Senator Tom Harkin(D-Iowa) recently said:”What this bill does is, we finally take that step, as our leader said earlier, we take that step from health care as a privilege, to health care as an unalienable right of every single, American citizen.”
For the first time in American history, citizens will be forced to buy a consumer related product with no possible way to opt-out. Simply put, if you breathe then you pay.
And that’s not all, this bill contains the framework for a regulatory panel that will set the price that doctors may charge for various procedures, as well as deciding who may access those procedures.
Investor’s Business Daily conducted a poll of health care providers asking them what they will do if Congress passes the kind of health care overhaul that is currently under consideration. And the results were devastating. 45 percent said they would consider quitting or retiring early.
And, why shouldn’t they?
If an individual truly has an unalienable right to healthcare, this implies that the authority of that citizen can compel any health care provider to fulfill that right. But the right to life does not compel another citizen to use their talents to the benefit of others without reimbursement. And neither do any other rights that we may be said to have by the virtue of their origin-our Creator.
For a member of the United States Congress to put forth the notion that doctors, by virtue of their choice of vocation, may be forced to provide services according to the arbitrary whims of a governmental regulatory panel, and that such compulsion is not only consistent with the dictates of our Constitution, but an inalienable right of that doctor’s fellow citizens is outrageous and terribly erroneous.
Let’s remember that the 13th amendment clearly states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”The fact that our founders recognized that our rights are derived from our Creator is critical to understanding the authority behind those rights, as it sets the bar for who may remove those rights from us.
But as the founding fathers made clear, these rights did not originate with our government, but with our Creator and so our government cannot take them away.
So, in saying that the government will be providing an “unalienable right” to health care, Mr. Harkin is claiming the authority of Almighty God for the United States Congress. He is also setting the stage for the removal of all of the other unalienable rights that we, as American citizens claim as the gift of our Creator.
In addition to the clearly blasphemous nature of such a claim, every citizen in America should be made uneasy by the implication that some in Congress are trying to position themselves with a god-like power over our lives. And that is what this health care legislation is all about.
Belanne Pibal, the founder of Irate, Tireless Minority, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.
7 comments:
It doesn't seem like good government to ask taxpayers to fund 600 billion dollars a year to build B-1 Bombers or aircraft carriers or star wars systems or expensive "gas stations" in the sky....then to turn around and tell some of those same taxpayers that if they can't afford to treat that appendicitis attack that they should crawl into the closet and die.
Government exists for the welfare of the people.
Just because poor working stiff can't get healthcare from their employers is no reason to tax them to pay for things they don't want or need.
I can go along with healthcare being everyone's personal responsibility but I also would be for people deciding how their tax dollars are spent.
If the government would allow me to direct my tax dollars to a government healthcare program rather than for an expensive weapons system that we don't need I would be for that.
Also, I would be for giving every woman the right to choose whether she aborts a fetus or not...especially if the fetus has severe medical challenges. No use forcing her to have a child, then letting the child die for lack of money to pay health care bills.
If we expect her to cough up the money for her child, she should have the right to decide if she can afford it or not.
Hamster,
Thank you for stopping by the blog.
You said:"Government exists for the welfare of the people."
Respectfully, no, it does not. Government exists to ensure the highest amount of personal freedom that is consistent with the least amount of government necessary to providing a stable society. At least, according to our founders, that is the purpose of OUR form of government.
Also with respect, you are comparing apples to oranges. National defense is a Constitutionally authorized function of our government. Healthcare is not.
It is absolutely reasonable to spend money to secure our nation so that we may have the freedom to determine our own futures. It is not reasonable to expect every individual to submit to paying for the poor health choices or even the misfortune of their neighbors. Charity is a voluntary individual obligation not a governmental duty.
The cost is also apples to oranges. 6 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the 3 TRILLION or more that will be required to pay for this unconstitutional legislation.
For yet another reason I oppose Mr. Obama's healthcare legislation, consider that it is a huge bill(over 1000 pages) that have gone largely unread by those who will be expected to vote on it. It is full of unconstitutional measures and measures that can only be said to be for the purpose of social engineering, not the provision of healthcare.
On a personal note, there is absolutely no way I would support a bill that contains measures to force me to give the government direct access to my bank account and which prohibits me from seeking recourse and correction in the event of an error. This legislation also contains a provision to make it unrepealable by future Congresses.
So, the idea that any Congressman or woman should vote for a proposal that removes itself from the normal checks and balances of government is and should be anethema to any citizen. This legislation removes the right of the people to seek redress of grievances from the government over it's provisions, and I have a huge problem with allowing this piece of legislation to be approved through a process of reconciliation rather than through open debate and honest voting.
If you don't have a problem with this legislation, then I think you should 'go from us in peace, may your chains sit lightly upon you and may posterity forget they ye were our countrymen'.
You said:"Also, I would be for giving every woman the right to choose "
Me too. The difference is that I think she made that choice when she decided to have sex. Once the baby has been made, that child has rights too. and the most fundamental of those rights is the right to life.
If the cost of raising a child is your justification for allowing the murder of an innocent baby, then why not allow infanticide or euthanasia of those children who have already been born if they become too much of a financial burden on their families? Why not? Because we both acknowledge that the child, once born, has all the rights we do.
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama, the same fellow pushing so hard for this "healthcare" legislation, has no problem with killing children who have already been born. As a senator, he voted to allow "doctors" to kill those babies who managed to survive an abortion procedure by leaving them exposed on the table to die or suffocating them outright.
Murder is murder is murder.
There are orphanages as well as a plethora of childless couples who would love to take on all the burdens of having a child, waiting to adopt children whose mothers don't beleive they are capable of providing a good home for their children, or who simply don't want to have them. Abortion is not necessary for financial reasons.
You argument is flawed.
Let’s remember that the 13th amendment clearly states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”The fact that our founders recognized that our rights are derived from our Creator is critical to understanding the authority behind those rights, as it sets the bar for who may remove those rights from us.
I also lived at roughly the same story.
Le gouvernement est en perpétuel chantier. Tous les gouvernements du monde auraient besoin de faire un peu de ménage. Il devraient tous demander des devis travaux.
devis artisan,
welcome to the blog. Yahoo translates your post as :"The government is in perpetual building site. All the governments of the world would need to do a little household. It should all ask estimates work. "
I would venture to guess that it should read more along the lines of: The government is constantly growing. All governments need to keep their houses clean. They should ask estimates for the work.
If that's not correct, I apologize.
Post a Comment