This is yet another blog about the health care debate. When I started this blog I never intended to write this much about the subject but I cannot stop brilliant things from popping into my mind. (I’m also humble.)

An argument in favor of government intervention in health care is that many people simply cannot afford it. They want to “choose” and exercise their right but it is simply not within their financial means. They say the government should step in and provide the necessary funds for these people. They say the government should help make sure our rights are available to us. What good is having a right if we do not have the means to use that right?

I do not buy into this argument because of my beliefs about what a “right” truly is. One aspect of a “right” is that it does not impose on somebody else’s “right.” My right to free speech does not stop or hinder somebody else from having freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. But, I cannot endanger people by starting a panic because I run into a building and yell “FIRE!” when there is no fire. I would be infringing on their right to life because people could easily get hurt or killed.

However, for the sake of argument, I would like to analyze this alternate belief of a “right.” Many people want to practice their right to keep and bear arms, but, they do not have the money to buy a handgun or a rifle. Many of these people are law-abiding citizens who live in dangerous areas of the city or country. Their right is not being met and they are in danger. Where are the politicians who want to buy these people weapons? Why aren’t the spokesmen for health-care also promoting and ensuring that all free citizens have access to their rights to bear arms?

I figure every citizen should have at least one good rifle and one good pistol so I worked some numbers of some high quality firearms. A standard AR-15 rifle costs about $900 and a standard Springfield XD pistol costs around $600. If the government would step in to ensure that “every citizen has access to the Second Amendment” then the price tag is only $1500. And that would be a one time fee per citizen. That is MUCH cheaper than the thousands of dollars per citizen the government would need to spend for health care EVERY YEAR! Health care is estimated in the trillions every year. The total for making every citizen armed with quality weapons would be a one time fee of 450 billion…not even half-a-trillion. They could easily add a shotgun, plenty of ammo, or cleaning supplies to the expenditure without even being close to the cost of health-care for a single year. (Keep in mind—this number will decrease when we minus people like children, felons, etc. The number will probably be closer to 350 billion.)

But we all know this is not going to happen!

This all comes down to one of my main points in all of the debate. It is all about power and control. Politicians are very selective about the “rights” that they want to champion. Control in health-care puts more power into the hands of government. An armed citizenry takes power away from government and that is why politicians do not want to defend that right.

There are other rights that are in serious danger such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. The politicians pushing for control over health-care are also the ones trying to repress these. But people are willing to look past all of these in order to get health care. This is very dangerous and it will only lead to governmental domination.

One of the major reasons people will vote liberal this year is the health care debate. They say that people might have the “right to health care” but they cannot afford it. The government is simply trying to help them “secure their rights.” Well let’s look at some ways that liberals deal in rights.

Last year Ted Kennedy was pushing for a bill which would put pastors and religious leaders in peril if they spoke out against homosexuality. He wanted this to be considered a “hate crime” and “domestic terrorism” and worthy of fine or imprisonment. Since when is disagreeing with something considered a hate crime and terrorism? Thank God the bill never passed but I believe it will come back (this was actually the second time Kennedy pushed that bill). Colorado is on the same course. They just recently passed a state bill that banned printed material which was anti-homosexual. This could easily be the Bible.  A friend of mine in Colorado emailed me and said, "My pastor has been saying for a while that it would be very easy under our state's current laws for him to be arrested and brought up on felony charges just for what he preaches from the pulpit....pathetic!" All this is a major violation of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. But hey! These same people are going to help us “secure our right to health care.”

What about parental rights over their children? The home-schooling movement really began to pick up in the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s. The movement has been targeted by government since its inception. Many parents had their children taken away because of the practice. Many states have tried to ban the practice completely. Many have VERY strict rules about it and if a parent deviates then they could have their child taken away. This all comes from the mindset that the government knows what is best and anyone who does not “fall in” will be targeted for discrimination. But hey! These same people are going to help us “secure our right to health care.”

What about the Fairness Doctrine? Ever heard of that? The liberals in Congress (the same ones who want to push the “right to health care”) have been pushing this forward for a long time. It would essentially put restrictions on what is said in the media. Penalties would come from not being “fair.” But who considers what is fair? The answer: our friends in Congress who know what is best for us and know what we need to hear. This is a MAJOR violation of the First Amendment, just like Kennedy’s bill. We may as well just rip that amendment out of the Constitution for all the good it is doing us. But hey! These same people are going to help us “secure our right to health care.”

