Harry, Louise and Health Care

I reviewed my copy of the US Constitution today. In it, I found a number of specific rights that are guaranteed to all Americans. These rights include the freedom of religion, speech, assembly, ownership of guns, unreasonable searches, and a number of others. It also guarantees the right to live (though not forever), to be free, and the opportunity to pursue that which makes one happy. I did not find a right to be taken care of. On the contrary, I did find a right to not have my assets stolen to guarantee another that he or she can see a doctor or have surgery.

But in today’s America, the Constitution is secondary to the wishes of those in power and some citizens. Most unfortunately, the American Medical Association has announced support of Obama’s Health Care Reform plan.

The fact that it is un-Constitutional should be enough to end discussion, but facts are lost on many today. Facts are certainly lost on actors. Harry Johnson and Louse Clark became famous in a television commercial many suggest was a critical component in stopping “Hillary-Care” in 1993. Today, they appeared with Democrats on Capitol Hill in support of “Obama-Care”, and appear in a new ad to air this weekend in support of comprehensive reform.

The ads don’t end with Harry and Louise. The Democrat National Committee is airing a new ad in states in which they perceive they can apply pressure to the State’s representatives that are nearing re-election- including those of their own party which have expressed concerns about the plan.

The non-partisan Congress Budget Office also reported to Congress today, “The coverage proposals in this legislation would expand federal spending on health care to a significant degree and in our analysis so far we don’t see other provisions in this legislation reducing federal health spending by a corresponding degree.” Even while taxing the wealthiest Americans by nearly half of their income, the plan runs at a defect. Speaker Pelosi disagrees. Although her plan increases taxes significantly, she maintains that no one with an income of less than $280,000 will see a tax increase (remember when Obama made the same claim for his administration?). Some Democrats in Congress even suggest taking money from Medicare to help pay for the program.

So, we reach the point that the debate has yet again shifted from the provisions of the Constitution to the cost, and thus from whom the money shall be stolen. Yet again, we have another opportunity for Republicans to control the debate, if they will. The question is not if people will get sick and even die, the question is: Do we have the right to steal from our neighbor?

If We the People believe the answer to be yes, there is a method by which we can establish health care as a right, granted by the Creator, guaranteed by the people. Two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the States may amend the Constitution to do away with a number of the rights guaranteed within, and to establish a new inalienable right of physical care (at least to the point determined by yourPresident).

I do not know the answer to the question of rising and often unaffordable health care costs; but I do know that it can be found in the marketplace. I maintain that there is no morality that will allow me to hold a gun to my neighbors head and demand payment for a hospital visit.

The perception of necessity gave us a stimulus plan. The same perceived necessity bailed out numerous corporations. This perceived necessity has mortgaged our grandchildren’s future. We must not let necessity steal any more of our freedom, or that of our prosperity.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. – William Pitt.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

Leave a Reply