Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all! May the new year bring a return to our Constutional Liberties!

In Response

I had advised a friend of mine not to check out this blog because I know he and I will never see eye to eye on the issue of socialist health care. This is the response I received:


"I know:) I'm glad I didn't read it. I would have to point how hideously wrong you are in your reasoning why people don't have health care :) or even go on a long winded rant on how you couldn't possibly use a debunked argument as the "doctor death panel" to possibly do anything other than be yet another scare tactic. Had I bothered to read your... blog I would be greatly disappointed because usually your political rants are somewhat on key and have an actual bit of truth to them. Though I would have to agree with you on one thing. I don't have insurance because I'm too lazy and stupid to get it for myself to protect me from out of pocket expenses for injury or sickness... It obviously could have nothing to do with the fact that I am one of the very 160 million Americans who cannot afford health care or don't even have it offered to them."


First let’s tackle the really big number at the bottom... "160 million Americans who cannot afford health care..." 160 million Americans would be roughly 53% of the total population of the United States according to figures put out by the US Census Bureau. Really? I would love to see the source for that figure! And out of curiosity does that 160M figure include persons who are in this country illegally? If so let’s just toss those numbers out because since when are noncitizens entitled to the same benefits as taxpaying citizens? And what about all these other programs we are told are essential and cannot suffer a single penny of spending cuts? Do we not already spend millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year to provide medical care for the old and poor? Never mind how unconstitutional those programs are, if we can't cut them they must be working and hence we do not need another or is it that they are not working and the argument is that they need replaced in which case why can't we completely eliminate them and save some money?

Regarding the death panel comment, how else is this huge bureaucracy of ours going to regulate care? Am I supposed to believe that we will suddenly be transported to some magical realm where there is no waiting for care? No limits of any kind on financing and availability? If I assume we won't be shifting dimensions then how else is the regulation of care going to take place? Are we really going to simply pay for any and all procedures? IF I want a nose job or breast implants for my girlfriend is the government simply going to pay for it or will that still be left for me to pay on my own? And if they are not paying for it how is it being regulated? I cited the 'death panel' comment because it is being used so much by the Republicans in various media outlets. Call the regulation system whatever you want, maybe name it Bob or Sue, but either way there will inevitably be some form of rationing taking place.

I now have a question for anyone claiming they cannot afford health coverage... Do you have cable? Do you eat out often? Since you are reading this online I assume you probably have internet access in your home which you pay for... Yes? Then if you can afford cable, eating out, and internet access is it really an issue of affordability or is it one of priorities?

In closing I do want to point out that the person to whom I am responding is a close personal friend to the point I consider them family. Also they do have a medical condition that probably makes it impossible for them to find health insurance. That being said is the help they need really another huge government program that will include even families making over $75K a year? An unconstitutional one I might once again point out. Or would their particular situation be better mended by a (constitutional) state law requiring insurance companies in that state cover people in their situation or not do business in that state?

Quickie

Just a quick thought I wanted to share... I was listening to a talk radio station as I was driving to lunch and I heard yet another blatantly socialist politician referred to as "progressive". I've also heard right wing hosts call this person a radical and this got me thinking... Why is it that in America the left calls a socialist a progressive and the right calls them radical when our founders were both radical and progressive but not socialist? Our founders were obviously radical in that that first rebelled against the largest military power in the world at their time and then turned right around and put in place a nation ruled by its citizenry in a time when monarchy was the government of choice almost worldwide. And it is hard to look back at history and not label them progressive since it was their goal to take huge steps forward in the cause of freedom for the average person and great progress was clearly made both in their time and the ensuing generations thanks to the rights our Constitution sets forth. I'm pretty sure no student and supporter of the Constitution would vote for any politician calling themselves a progressive now days, so when did this change in terminology occur? Can anyone please explain this to me?

Losing the right to live

One of the current government proposals which scares me the most and really should scare everyone else is government run health care. Think about it for a moment, I mean really think about it. Our founders declared that we were "endowed by our creator" with the rights of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that these were "inalienable". Government run health care would essentially eliminate the most important of those three. Without life you cannot enjoy any of your other constitutionally guaranteed rights. When the government has ultimate say in which if any medical treatments and medications a person can receive and at what point an individual will cease to receive care can we really say we still have our right to life? Many right wing commentators have referred to "government death panels" and been accused of using "scare tactics" but what else do you call it? When the government has a panel of doctors (or more likely some computer program that runs cost-benefit calculations) decide whether or not the life of a person is worth the monetary amount it would cost to preserve it and that panel has the power to deny the individual the needed life saving care will we really still have our right to life? The current proposal has a provision banning insurance companies from writing new policies thereby eliminating the option for the individual to opt out and secure medical care for themselves and their families.

Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government even has the authority to implement such a program. I've read the constitution a few times and I've never seen the right to free medical care in there at all! We are given the freedom to make our own choices and it is up to each citizen to decide how best to care for themselves and their families medical needs. Whether they choose to purchase health insurance or pass on insurance and take their chances paying out of pocket is up to them. We are assured the government will establish and maintain armed forces to protect us from invasion and insurrection not that the federal government will establish programs to protect us from our own poor planning or stupidity. Why is it that adults who would be insulted if someone suggested they needed to be told how to get dressed or go to the bathroom seem more than willing to have some politician in Washington D.C. tell them how to live their lives?

The constitution places very specific limited power in the hands of the federal government but defines the rights of the states thus: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" -the 10th amendment. This means that while the federal government does not have the authority to institute a national socialized health care system the state governments are free to do it. Why is it that none have? It is the beauty of our republic that if for example Ohio wanted to institute a "free" state run health care system they could and Montana's voters are free to decide not to go that same route and continue to leave health care mostly to the private sector. And if I think that any form of socialized health care is destined to lead to a drastically lower quality of care and life, which I do, then I am free to leave Ohio and move to Montana where the government is more in line with my views. We are an extremely diverse nation in what we believe but our Constitution allows for that!

The federal government needs to quit inventing for itself authority that it does not have under the Constitution and stay the heck out of my hospital room!

The Constitution says what now?

It is a source of constant amazement to me the way literate people who have ample ability to read the U.S. constitution seem to have no idea what it says. In fact it seems that few or perhaps none of the people occupying positions in any of the three branches of our government have ever read our founding documents. People, politicians, and Supreme Court justices alike reinterpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights in such ways as to drastically change the intended meaning of the original words. Other times phrases and clauses are attributed to the Constitution that are simply not there. The most common one that comes to mind being the oft cited 'seperation of church and state' which an alarmingly large number of people seem to think is something our founders put into the Constitution to save citizens from ever having to see or hear anything the least bit faith related anywhere other than inside a place of worship. Our founders knew what they were doing when establishing the structure of their new nation. Their writings as well as the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves make clear the founders intent and the rules by which the United States is to be goverened. Why is it that as a nation our knowledge of our own constitutional rights is so poor that, as we are losing them one by one, we are oblivious to it?