expensive comprehensive plan.
Again, this is like auto insurance. Most kids get just liability – not comprehensive coverage on their first beater car.
I don’t think kids in this catagory should be entitled to any subsidy, however.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Akzed on September 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM
You brought me a smile today. Thanks! :)
jwolf on September 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM
And, finally, I’d add into the bill that medical care providers have to check citizenship / residency status on anyone they treat and report all illegals. That way, as illegals try to make use of our emergency rooms, etc., for free, we can catch and deport them (or at the very least, bill Mexico for the care).
This would have the effect of speeding up self-deportation amongs the illegals already here, as they would be deprived of medical care.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM
It’s a back-of-the envelope thing, but since 30 million is the new uninsured and the “average” household has 2.5 members, I figured 2-3 uninsured per household (since most insurance is by family).
To begin with, union employees and government workers will likely not shift. Second, businesses will make the decision based on what their employees negotiate. There may be some shift, but not a mass movement.
Congress has the same health care choices that every government employee, from a janitor to a Supreme Court justice does. And it’s a good program. As a government employee, they can choose from a variety of options, from basic to gold-plated. But, if they want “gold-plated” they have to pay a substantial amount out of pocket. They are no more subsidized by the taxpayer than any other employee.
My private sector insurance, by the way, has generally been marginally better than my government insurance was, so no fear that there’s some huge rip-off going on.
Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Isn’t this what we said about McCain-Feingold too? D.C. is out of control of the Constitution.
TugboatPhil on September 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Partially true. Private employers are, I believe something like 80% non-union. So, those are extremely likely to shift the cost to the gov’t. How you can say not is beyond me.
Also, most gov’t (state and local) that is not unionized will shift immediately to save costs.
So, your back of the envelope figures are not remotely realistic. Probably 70% of the individuals eligible for the subsidy would end up receiving it.
but again, what is the rational for having subsidy eligibility so high? Most jobs (I would estimate 95%) paying more than $25k / year offer health insurance. So the subsidy level should really be much, much lower. Otherwise it is just wealth redistribution.
If the plan is to cover people, there is no need to set teh subsidy level that high. If the plan is to get as many people as possible hooked on gov’t entitlements, then a subsidy level that high makes sense.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Keep in mind that the $66,000 figure is for a family of four, so it’s not exactly a huge income, and that the average premium paid by employers is about $12,000 a year. [p. 7] That’s a pretty good chunk of change out of an income that’s already losing a good chunk to taxes and basic overhead.
Nonetheless, I could see setting the subsidy somewhat lower, although I would be curious to see what bare bones but “decent” plan would cost.
Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM
jwolf, I agree with you.
And these two comments (by jwolf and the first, by ernesto) point out the CLASS ISSUES or “feelings of entitlement” issue that generally characterises Obama’s entire perspective of politics AS ALSO THE LEFT’S overall (and Socialism, entirely).
Some people perceive life’s struggles as unjust so they demand that they be righted by “others” or government — life is hard, so, give me more, I deserve it, it’s my CLASS ENTITLEMENT to be provided with.
Life’s hard and a struggle for everyone, regardless of income level (though being born into wealth or later amassing wealth on one’s own does make the practical side of life so much easier than it is for those without either of those opportunities). But the issue of CLASS and CLASS ENTITLEMENT is inherent in Obama’s entire political views as also what is motivating this NEED by some to become increasingly dependent on government.
I blame Socialist countries eleswhere from whence many have arrived in the U.S. — they’ve arrived with Socialist, class-oriented views and self definitions and then assume that once in the U.S., that’ll be continued.
Lourdes on September 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Why isn’t Congress — overall, both parties — working to REDUCE TAXES OVERALL FOR ALL WHO PAY TAXES?
That’s the crises we actually have in this nation, why it is that no one (at least on the majority Left at this time) is pursuing such a goal.
I’ve never earned money that was not just-about halved by taxes withheld before I ever received a check.
Lourdes on September 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Ed, truly excellent article.
Diane on September 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I grew up in a household that made less than $66k for family of four. that is not even remotely near poverty. That is the whole point. that is above the median income.
$66k a year is not poverty, nor even close to it. I doubt that even 3% of families in a $66k household don’t have insurance.
Like I said, I would put the eligibility at a maximum of 150% of poverty or $33k / year. I might even be convincable to $40k a year for a family. but $66k is way too high.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 12:40 PM
May I present to you the aftermath of a city devastated by the socialist agenda to create a welfare city?
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Our freedom is Slip Slidin Away!
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Not sure when you grew up but times have likely changed. I’m pretty sure we made a lot less than $66K, too, but that was a while back.
Anyway, this isn’t supposed to be a poverty program. That’s Medicaid. It is supposed to be for the moderate-income/middle class types.
BTW, I know it’s a minor statistical quibble but the median income for a family of four was $67K in 2008, so the idea that people of above average income are being subsidized is at best misleading. (I can’t find find a U.S. breakdown for this year).
Bleeds Blue on September 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I should have made it clear that my family made less than $66k a year adjusted for inflation. the reality was around $35k year.
“median” income means 1/2 the country makes less. So, this is nothing more than a wealth distribution scheme – the top 1/2 paying the bottom half. It’s not about need, or fixing something. As you say:
It’s about getting people hooked on the gov’t. Otherwise, why have teh eligibility set so high.
I thought this whole thing was about getting the uninsured insured – not subsidizing those already insured or who can afford insurance (whether expensive or not).
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Our social net is supposed to be for those in real need, not for “moderate-income/middle class types.”
I think the urge to have gov’t provide for everyone is the real difference between the left and the right. That one statement shows why there is such a gulf between us.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM
It’s not coming out of the $66,000 income.
xblade on September 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Depends on whether they can work or not…I mean, if they were born without a head or something…
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM
That would make a great T-Shirt, anyone know if its selling anywhere??
mmcnamer1 on September 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM
SCHIP is so broad now that most familes would be covered.
davod on September 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM