Larry Kudlow: The government needs to pay 50% of healthcare costs

[DCPatriot]

@r9etb

I don't now what the answer is. I finished treatment for a potentially fatal disease last December. In my case it was going to be fatal. Sooner than later. The drug manufacturer gave me the treatment. I don't have health insurance. If they hadn't I wouldn't be talking to you now. All I know is that I wouldn't have asked for help from anyone to pay for the treatment. If it had been somewhere in the reasonable price range I would have tried to pay for it myself. A $1000 a pill is ridiculous.

My point is is that there is something wrong with the price of procedures and medications. Maybe they should try to fix that.

Very happy to see it's working out for you, regarding the medication and drug manufacturer's assistance.   

[txradioguy]

What's your view of Social Security?  Just another Commie plot?

Yes it was...implemented by a hard left President who implements may Socialist/Communist programs in this country.

As for what "general welfare" means...lets defer to the Founders and the Framers.

First up James Madison:

With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

Next up Alexander Hamilton...he was a big fan of big government...however in Federalist 83:

This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.

Madison again in Federalist 41:

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Madison further illuminated the intended meaning of the general welfare clause in a letter to Edmund Pendleton dated 1793, pointing out that the phrase was lifted from the Articles of Confederation and was intended to retain its meaning in the new Constitution.


If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.

Liberals and progressives will ALWAYS abuse the General Welfare clause and twist it to mean the Government has the right to meddle in any thing they deem "good" for the people...when that was clearly not the intention of the people who wrote the Constitution.

So the words general welfare must mean something other than a grant of power for Congress to do whatever it pleased. What exactly did the framers mean?

Two words in the clause hold the key. General and common. The phrase simply means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/28/the-general-welfare-clause-is-not-about-writing-checks/

[bigheadfred]

Very happy to see it's working out for you, regarding the medication and drug manufacturer's assistance.   

Thanks DC. But here is the thing. If they hadn't helped me I was done. I wasn't going to beg for my life. And I wasn't going to stick around for the lingering BS either. It had gotten (last October) that bad. I have to thank my wife. She did the legwork to get me treated. I was to the point I just didn't care anymore.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

When a company is holding onto a life saving drug so they can make a 5000% profit (or more) that seems wrong to me. I knew three people that died of what I had.  They all basically committed suicide. They gave up because they thought they had no hope for treatment. I doubt they show as a statistic of dying from the disease.

 I think the government should be involved in in health care at least to the extent of reducing predatory practices.

When my wife had gall bladder issues, shortly after my employer based HC ended because of the ACA, our GP sent us to a surgeon for a consultation. He treated us like crap and told her to go to the emergency room if she thought she had a problem. Then told us he wasn't going to charge us for wasting his time. So I took her to the ER. They ran some tests and did surgery a few hours later. The damn thing burst during the surgery and they spent some extra time rinsing.

The upshot is this first surgeon sent us a bill later because they called him in for a consult before her surgery. That went over like a brick shithouse. I called that SOB and cursed a blue streak. And never paid him a dime.

Was the drug on patent do you know? Because eventually it would be off patent and in theory their ability to price it that obscenely would disappear.

[r9etb]

So we will apparently disagree. Show me one place in scripture where the soul of a community is saved in the sense of heaven and Hell. The individuals in that community may be saved from eternal suffering, but the community isn't saved because the guys down the street weren't pimping their daughters out, only the guys down the street.The relationship between a person and their God is moral and individual; that between a community and that person legal, determined by the whims of men.

You're kidding, right? 

Just for starters, the whole of the Old Testament is about the relationship between God and His Chosen People (taken as an aggregate); the rise and fall of the Nation of Israel is explicitly understood to be predicated on how the community has acted in accord with God's will. 

You can't read Paul's letters without realizing that they're addressed to communities of believers, often with messages for how those communities ought to behave. 

Certainly the Bible speaks to and for individuals; I know for myself that God pays attention to us individually.  But that's not the entirety of it.  We're not individuals only: as humans our proper state is to live as part of a community.  But you cannot read the Bible as only a lesson for individuals, because it is not meant to be read that way.

Look at what Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12%3A12-27&version=ESV):

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ....

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.  And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?  But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.  If all were a single member, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, yet one body....

