A critical definition the Left doesn’t want you to recognize or know
One element of the current healthcare debate is brought to the forefront in a recent post by Nathan Sass over on his Dinner Table blog. It is the fundamental question of whether or not universal healthcare comes under the category of an inalienable right as defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a well written reality check on the topic and points out some facts of which the Left would like you to be ignorant. Some key points (all emphases in the following quotes are added):
Health care is not a right. Health care is a service.
It’s important to understand that Constitutional rights are not granted, but enumerated, by the Constitution because the founders acknowledge that these rights were natural, inalienable, and granted by the Creator (their words, not mine). No document, or government, can take them away. Any attempt to do so would be an affront to the Creator, and tyrannical.
This is the key definition around which the controversy swirls, whether the participants in that controversy know it or not. Mr. Sass clarifies the definition by enunciating the critical difference between rights and services:
Due to this fundamental principle, every right in the Constitution has a single element in common. They are, without exception, non material and have no intrinsic value. No one can buy or sell them, and there is no price to pay for them. Speech, religion, the right to bear arms, the freedom from unreasonable search and the rest have no price tag on their own.
Furthermore, each element of the Bill of Rights protects citizens from the denial of these rights by the government. The Bill of Rights protects us FROM government, and has no relation to interactions between private individuals. I can deny your “right to free speech” in my house, for example.
What are the consequences of the progressive attempt at redefining a “right?” Here is where the analysis becomes quite the reality check and reveals the underlying philosophy (or perhaps in some cases, to give the benefit of the doubt to our publically edjamacated government employees, unintentional consequences?):
In calling health care a right, the Democrats are declaring that no medical professional can ever deny claim to their services for any reason. Charging someone for health care potentially denies access to health care and is then by definition a violation of an individual’s rights and cannot be allowed. Therefore, doctors must provide their services for free and upon demand.
What are we really talking about here?
We had an institution like this once in our past. We required a certain group of people to provide their services free of any compensation and upon demand. We fought the bloodiest war in our history to eradicate it. Now the Democrats seek to recreate the institution with a new subservient class of individuals compelled to provide their services. This time the individuals subservient to society are not defined by skin color, but by profession.
Think about it (note I did not say, feel about it!). Yes, this is slavery we are talking about here. And as late as December, 2010, reports suggest that a huge percentage of doctors are not going to tolerate such involuntary servitude.
And where have we seen this kind of thing before in more recent history? Again, Mr. Sass connects the dots for us:
Extending this logic to its reasonable conclusion illustrates the absurdity of this reasoning, and reveals its absolute Marxist origins:
Food is even more essential to life than health care, and since health care is a right, food must be also. Therefore all food must be free to anyone who wants it, whenever they want it. Farmers cannot charge for the food they produce, stores cannot charge for the food they sell, and restaurants cannot charge for food they serve. It all MUST be free or it violates the right to life. No wiggle room here. Anything less is a denial of constitutional rights.
Shelter is also far more vital to life than health care. Therefore no one can charge for any dwelling. Apartments must be free to anyone who wants one for as long as they like to live there. Houses cannot be bought or sold, either. If someone wants a vacant house, they can just take it. Charging any money to someone for shelter violates their rights and cannot be allowed. Again, no wiggle room here.
Using the Democrats own “logic” (I use that term very loosely), anything that is essential for life is a right and all rights are guaranteed and therefore delivered free of charge by the government. Food, shelter, clothing, water, and medicine can never have a price tag and the central government must provide them for everyone with perfect equity.
That was, and is, the central tenet of Marxism. The state provides all and owns all.
And this is part of the debate that really isn’t even being debated by most. Everyone focuses on the people who allegedly “need” health insurance, and most of the opposition focuses on the unconstitutionality of forcing individuals to buy the Obamacare version, etc., etc.
But what about the constitutionality of forcing the competent to provide their services for little or no compensation, a common component of many progressive policies. Do not such men deserve their wages as much as anyone else? Do they not have families of their own they need to support? And what will we do if such withdraw their services under these conditions? If that last question sounds like something you’ve heard somewhere before, perhaps you’ve read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. The plot of that work revolves around the departure from society of all the competent individuals who refuse to work for the looters of society. Those looters create an atmosphere in which the incompetent demand their rights, their rights meaning the fruit of the labor of those who produce the tangible goods, regardless of and despite the looters’ own inability to produce for themselves. It is a weight that eventually the Atlases of the book shrug off by disappearing (read the book for the rest of the story). The results on society are catastrophic.
Again, I would encourage you to think about it. We already have too many people on welfare who are not asked to produce (after all, they’ve been so bitterly oppressed) and who fit Rand’s definition of “looters.” How much closer to fiction must fact become before we awake to the danger of such policies that reinstitutionalize slavery, just on a different part of our population?
Let me close with this thought, for many on the Left feel that such forms of government have a basis in Christianity, specifically, Christian love. After all, did not the original Christians give all of their goods to each other and live in a socialist commune? Um, in a word, no. History shows that didn’t last long and it was entirely voluntary, not government mandated. In addition, we do not throw out the rest of Scripture. For one example:
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.
(2Thess 3:10 [NKJV])
Which brings us full circle back to the Founding Fathers and their original intentions, which were biblically based despite what your college professor may have told you, and do not encompass socialist tendencies in any way, shape, or form. Let us not give up our heritage of freedom on the altar of the enslavement of our fellow countrymen.