Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny on 09/11/09 11:59 AM Last updated 09/17/09 3:32 PM   [Newer: Update: 'Health care unequivocally not a right'] [Older: End the Fed rap]

The following letter to the editor was published in my hometown newspaper last week:

As a progressive liberal, I believe health care to be an unalienable American right. All United States citizens are endowed with this natural human birthright. Our republic was founded upon the principle of equal justice and equal opportunity. Justice demands that our federal government fulfill this fundamental obligation and ensure that every American citizen has the opportunity to receive the very best medical care available.

All Americans, from a newly-born child to an aging baby boomer, deserve equal opportunity to live and enjoy safe, meaningful and healthy lives. Working together, with unselfish hearts and open minds, we can guarantee that the life and health of every member of our community be equally respected, equally valued and equally protected.

In our democracy, the federal government has a historic responsibility to care for the welfare of all of its citizens, regardless of their wealth or income, race or ethnicity, religion or nationality, gender or sexual orientation, ability or disability.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence founded our nation on the right to live a purposeful life. In 1789, the Constitution committed our government to care for the common welfare of all citizens. In 1865, Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address called for malice toward none and charity for all of our fellow citizens.

Today, the time has come for all true American patriots to come together to establish universal health care. It is our moral responsibility and our sacred duty to build upon the legacy of our founding brothers to forge a more perfect and a more healthy national union.

I replied with the following letter:

In his September 4 letter, Mr. Urban attempted to connect government-provided health care to natural rights and our nation's founding documents. His letter was littered with noble-sounding words and emotional appeals, but wholly inaccurate.

Health care is unequivocally not a right. It's especially not an American right, as Urban stated several times. Are those living in other countries somehow less worthy? Life, liberty, and property are rights; health care is a responsibility. Don't confuse the two.

Unlike rights, health care (and other goods and services) must be provided by someone. I have no more right to free health services than I would to a free shopping cart full of groceries. Whether I need a dozen eggs or an MRI, it is my responsibility to pay for them. If you need eggs or an MRI, please don't use the government to forcibly and anonymously extract money from me to pay for what you've received. Government "charity" is not charity at all, and it has destroyed real charity and created a permanent class of dependents.

Urban appealed to the Constitution's ‘general welfare' clause to legitimize federal provision of health services. This clause is a common excuse for government to do nearly anything it wants, as someone always benefits whenever the government hands out other people's money. ‘General welfare' is not doing nice things for individuals, but for the good of the Union as a whole.

The Constitution does not and cannot grant fundamental rights, nor can any document or proclamation-it instead prohibits our government from interfering with the rights that all people already have. It is this that made America unique and allowed liberty to flourish.

Which was edited (weakening it, I believe) by the paper's editors and published today:

In his Your View published Sept. 4, Scott Urban attempted to connect government-provided health care to natural rights and our nation's founding documents. His letter was littered with noble-sounding words and emotional appeals, but was wholly inaccurate, in my opinion.

Health care is unequivocally not a right. It's especially not an American right, as Urban stated several times. Are those living in other countries somehow less worthy? Life, liberty, and property are rights; health care is a responsibility. Don't confuse the two. Unlike rights, health care (and other goods and services) must be provided by someone. I have no more right to free health services than I would to a free shopping cart full of groceries. Whether I need a dozen eggs or an MRI, it is my responsibility to pay for them. If you need eggs or an MRI, please don't use the government to forcibly and anonymously extract money from me to pay for what you've received.

Government "charity" is not charity at all, and it has destroyed real charity and created a permanent class of dependents. Urban appealed to the Constitution's general welfare clause to legitimize federal provision of health services. This clause is a common excuse for government to do nearly anything it wants, as someone always benefits whenever the government hands out other people's money. General welfare is not doing nice things for individuals, but for the good of the Union as a whole.

The Constitution does not and cannot grant fundamental rights, nor can any document or proclamation - it instead prohibits our government from interfering with the rights that all people already have. It is this that made America unique and allowed liberty to flourish.

Ah well, at least it got published.

Among others, I received this message from a friend this morning (hopefully they won't mind me posting it here):

I read your letter to the Editor this morning, and I understand where you are coming from. I challenge you, though, to really look at the people who want to take responsibility for their health care but have no means to. This is not a question of wanting to take responsibility, but rather being able to afford to take responsibility.

You have a large family, and luckily you have a great job working for [my employer]. I'm sure you have nice benefits as well. But you can't tell me that you and [my wife] never struggled to make ends meet? And that's with both of you having college degrees. I challenge you to think of the people not like you. To think of the people who work unskilled jobs and make minimum wage. They cannot afford health care, and if they become sick-- well, it really is debt or death.