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

In that last line, Paul makes a careful distinction: the Body of Christ, and the individuals in it.  To Paul, and indeed to any member of a church, the Body of Christ -- the community of believers -- is a thing that is different from, and in many ways greater than, the sum of the individuals who may attend services on any given Sunday.  God has expectations of His Church, not just the individuals in it.  A congregation has a life of its own, and in my experience the Holy Spirit often works through the congregation, not just among individuals.

[bigheadfred]

Was the drug on patent do you know? Because eventually it would be off patent and in theory their ability to price it that obscenely would disappear.

Yes, it is. I don't know about exclusivity to marketing though. There are many sides to the issue. The high price means more people can't get treated so the disease spreads. It isn't a stand-alone drug. It has to be used in combination with an off-patent drug. An older drug that has been used for years in the older type treatment.  3.5 million known cases of the disease in the U.S. and about 170 million worldwide. Where do you draw the line on price? The same is true for other drugs. I know people who go to the Mexican border to buy a years worth of their medications because of their price.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yes, it is. I don't know about exclusivity to marketing though. There are many sides to the issue. The high price means more people can't get treated so the disease spreads. It isn't a stand-alone drug. It has to be used in combination with an off-patent drug. An older drug that has been used for years in the older type treatment.  3.5 million known cases of the disease in the U.S. and about 170 million worldwide. Where do you draw the line on price? The same is true for other drugs. I know people who go to the Mexican border to buy a years worth of their medications because of their price.

Do you know what year it goes off patent?

[r9etb]

As for what "general welfare" means...

Cutting to the chase, the Constitution does not say what it means; and yet it's mentioned as one of the enumerated powers of Congress:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.


The words "general Welfare of the United States" are written down, and Congress is authorized to provide for it; so presumably the words have meaning in and of themselves.  You'll notice that Madison didn't actually say what the term means: he just talks around it. 

At any rate, Madison himself makes clear that he does not consider the words to be filler, with no meaning whatever -- he would not have written about them at such length in Federalist 41 had he believed so.  Madison makes clear that he prefers that the term be interpreted narrowly, on which point I agree with him.  But he never clearly defines what the words mean.

And so it is up to somebody to decide what the words mean, and US vs. Butler decided that the authority to decide rests with Congress, as is fitting since that's where that particular power is enumerated.  Per Butler,

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated[,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

This is reasonable, and it is not contrary in principle to how Madison meant the term to be understood.  Madison argued against its use as a means for unrestricted exercise of power; but he did not argue that it should not be used at all.

[bigheadfred]

@r9etb

We're not individuals only: as humans our proper state is to live as part of a community.

That is too broad of a brush.

[txradioguy]

Cutting to the chase, the Constitution does not say what it means; and yet it's mentioned as one of the enumerated powers of Congress:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.


The words "general Welfare of the United States" are written down, and Congress is authorized to provide for it; so presumably the words have meaning in and of themselves.  You'll notice that Madison didn't actually say what the term means: he just talks around it. 

At any rate, Madison himself makes clear that he does not consider the words to be filler, with no meaning whatever -- he would not have written about them at such length in Federalist 41 had he believed so.  Madison makes clear that he prefers that the term be interpreted narrowly, on which point I agree with him.  But he never clearly defines what the words mean.

And so it is up to somebody to decide what the words mean, and US vs. Butler decided that the authority to decide rests with Congress, as is fitting since that's where that particular power is enumerated.  Per Butler,

This is reasonable, and it is not contrary in principle to how Madison meant the term to be understood.  Madison argued against its use as a means for unrestricted exercise of power; but he did not argue that it should not be used at all.

"General welfare" is limited by the enumerated powers given to Congress in the Constitution.

Not sure how much clearer it needs to be.

It's not a blank check to allow the Government to implement cradle to grave policies on the people....like Healthcare.

[Jazzhead]

Cutting to the chase, the Constitution does not say what it means; and yet it's mentioned as one of the enumerated powers of Congress:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.


The words "general Welfare of the United States" are written down, and Congress is authorized to provide for it; so presumably the words have meaning in and of themselves.  You'll notice that Madison didn't actually say what the term means: he just talks around it. 

