Tag Archives: Welfare

Why libertarians should care about the breakdown of the family

Stephen Baskerville explains how the breakdown of marriage leads to bigger government and less liberty.

Excerpt:

Unmarried women and single mothers (the main abortion constituency) are more affluent and better-educated than two decades ago.  They are also more politicized and comprise Obama’s most committed and vocal supporters, having voted for him by 70%.

As with many measures designed to weaken the family, no general public clamor preceded the move to nationalize medicine, apart from a few vocal constituencies.  One of the biggest was single women.  “American voters in general may shy away from ‘radical’ steps such as importing a Canadian-style (health care) system,” the liberal polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner reported some years ago.  “Unmarried women, however, embrace such a powerful step.”

[…]Sadly, many unmarried women live — willingly or not — to some degree in dependency on the state. And for single, middle-class women whose incomes disqualify them for Medicaid, health care is the most expensive cost.

[…]Statistics now reveal that welfare has been a powerful force behind the break-up of the family in low-income families. Now, in the middle class, we see the breakdown coming largely through divorce and the “liberated” lifestyles to which much of it can be attributed. Yet our growing allegiance to an ever-increasing culture of divorce now demands ever-expanding “services,” such as government medicine.

So, public medicine, like all welfare, facilitates family dissolution. And the breakdown of the family in turn creates a constituency pushing for more welfare, fostering a vicious circle of government growth and social decay.  It just so happens that all of this also builds electoral support for the party that enacts it.

Libertarians need to be practical: you need social conservatives and you ought to be actively promoting traditional marriage.

Massachusetts firms canceling health coverage due to rising costs

From the Boston Globe. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget.

Since April 1, the date many insurance contracts are renewed for small businesses, the owners of about 90 small companies terminated their insurance plans with Braintree-based broker Jeff Rich and indicated in a follow-up survey that they were relying on publicly-funded insurance for their employees.

In Sandwich, business consultant Bill Fields said he has been hired by small businesses to enroll about 400 workers in state-subsidized care since April, because the company owners said they could no longer afford to provide coverage. Fields said that is by far the largest number he has handled in such a short time.

“They are giving up out of frustration,’’ Fields said of the employers. “Most of them are very compassionate but they simply can’t afford health insurance any more.’’

[…]The Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy annually surveys employers and found no significant drop in coverage as of the end of 2009, when more than three-quarters of companies offered health insurance.

But insurance brokers say the pace of terminations has picked up considerably since then among small companies, of which there are thousands in Massachusetts. Many of these companies — restaurants, day-care centers, hair salons, and retail shops — typically pay such low wages that their workers qualify for state-subsidized health insurance when their employers drop their plans.

“Those employers are trying to keep their doors open, and to the extent they can cut expenses, they will cut health insurance because they know their people can go to Commonwealth Care,’’ said Mark Gaunya, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Underwriters, a trade group representing more than 1,000 brokers and other insurance professionals.

Remember, Obamacare is patterned after these state-run health care plans from Massachusetts and Tennessee. These plans try to cover more people, which increases demand. But supply is the same. What results is a shortage. Prices rise. And when prices price, employers can no longer afford to pay for health care coverage for their employees. You can’t keep your health care plan when the state takes over health care. They are going to have to cut costs and you are going to have your coverage limited.

Here’s what the ultra-left-wing New York Times has to say about the move by companies to reduce health care choices and cut costs.

Excerpt:

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

[…]But choice — or at least choice that will not cost you — is likely to be increasingly scarce as health insurers and employers scramble to find ways of keep premiums from becoming unaffordable. Aetna, Cigna, the UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint are all trying out plans with limited networks.

The size of these networks is typically much smaller than traditional plans. In New York, for example, Aetna offers a narrow-network plan that has about half the doctors and two-thirds of the hospitals the insurer typically offers. People enrolled in this plan are covered only if they go to a doctor or hospital within the network, but insurers are also experimenting with plans that allow a patient to see someone outside the network but pay much more than they would in a traditional plan offering out-of-network benefits.

It’s happening, folks. The only choice that liberals want you to have is the choice to kill unborn babies and to marry anyone or anything you want. They don’t want you to have a choice to keep the money you earn, or to spend the money you earn on whatever you want. You can’t buy health care products and services unless they allow you to buy health care products and services. They believe that the economy works better when you spread the wealth around.