Having the government step does not mean limitation of freedom. The government was set up for a purpose. Just like social security was set up for a purpose. Don't be afraid, Jon. Life is not black and white. Even though you are 30 something, I still challenge you to really look at poverty in America and not so much what Health Care Reform can do for you-- but what it can do for our country.

You are a smart man. Look beyond yourself.

To which I replied:

I would have addressed your points in my letter but it's limited to 275 words by the Free Press--not a lot of space to make a convincing argument for anything. Also, they added "in my opinion" to the second sentence (as if anything in the LTTE section isn't an opinion) and re-paragraphed my letter in such a way that several of my points were broken up and other points were uncomfortably combined.

You mention Social Security, so I'll address that first. Social Security (like Medicare) is a giant Ponzi scheme that has only persisted thus far because it has been continually expanded. There is no actual money in the Social Security 'trust fund'. It will soon fail. In addition, it teaches people to rely on government (i.e. other taxpayers) for their support in old age, rather than making a concerted effort to save and/or having many children for support. Because people have fewer children as a result, there are fewer new taxpayers to support the aging population. People save less and spend more, consuming resources and leaving less money available for retirement.

More to the main point of your letter, I certainly *am* thinking of people less fortunate than me. They should be seeking support from their family, friends, churches, neighbors, charities, etc. When the government provides charity or a 'safety net' for people, it completely erodes these important community connections and depersonalizes the act of asking for support and the act of giving support. This depersonalization also makes it easy to ask for help when you don't *really* need it, which leads to abuse and overuse. Additionally, the government has no real incentive to get people off the dole and back on their own, while a personal donor does. The 'War on Poverty' has been running for decades, and we still have just as many poor people even though we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars. All of the tax money needed to pay for that has a tendency to drive more people toward government support, since they have less money of their own to begin with.

I currently have a $1200 bill to pay for an ultrasound and x-ray examination of my daughter's kidneys, all done in under 2 hours. At least half of that cost is due to well-intentioned government intervention. If I had any idea of the cost before the procedure was done, I would have sought a second opinion first and possibly pursued other, cheaper methods.

There is an amazing amount of government in our health care system already, including health insurance mandates, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Health Service, myriad regulations of all drugs, medical equipment, and services, personnel licensing requirements, etc., etc. Complying with these regulations is terrifically expensive and makes health care unaffordable; it also makes costs rise much faster than the general rate of inflation. Government wage controls during WWII led employers to add health benefits to attract employees, which coupled insurance to employment, which causes all sorts of problems and makes insurance unaffordable for the self-employed and those with part time jobs. (And it forces people to stay in jobs they hate so they don't lose benefits.)

Insurance companies, when they operate free from the government intervention that changes them from what they should be--insurers against catastrophic loss--into byzantine third-party payment systems (what we have in health insurance today), are the ultimate safety net.

Adding more government complexity to the mix will not improve what would otherwise be a simple and affordable system if the government would just get out of the way. If car insurance were run the same way as health insurance, we'd be crying for national car insurance reform right now, too. You'd need a full time job to get car insurance, and the govt would require all insurance plans to cover gasoline, oil changes, and repairs. All mechanics would have to be certified by a state board. You'd have no idea how much an oil change cost, but it wouldn't matter because the government would be paying for it. Etc.

I encourage you to read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson", online here: http://jim.com/econ/ It was key to my recently-developed passion for economics (passionate? for economics? weird, I know!) and laid the foundation for my political activism.

Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading my reply.

Now I'm going to have to put in a few hours this weekend to make up for lost time at work! Besides, I need to earn a lot of money to help pay for everyone else's health care! :D

UPDATE September 17, 2009 - After I asked my friend about responding, I got this:

I see where you are coming from, though I whole-heartidly disagree. Unfortunetly, It is 11:18 [p.m.] and my brain is fried. I still have to [complete a work project] by 8:30am tomorrow morning. I would give you a response this weekend, but I work [second job] both Saturday and Sunday.

So I don't know if I'll respond to your points. But I do respond with this: I like that you stand strong by what you believe. But I still, and always will, push my conservative friends to look behind their bubble. Look beyond the hand you were delt. And approach everything with the attitude of "how will this help the greater good" as opposed to "how much is this going to cost me."
Okay-- time to dive into [work project].

I think I'll need a bit more time on this one.

Posted 09/11/09 12:56 PM Kyle Plymouth, MI

This was a great retort! Please post your friends response when you get it! I'd like to know how this turns out.

Posted 09/11/09 12:59 PM Rogersworthe Murfreesboro, TN

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for this. I liked the analogy to car insurance and not being aware of the cost of procedures.

Posted 09/11/09 1:19 PM ShedPlant Slough, United Kingdom

Eloquent and, perhaps more importantly, published! Well done.

Posted 09/11/09 1:22 PM Alan Smith Austin, TX

I liked the eggs comparison. lol.

