If You Can or Have To Buy It, It Ain't a RIGHT

[chefdennis]

Thats how a friend of mine explained it to her kids. Another friend wrote this and sent it out and posted it on another forum a while ago. Since our Fed Gov has "deemed" healthcare a "Right" and has now made that fact the "Law of The Land" by passing into law "barrycare', I thought I'd post this :

Just when did the Federal Government become the Creator and Grantor of Rights?

Where is this "right to healthcare" I keep hearing about?

Could some of our fellow citizens be ignorant of the origins of the rights we enjoy, as well as ignorant of the definition of what a "Right" is in general?
　
I certainly hope that explains it, otherwise I might think SOMEONE was trying to confuse people as to just where a right originates.
　
It seems some of our countrymen (and women) believe that they are somehow being denied the right to have another countryman (or woman)
provide them with something that does not exist in Nature (outside of the
self). And they are demanding it be provided free of charge and on-demand anytime, night or day. they have been clamoring for The Federal Government to "do something" about it.

Beyond the obvious Tenth Amendment issues at play here, is an older, and more important issue: What is a right and from whence do they originate?

Whether you believe you were created by God, or that you were the fortunate result of lightning hitting some primordial mud-puddle somewhere in Africa, you were the recipient at the time of your physical realization,of certain inalienable rights. Imagine a solo child, drawing it's first breath alone in a field of grass somewhere on this Earth......at that instant, being either a creature of God or Evolution, you enjoy a whole host of Natural Rights.
Your enjoyment of these rights requires no action on the part of any other party, human or otherwise:
You may speak freely alone or in a group.
You may arm yourself with a rock, a spear, an animal claw, or a weapon you (or someone else) fashioned, alone, or in a group.
You may be secure in your person, effects and shelter alone, or in a group.
You have the right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of hapiness alone, or in a group.
and so on.

Your enjoyment of these rights is complete when alone in the wilderness, And they are unassailable by others.
When entering into a group, or social contract, new rights must be created ONLY TO PROTECT pre-existing "Natural" rights.
The right of Trial by Jury for example, would be unnecessary if one was alone in a state of Nature. It serves only to protect other pre-existing Natural rights outside a state of Nature, or within a social contract.
　
　
" GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS"
　
The Constitutional charge of the United States Government is to "SECURE" these rights for those who are LEGALLY under it's jurisdiction as citizens.
Definition of Secure: to lock or fasten against intrusion; to protect from attack; to effect, make certain of; ensure;
　
There is a big difference between securing a right, and creating or granting a right. If there were some "right" to Healthcare as others claim, it would be the US Governments charge to "secure" it.

Making "Rights" out of Free People

As Healthcare as we understand it, is dependent entirely on the actions of one individual coming to the aid of another individual who is injured or sick, and obviously extends beyond the self-care one could administer alone in a state of Nature, any "right" to it would automatically infringe upon the caregivers' Natural right of Liberty as would exist in his or her own state of Nature.
Something's gotta give.
Either we are all free individuals with self-determination, or some of us are only free when we are not busy being Government provided and assigned attendants to anothers' rights.
Exactly when this servitude ends and the caregivers' Natural right to Liberty resumes would obviously be a matter for the Courts to figure out.

Attending to the injured's "right" to healthcare would require a suspension of the caregivers' own right to Liberty. Also, how would the Federal Government secure this right for those who claim it, if nobody decided to become a caregiver? Would "free" men and women be forced to study medicine to ensure this right for others?

The whole thing is unworkable.....because it's un-natural.
And Un-Constitutional.
But there are those who would see the Government become the Creator of Rights. And the Government would be more than happy to assume that role.

"THEY TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AND GIVE THEM BACK AS PRIVELEGES"

My Dad used to say that all the time. I'd always answer "if they give them back at all"
What the Government can give, it can surely take away. Or ration. Or deny to those deemed "unworthy". Or deny to those it percieves as "Enemies". Or deny to those who won't follow orders.

I can't live with that.

I wouldn't have my neighbor live with that.
I wouldn't have my neighbor sacrifice his Liberty for my health.
I would not have my Government make a slave of someone so that I might enjoy a "right" that does not exist, and therfore deserves no "Securing".

After all, if the Government can "secure" some made-up right to healthcare by "providing" me a free Doctor who would, presumably have no choice in the matter, then surely they can "secure" my VERY REAL right to bear arms by forcing Smith and Wesson to "provide" me with free guns.

 

[chefdennis]

I know some here don't think RP has much going on, and while I don't agree with alot of what he has to say, especially when it comes to his military stance...but this seems to be much of what alot of us think....

More Government Won't Help by Ron Paul

More Government Won't Help


by Ron Paul

Before the US House of Representatives, September 23, 2009

Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.

Points to consider:
No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.

Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States have deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.

More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.
Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.

First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.
The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.
Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.

The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.

Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.

Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.
The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.

The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.Early on, medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.

Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.

There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.