At any rate, Madison himself makes clear that he does not consider the words to be filler, with no meaning whatever -- he would not have written about them at such length in Federalist 41 had he believed so.  Madison makes clear that he prefers that the term be interpreted narrowly, on which point I agree with him.  But he never clearly defines what the words mean.

And so it is up to somebody to decide what the words mean, and US vs. Butler decided that the authority to decide rests with Congress, as is fitting since that's where that particular power is enumerated.  Per Butler,

This is reasonable, and it is not contrary in principle to how Madison meant the term to be understood.  Madison argued against its use as a means for unrestricted exercise of power; but he did not argue that it should not be used at all.

Quoted for truth.  It is indeed up to the Congress.   And in turn, it's up to the people to determine the members of Congress, and to boot those who insist on spending the peoples' money in foolish or wasteful or inappropriate ways.   

But Congress's power to provide for the general welfare is perfectly Constitutional.   Don't expect the courts to help do the job of reining in profligate spending.  That's the task of the voters. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Lowering prices on drugs may be as simple as reducing the patent term from 12 years to something like 6 years, IMO.

[Sanguine]

Lowering prices on drugs may be as simple as reducing the patent term from 12 years to something like 6 years, IMO.

Which will mean it is even more expensive for the first 6 years, or it doesn't get developed at all because the developer can't recover the R&D costs.

[roamer_1]

Providing for the General Welfare meant creating an environment in which individuals and trade could flourish, not cradle to grave support for the masses.

Exactly right.

In my view, Social Security was not general welfare, but an unconstitutional retirement gimmie for the folks who were already old and would never pay in as much as they were going to collect. It bought votes, but even more insidiously, it undermined private pensions and savings as well as the tendency for the young in an extended family to look after their elders.

And right again - though I would say it largely prevented private pensions and savings - the withholding often being the margin one might have been able to save.

The founders warned against the people being able to vote themselves benefits from the public coffers, and they were right.

yep.

[Bigun]

"General welfare" is limited by the enumerated powers given to Congress in the Constitution.

Not sure how much clearer it needs to be.

It's not a blank check to allow the Government to implement cradle to grave policies on the people....like Healthcare.

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

           Constitutional architect James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

 James Madison, 1792

I think he would be the go-to source to find out what the intent was!

[bigheadfred]

Which will mean it is even more expensive for the first 6 years, or it doesn't get developed at all because the developer can't recover the R&D costs.

What, then, is the point of medicine? Is it to actually help people, or make money? I'm betting money.

There is a ton of money being spent on all aspects of cancer. Do you think there are that many researchers and related people in the BUSINESS of cancer that want to see any cures?

[Jazzhead]

Which will mean it is even more expensive for the first 6 years, or it doesn't get developed at all because the developer can't recover the R&D costs.

It is indeed a trade-off.   Cutting-edge drugs are saving lives - but they are frightfully expensive to develop and bring to market.   Patent protection is a means for allowing drug companies to recoup their costs in a predictable way.   Changing the rules in midstream will stop much new drug development in its tracks. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Exactly right. Heads should roll. It wouldn't take very many impeachments before the weasels in black robes would have to shut up. There's hardly been a solitary impeachment since those black coated bastards invented 'penumbras'.

Very true congress can also reign in the courts by shrinking them. The numbers of courts and the justices there on aren't set in stone. FDR packed the courts to get his way, congress could easily unpack them.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Which will mean it is even more expensive for the first 6 years, or it doesn't get developed at all because the developer can't recover the R&D costs.

 


Look at how Bigheadfred (or whatever his name is is complaining). Everyone wants life-saving drugs, nobody wants to pay for them.


There has to be a tradeoff here somewhere folks. I know you all cannot believe in Santa Claus.

[Smokin Joe]

You're kidding, right? 

Just for starters, the whole of the Old Testament is about the relationship between God and His Chosen People (taken as an aggregate); the rise and fall of the Nation of Israel is explicitly understood to be predicated on how the community has acted in accord with God's will. 

a "Church"

You can't read Paul's letters without realizing that they're addressed to communities of believers, often with messages for how those communities ought to behave. 

Again, a "church". Not the sort of community governed strictly by legal processes, except that the Hebrews could be defined as a theocracy.
We, in case you have noticed are not a theocracy. The "community" with which you have been trying to browbeat me is a secular social construct.

