Healthcare and The Rights of Man

With our Congressional Democrats writhing about trying to find the votes to pass the latest version of so-called "Health Care Reform", I've been doing a lot of thinking about rights, obligations, and freedom.

Here's the thing: everyone having health care sounds good.  Yeah.  I mean, all things being equal, who doesn't think that's a good idea?  And there may yet be a smart way to get there, but all the bills waved at us by the Dems so far aren't the way.  Why not, you ask?

Ok, let's say that we agree that all citizens have the right to health care (I do not necessarily agree, but for the sake of discussion, I'll concede the point).  Now, we have created a right, all shiny and new.  But now there's a problem, some of us can't afford it.  So we have to help them pay for it, because despite what you may have heard, it ain't free.  Who's gonna pay for it?  Why the government, or course.

But hang on..where does the government get their money?  Well, they can borrow it or they can take it.  Borrowing it means they took out a loan in your name (as a taxpayer) without your permission or signature, and you are partially responsible for paying it back.  Or they can just raise your taxes, tax the health care plan that you worked hard for, or just take it out of your check...also without your permission by the way.  Do you have a right to your money?  Is your right to the money you earned more important than your neighbors right to health care they didn't work for?

Secondly, let's look at this notion of health care as a right.  The government cannot create a new right, regardless of what they tell you.  Rights are inherent in man from birth, you have them simply because you are alive...endowed by your Creator, you might say.  Our Declaration of Independence says:


"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..."

Ok then, so rights come from God (or whomever you chose to call him).  Did God give us the right to health care?  And then  if we already have rights, what is the government for?  Most people don't read the next sentence in the Declaration, or they'd know:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Did you catch that?  To secure these rights.  Governments are supposed to protect our liberties, not create or enforce them, or even make us pay for them.  And the consent of the governed is required...if you don't want government help, the Declaration of Independence says that's your choice, not Nancy Pelosi's. Read the rest of the document if you want to know what happens to governments that rule without the consent of the governed.

Rather that create a right that doesn't exist, or fund this new right by unconstitutional taxation, why not work to fix the problems that exist in health care now?  Stop listening to the special interests groups and lobbyists, and start listening to doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, and their patients.  Find out why people can't get or keep health insurance, and remove the roadblocks where we can.  Find out what makes health care so unnecessarily expensive (like baseless lawsuits) and let's work to streamline the process without adversely affecting cost or quality.

Why won't they?  Because then they can't claim to have given us a new right, and claim victory.  And because it makes too much dang sense.

Nolanbuck

The Fort Hood Shooting

I'd like to begin by saying my thoughts & prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones in this unspeakable horror, and I pray as well that those wounded make a complete (and hopefully speedy) recovery.  And thank God for heroes and heroines like this lady.

It is a shocking thing to know that our soldiers aren't safe on their own bases on U.S. soil, but I guess that just speaks to the dangerous world we live in.

We have been told by our President (the same guy who apparently nearly forgot to mention the shooting at all yesterday) not to jump to conclusions in this matter, and for the most part that's good, if mostly self-evident, advice.  But a few conclusions can be made here based on what we know.

1. 13 unarmed people were gunned down in cold blood.
2. The killer was, by all reports, motivated by religious and political views.
3. That spells terrorism.

Terrorism does not have to be a grand nefarious plot cooked up in a cave in Waziristan, an act of violence to further a political or religious agenda is terrorism, even if performed by a lone wacko.

Don't tell me to wait and see, the forthcoming facts are just going to fill in the blanks.  But the question of whether this was terrorism had already been answered when the first bullet left Hasan's barrel.  And don't make this into an anti-muslim discussion.  It's not terrorism because he's Muslim, it's terrorism because he did it because he was Muslim. This was not a "man-caused disaster" (the Dust Bowl was a "man-caused disaster") this was an act of terrorism...albeit by a lone crazed assailant.

Nolanbuck