Round-up of news stories from around the world

I read Neil Simpson’s latest round-up. He linked to an article on the new DISCLOSE bill passed by the Democrats, which outlaws free speech for some people. Not unions, of course. Basically, if you’re a Democrat, you still have free speech. Other people – not so much.

Well, I liked his round-up a lot, so here’s mine. I hope it’s as good.

Germany

From Business Week. (H/T Health Care BS via ECM)

Government-run doctors are striking for 5% raises during a worldwide recession.

Excerpt:

Some 15,000 doctors across Germany are staging a walkout to press for higher pay and better working conditions, a union said on Monday.

Doctors at about 200 public clinics in most German states were on strike and 4,000 gathered for a protest in Munich, the Marburger Bund union said in a statement.

The walkout is scheduled to last all week, but the union stressed it could continue indefinitely if the towns and cities running the clinics don’t make a better offer.

[…]The 700 clinics run by towns and cities represent about one-third of all German hospitals and employ 55,000 doctors.

Gee, I wonder what would happen if private and church-run companies went on strike? Oh wait. That would never happen since they would be out of business in a moment. Maybe we shouldn’t have government-run health care… it’s bad for consumers.

Canada

From the Calgary Herald.

New political party in Alberta has dynamite policies!

Excerpt:

Wildrose Alliance party members approved some controversial resolutions Saturday at their party convention, including allowing workers to opt out of unions and examining a provincial police force, but they left other hot button issues on the table.

Resolutions giving Albertans the unequivocal right to own firearms and support the development of nuclear power were both defeated.

And more policies:

  • Whistleblower protection and better funding for the auditor general
  • Supporting school choice legislation that would let students attend school wherever they want and could open the door to more funding of private schools
  • More privately delivered health care

Wow, too bad they had to throw out the guaranteed right to own firearms, but at least their hearts are in the right place. I wonder what Alberta is like? Do any of you live in Alberta? Can you leave me a comment?

Australia

From Investors Business Daily.

Australian Labor Party throws out crazy socialist leader.

Excerpt:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s surprise ouster by his own party Tuesday came with a teary farewell hailing his role in Australia’s economy. Maybe it wasn’t such a bright idea to imagine it was his golden goose.

Seven months ago, nobody would have thought the well-liked socialist prime minister with less than three years in office would meet such an ignominious end, blubbering after he was thrown out by members of his own Labor Party Tuesday.

[…]It was a bad fall for the man dubbed Australia’s Barack Obama.

Like the latter, the youthful Rudd initiated costly health care, home weatherization, entitlement, and global warming pork barrel projects. In the process, he blew out the Australian budget.

When the time came to pay the bill, he effectively committed political suicide by calling for a 40% tax on Aussie mining companies.

[…]When news of Rudd’s tax hikes suggested a bid to expropriate companies’ profits, the stock market took a beating.

Ooops. That’s why it’s a bad idea to let socialists run your government. I mean – it’s a bad idea if you like having a job and being able to find a new job if you don’t like the one you have or you get laid off.

United States

From the radically leftist Los Angeles Times. (H/T Newsbusters)

Welfare recipients using state-issued debit cards to withdraw money at casino ATMs.

Excerpt:

The casinos are listed on a Department of Social Services website that allows welfare recipients to search for addresses of ATMs where they can withdraw cash provided under the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program. The monthly grant ranges up to $694; most of the ATMs impose a withdrawal limit of about $300 per day.

[…]The cash portion of California’s welfare benefits comes from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Each year, California gets $3.7 billion from the federal government for the program, while state and local governments kick in an additional $2.9 billion.

Maybe it isn’t a good idea for the state to transfer money away from people who create jobs to people who think that gambling is the equivalent of a job. And since federal money is being used to provide this welfare, I’m paying for it. Oh well. I didn’t really need the money anyway. I’m sure that the people who voted for Obama got their warm fuzzy feeling for “helping the poor” – using my money.

That last article about the poor reminds me of something I read on The Bumbling Genius about how liberal elites view the poor. The solution is never bad character. The solution is always to give them more money.