What I am saying with all this is that the liberals have been the ones who have traditionally tried to restrict freedoms, not grant them. It is they who have been trying to undermine our rights which are so plainly granted in the Constitution. So when I hear these same people crying about the “right to health care” the little alarms in my mind start going off. These are not people who care about freedoms and rights. They care about their own agenda and power.

 

If there is one fact we can really prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep (emphasis added).

Are we a “tired democracy” that will not keep “that eternal vigilance” and prefer instead to forfeit our thinking and fall asleep?

There is a new minority in America today. It is the people without healthcare. Statistics say that 40 million people do not have health insurance. Out of a country of 300 million that is a minority. What is sad is that politicians are now using the same rhetoric on these people that they have on minorities in the past.

How have politicians talked to minorities in the past?

Politicians have told minorities, “The problem is too big for you. The deck is stacked against you. Vote for us and we will take care of all your problems. If you will just yield more power to us, than we can deal with your problems.” Politicians have convinced minorities that they do not have what it takes to take care of themselves or their families.

This is the same rhetoric being used on people without health insurance. “The problem is too big for you. The deck is stacked against you. Vote for us and we will take care of all your problems. If you will just yield more power to us, than we can deal with your problems. You do not have what it takes to take care of yourself or your family.” The same old rhetoric.

I used to look at how minorities were being treated by politicians who claimed to be helping and think, “Why don’t they have more faith in themselves? Don’t they believe they can take care of themselves? Do they really believe that only the politicians can save them?”

My great-grandfather was a full-blooded American Indian. He lived when the government was beginning to give free handouts to Indians but he always refused to accept any of it. He said, “What the government gives, the government can take away.” He worked to support himself and his family and he succeeded. I believe in so doing he passed on a legacy to his descendants that stressed the importance of working hard, taking care of your family yourself, and not looking to Papa Congress to help you but rather having the audacity to look to God for help. It made him stronger and I believe it has made me stronger.

I currently do not have health insurance. I am part of the new minority. For a while I could not figure out what it was about the health care debate that bothered me so much until I realized the rhetoric being used, how it was used before, and how it has not changed…only now it is being told to me personally. The government and others are now trying to tell me how I can not help myself. They tell me how the problem is too big for me and how I need help from the government to solve my problems.

I recently saw a clip of John Edwards calling the issue of owning a handgun a privilege and saying things like health care is a right. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQFhdFfl6rM)  So I have to wonder, what is a right?  Obviously Mr. Edwards does not consider the Constitution the basis for rights.  So what is he thinking?

Is health care a right?

I also believe health care is a right in that I have the right to go out, choose a plan for myself and family, and decide for myself whether I will pay for it or not.  I also have the right to say no and not pay anything into health care and simply pray for the best.
Senator Edwards’ idea of a “right” to health care, and the one held by most liberals, is that the government will sponsor health care for us and we will pay for it through our taxes.  So I cannot help but wonder, “Is this really a right?”  In Mr. Edwards’ view, I will pay it no matter what and I have no say in the matter whatsoever.  This is not a right.  This is tyranny and a breakdown of liberty.

When you have the right to something you also have the right to say “no” to something.  Just because you have the right to own a firearm does not mean that you are required to own one.  This is the difference between Edwards’ belief in the right to health care and my belief in the right to health care.  I believe in individual liberty and freedom of choice.  Edwards and liberals believe in compulsion.

    This being my first blog I'll make a small comment on something that has been on my mind lately.  I have heard the argument that people should take a safety course and obtain a license in order to own a gun just like people need to take a safety course and obtain a license to drive.  This argument makes a lot of sense until one remembers something very vital.

    The Constitution does not grant the right to drive a car.  It does grant the right for a citizen to own a gun.

    Should we take a course on how to use free speech?  Should we take a course before choosing a religion?  What about the right to a fair trial?  Do we all need to take courses and be amateur lawyers before that right is granted to us?

    Firearm ownership is the right of all free Americans and is one of the major aspects that sets America apart from other nations.  If you are a law abiding citizen you should not be required to take a course and be licensed in order to own or carry a gun.  Is it smart and wise to take safety courses and learn how to best handle firearms?  Absolutely and if you are a responsible American you will do that anyway without being forced to in order to practice your guaranteed right.

In the words of Ted Nugent, "The Second Amendment IS my concealed-carry permit."