I only caught a few minutes of the debate last night, on the radio of all things. As big a high tech geek as I think of myself, it seems that radio is still the media that reaches me most. Good ‘ol AM radio.
Two things that caught me hard were the “Obama Doctrine” and “Health Care”.
I want to start with Healthcare as a right. This whole concept of rights, and inalienable rights is one that I thought has been very well defined for centuries. There are rights, and there are entitlements, and there are business transactions. I think that the Democrats as a whole, have gotten confused by these three things.
Rights, are something that I am born with. Freedom of speech, Freedom of choice, etc.
Entitlements are something that the government has decided that they should assist with, generally for those that “qualify” in some manner. I may qualify for “food stamps” and because there is a program out there I am entitled to take advantage of the program if I choose to. I do not have a right to food stamps just because I exist.
Business Transactions – If I seek a good or service from another individual, they will generally be willing to provide that service for some sort of consideration (payment or barter). Simple stuff.
Do I have a “right” to healthcare? No.
Am I entitled to healthcare? If there is a program offered, and I qualify then I might be entitled to some sort of care.
Generally healthcare is a responsibility that I have as the head of my family to seek or provide for my family. I can do this by purchasing the services directly from a provider, finding a low cost provider (and a appropriate quality), or bartering for services. Doc, will you take two chickens to remove by tonsils?
I apologize, I am getting a little silly with this. The point I think is clear – we have a candidate for President who wants to eliminate some rights, and try and force general business transactions into the world of rights.
I got a little convoluted in my stream of thought post here. Over here, there is another more articulate and entertaining view on this issue. I reposted the whole thing below, just because I like it so much.
Now, I only have my Pocket Constitution handy, and maybe they left one out so to make it fit the pocket-sized format, but I don’t really think so.
Last night, the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party stated that he believes that health care is a right. Flat out. Point blank. No BS from BO.
So I’m going through the Bill of Rights and I’m looking for any other Right that requires me to give money to the government so that the government can spend it for me to fulfill said “Right”.
1st Amendment – The government will not provide me with a radio or television station, or even a sturdy crate made of wood or plastic to scream off of, or even an internet connection to blog via. Nor will they build me a church to worship in. None of my tax dollars are spent to provide me with what is needed to use this right.
2nd Amendment – The government will not buy me a gun so that I can use this right. Thankfully, because instead of the M14’s that I’d enjoy having (and that Clinton had hacked to scrap), they’d probably issue me a very well used M9. None of my tax dollars are spent to provide me with what is needed to use this right.
3rd, and 4th Amendments – No and no. Both of these expressly tell the government to NOT spend money screwing me over. None of my tax dollars are spent to provide me with what is needed to use this right.
9th and 10th Amendments – Again, no and no. Both of these are free of charge to any and all. They simply and clearly state that the federal government cannot say that the first eight amendments to the Constitution are the ONLY rights given to the people and the states. None of my tax dollars are spent to provide me with what is needed to use this right.
5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments – I previously skipped over these for a reason. There is a good deal of tax money spent providing me with a forum where I can pursue these rights.
However, the people employed at these forums are employees of the government, with those in positions of decision making either elected by the people or are appointed by those elected by the people. I know I shouldn’t give guys like Obama any ideas, but I do not see anywhere in his plan where he will buy the hospitals and clinics and make the doctors, nurses and other staff all employees in a new bureaucracy of grand scale.
For thousands of years, doctors have plied their trade as individuals and as small groups. Conversely, it is historically only government, whether it be one selected by the governed or self-appointed, who has issued law.
It is only a 20th Century construct to bring medicine into the realm of government as a birthright. This idea has been shown to be an epic, almost murderous, failure wherever it is tried and no one has yet to explain exactly how or why, within reason, it should be placed in the hands of government and not left alone.
This includes the Democrat Party’s Presidential candidate. He simply says it is what HE says it is and then goes on to explain that he needs my money to make this farce happen.
If he cannot lay it down in simple terms that even a prole like me can understand, why should anyone believe him?