Certainly the Bible speaks to and for individuals; I know for myself that God pays attention to us individually.  But that's not the entirety of it.  We're not individuals only: as humans our proper state is to live as part of a community.  But you cannot read the Bible as only a lesson for individuals, because it is not meant to be read that way.

Each individual has their personal relationship with The Almighty. After all, no two individuals have exactly the same experiences through life. While (especially Christians) are encouraged to seek the fellowship of those of like mind in Christ, that is not a demand, and Christians are also encouraged to spread the word, which means going among those who are not.

Look at what Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12%3A12-27&version=ESV):

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ....

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.  And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?  But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.  If all were a single member, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, yet one body....

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

Now you are throwing religion at me to try to make me assume some secular obligation. Nope, not buying that whole guilt trip. The argument about "community" never entered into a Church Community--otherwise GOVERNMENT would not have taken the role of doling out the fruits of the labors of those who labor to those who WILL not.

In that last line, Paul makes a careful distinction: the Body of Christ, and the individuals in it.  To Paul, and indeed to any member of a church, the Body of Christ -- the community of believers -- is a thing that is different from, and in many ways greater than, the sum of the individuals who may attend services on any given Sunday.  God has expectations of His Church, not just the individuals in it.  A congregation has a life of its own, and in my experience the Holy Spirit often works through the congregation, not just among individuals.

You are going to tell me now that the Federal Government is the Body of Christ? God may well have expectations for us to be generous with those who lack what they need, in fact He said so: "As you do for the least of these you do for me."--but He left that choice to the individual, he didn't take at gunpoint, which eliminates that choice.

As I have said, the secular community is not bound by morals but by consensus, by legalities.
It is legal to murder babies in their mother's womb, it is legal to take someone's property without even accusing them of a crime if you are the "community" (government), it is legal to take their home and give it to someone who will put more tax money in the bucket, it is legal to take from those who work and give it to those who won't--there are one hell of a lot of things the "community" does that are legal and far, far from "moral".

Frankly, after all this discussion of Government and governmental entities you have a lot of damned gall to pull religious groups out of the hat and wave them as if they are the same thing. Such is deceit, a lie to cover theft, but that was included, too: Romans 16:18 -

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

You are blatantly misrepresenting what the "general welfare" of the nation means.

Yep, general welfare keeps sounding like from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.

[txradioguy]

You are going to tell me now that the Federal Government is the Body of Christ?

@Smokin Joe for some people in the country Government has become their religion/God.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

You're kidding, right? 

Just for starters, the whole of the Old Testament is about the relationship between God and His Chosen People (taken as an aggregate); the rise and fall of the Nation of Israel is explicitly understood to be predicated on how the community has acted in accord with God's will. 

You can't read Paul's letters without realizing that they're addressed to communities of believers, often with messages for how those communities ought to behave. 

Certainly the Bible speaks to and for individuals; I know for myself that God pays attention to us individually.  But that's not the entirety of it.  We're not individuals only: as humans our proper state is to live as part of a community.  But you cannot read the Bible as only a lesson for individuals, because it is not meant to be read that way.

Look at what Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12%3A12-27&version=ESV):

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ....

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.  And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?  But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.  If all were a single member, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, yet one body....

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

In that last line, Paul makes a careful distinction: the Body of Christ, and the individuals in it.  To Paul, and indeed to any member of a church, the Body of Christ -- the community of believers -- is a thing that is different from, and in many ways greater than, the sum of the individuals who may attend services on any given Sunday.  God has expectations of His Church, not just the individuals in it.  A congregation has a life of its own, and in my experience the Holy Spirit often works through the congregation, not just among individuals.

So in terms of the ACA or it's replacement and such, do we have the right to transfer those responsibilities to unbelievers. I mean we have a moral obligation to supporte our local churches through tithes and offerings; but I don't have the right to go stop people on the street and make them do the same.

[bigheadfred]

 


Look at how Bigheadfred (or whatever his name is is complaining). Everyone wants life-saving drugs, nobody wants to pay for them.


There has to be a tradeoff here somewhere folks. I know you all cannot believe in Santa Claus.

 This current drug manufacturer didn't invent the drug. They bought the patent.

If you think I'm complaining wait until I start bitching.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

           Constitutional architect James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

 James Madison, 1792

I think he would be the go-to source to find out what the intent was!

Right on the money.