affect their welfare. This too is a conflict of interest.
Since there is a large segment of the population which is directly tied to the government and its funding and since most people tend to be self-serving; they are naturally are going to vote for those individuals who promise to continue to support their government funding – not because it is in the best interest of country as a whole, but because it is in their personal best interest. This is a conflict of interest and creates a problem for all.
The beauty of the democratic government devised by the Founding Fathers was the ability to put into place a set of checks and balances so that no one arm of the government could gain excessive control. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers could not think of everything, nor anticipate all future scenarios; and, it is quite obvious they never envisioned the situation we have today where the majority of the people are either directly or indirectly dependent upon the government. The Founding Fathers envisioned the federal government as being a relatively small body, not one that is so intertwined with society that it directly or indirectly affects more than half the population.
A simple solution to this complex problem of so many people able to affect the democracy to the point that it is more self-serving than it is what is best for society is to take away their right to vote in those situations which can be construed as a conflict of interest. The ability to vote is more of a privilege than it is a right. We do not allow minors to vote. If we did, they would probably vote and get into office someone who promised them ice cream every day. If prisoners were allowed to vote, I am sure they would vote for someone who supported no penalties for a crime. So how is that any different than someone who has the right to vote for someone who can increase their welfare check? If you are dependent upon the government, then you forfeit your right to vote.
A simple solution would be to temporarily restrict a person’s voting right when it can be shown to materially affect them directly. For example, anyone receiving direct monetary aid from the government should not be allowed to vote for a representative who can influence that aid. This would include not only those individuals on welfare and social security but those in government services, such as the military and postal workers. This sounds harsh, but step outside the box for a moment and think about it.
To quote John F. Kennedy: “For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small world. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we all are mortal.” In essence, we all share common needs. And even though we may not at the time benefit directly from decisions made by our representatives, we entrust our representatives to make decisions on our behalf which they believe to be in the best interests of all the people for all times. We entrust them, without feeling the pressure to appease certain constituents at a particular time in order for them to remain in office as our representative, to rise about the immediate situation and make wise decisions which affect all constituents for all time – not just those who currently are receiving the benefits.
In doing so, the elected representatives should be able to make the appropriate decisions which provide an optimum and balanced budget which supports the military, spurs the economy, provides necessary services, help for the poor, and protects the rights of all individuals as equitably and economically and as sustainable as possible.
Health Insurance and Health Care
Health care and health insurance are universal problems common to all. Therefore, it should be a fundamental privilege to all to have basic health care and protection from catastrophic medical expenses. Generally speaking, no one intentionally wants to be sick with a catastrophic illness for the mere purpose of financially taking advantage of their health insurer. And, without coverage, just one incident can be financially devastating to them and ruin their life, and others, and often for many years. At present, typically those who least can afford a major financial setback due to an illness are the ones most likely not to be able to afford the protection offered by health insurance. This hurts society as a whole. Therefore, the government should provide basic catastrophic health care insurance to all, at a value that would not be considered an unusual financial hardship for anyone to typically endure. This value would change with cost of living and inflation. Similarly the government should provide basic health care (yearly physicals, common vaccines, medicines for the more common illnesses) to all at no cost to the individual; thereby encouraging everyone to act promptly whenever they become ill and to be proactive against potential illnesses.
Individuals can still elect to pay for additional health insurance coverage; for example, to cover medical expenses between zero and the catastrophic level, or to provide income in the event they become unemployed because of the illness, and so forth. But for the most part, most major health insurance needs would be covered by a universal health care program. The same universal health care would be used by all, from the store clerk to the United States Senator. No one should receive privileged coverage.
Those most against this type of program are of course those who profit the most from not having a universal health insurance, namely the health insurance companies. A simple way to implement the program would be to expand the current Medicare program to cover everyone, not just those over a certain age limit. Abolish Medicaid, since all people will be covered equally under the program and all catastrophic and preventive medical needs would be covered. And abolish the special insurance our Congressmen receive. If they are required to develop an insurance coverage that they too must use, they are more likely to create a coverage that is good for all.
Soon, with individual genetic genome knowledge becoming available to all, people will know what they will likely face in the future in terms of illness. It is all a matter of statistics and time. Therefore, the only way to be about as fair as you can be to all for the least cost to society is to place all individuals under one single health care insurance program. This is similar to military protection. Is it better to have 50 military units, one for each state to protect the nation or a single military supported by all states? Likewise, it is better to have one insurance program rather than a large number of insurance programs. Risk and cost has to be dispersed evenly. If you are one of the few that does not require lots of insurance, consider yourself lucky.
It is an expensive system, but for the society as a whole, it is definitely less expensive than the current inefficient and inequitable systems that are in place and certainly worth the tax burden because of its offset savings to the entire society. Universal health care insurance is a simple solution to a complex problem.
Disability and Life Insurance
Like health insurance, disability and life insurance are universal problems common to all. Therefore, it should be a fundamental privilege to have disability and life insurance protection from a catastrophic event such as a long term disability or an untimely death. Generally speaking, no one intentionally wants to become disabled or die for the mere purpose of financially taking advantage of their insurer. But, without coverage, just one incident can be financially devastating to them and ruin their life, and others, and often for many years. At present, those who can least afford a major financial setback due to a disability or death, are the ones most likely not to be able to afford the protection offered by disability and life insurance.
Therefore, the government should provide basic catastrophic disability and life insurance to all, at a value that would be considered sufficient enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living for either the one disabled or those dependents left without a means of economic support in the event of death. This value would change with the change in cost of living and inflation and the person’s age and life circumstances. One can elect to pay for additional disability or life insurance coverage; for example, to supplement their income should they become disabled or death benefit for their dependents. However, a minimum coverage would always be provided to all members of
society.
The disability and life insurance coverage would be provided to all, from the store clerk to the United States Senator. No one should receive privileged coverage. Those against the idea are obviously those who profit the most from privatized insurance, namely life and disability insurance companies. However, they can still sell compete in the supplemental disability and life insurance markets. Creating a universal life and disability insurance program for all and you will have a simple solution to a complex problem.
Penalty Inequality
Laws should apply equally to everyone; however, there are some people whose penalty for violating the law should be greater than the average person; this group of people is the one who are entrusted in supporting the law. Society gives special treatment and respect to the officers of the law. When there is a question of judgment, their word is given more credence. After all, they are supposed to be the enforcers of the law. The same can be said of lawyers and politicians. Therefore, whenever one of