Posted 09/11/09 1:35 PM BigJoeNJ13 Newark , NJ

This is very well thought-out and put together peice. Much better analysis than what the "ditto heads" (Rush/Sean/Levin people) have been coming up with recently.

Posted 09/11/09 1:40 PM sweetliberty Saint George, UT

What, specifically, makes health care a right? If I don't have the right to someone else's property, I can't possibly claim that health care is not a right, unless I'm advocating the right to take care of my OWN health, by using my OWN property. I wonder what basis progressive liberals like the original letter-writer use to determine what's a right and what isn't.

Posted 09/11/09 1:42 PM AdamCabrera Upland, CA

Thanks for writing a Letter to the Editor. We need more C4L members to make their voice heard with their local media, whether its writing to their newspapers or calling in to radio programs. A good dialogue with your friend too, Jon! I'm in a similar conversation with my friend. I've often found proponents of increased government in health care appealing to emotions ("Look at all the people hurting.") when educated opponents appeal to the facts ("We can't afford this" or "Where does the Constitution give us the authority to do this?). I think we all agree reform is needed, but enlarging governments role is not the answer. Lastly, good word pictures and analogies used Jon ("shopping cart", "car insurance"). It easily and clearly helps paint pictures that we can all understand.

Posted 09/11/09 1:46 PM AdamCabrera Upland, CA

One more thing... What ever happened to personal responsibility? Why are more and more things being demanded as rights (i.e. health care, education)?!

Posted 09/11/09 1:47 PM Joetheunemployed Murfreesboro, TN

Excellent points were made! This could have been a script out of a Dennis Kucinich vs. Ron Paul debate (I have great admiration and respect for both men). It would have been nice that with all of the resources and great wealth that this nation once possesed,our government could have put together a health care program that would have made sure that all U.S. citizens would have affordable medical services. I once supported Dennis Kucinich in his views regarding health care. Now, I agree with Ron Paul; it is nice for Americans to help one another, but it should not be left up to our bankrupt Federal government to foot the bill. There is not one program that our Federal government pays for that is not bankrupt. What turns my stomach, is to listen to neocons, like Sean Hannity, slam the cost of Obama's health care bill, but then continually justify the spending of Bush's multi-trillion dollar military failure in the name of "National Defense". I would prefer Universal Health Care over Universal War.

Posted 09/11/09 2:48 PM MarilyninLakeJackson Lake Jackson, TX

It was mentioned in this exchange that people who need help with medical bills should turn to their families, churches, neighborhoods. I submit that families, churches, and neighborhoods should turn to those in need instead of waiting for them to ask. But those wonderful families, churches, and neighborhoods sometimes have the attitudes that I'm seeing here - that it's the sole responsibility of those in need. So they refer them to the programs that they supposedly despise, like Medicaid or just tell them it's their own responsibility. I'm against the federal government taking over health care too, but costs have gone completely out of reach of many people, partially because of programs started years ago, of course. I hate hearing people who have good medical insurance through their employers who pay the majority of the premiums for them criticize those who can't pay for insurance. How hypocritical.

Posted 09/11/09 2:56 PM tb54701 Eau Claire, WI

My first shot back would be to rebuke that I'm "lucky" in my lot in life. Life is built on thousands of daily decisions and reactions to situations,,, I also never use the term, "less fortunate" which also connotates luck. Keep educating this friend.

Posted 09/11/09 3:14 PM AuthenticAuthor , TX

Wonderful rebukes Jonathan! I'm sure that it will take more than a few letters to convince someone that force is not necessary for prosperity to happen, but this is a great start. I have enough trouble as it is with members of my own community. I believe much of this is the result of the public's confusion over "property rights", erroneously thinking that since government enforces property rights it must therefor be the one that distributes them. With that logic, it's not a far stretch to believe that government can distribute health-care. Of course, the problem with such thinking is that it completely overlooks the source of rights, the individual, and the meaning of rights as freedoms that do not contradict the freedoms of others. The word "right" has consequently devolved into merely a claim of ownership, throwing the right "to enjoy the fruits of my own labor" out the window.

Posted 09/11/09 3:17 PM JohnF Lake Mary, FL

"I wonder what basis progressive liberals like the original letter-writer use to determine what's a right and what isn't." The basis is progress. Progressives see universal health care as a step toward perfecting society. To them, sickness should be stamped out at all costs. They believe centralized power can accomplish this. Therefore, they see it as a right, part and parcel of the right to life. After all, what good is life without health? Personally, I don't believe liberal progressives who support abortion have the moral authority to justify arguments with the right to life; but I digress. I think the point of attack here is the fact that central planning really doesn't work. History proves this. We are not perfecting it with our hybrid system, we are merely moving into socialism by degrees. A little socialism IS socialism, and socialism fails.

Posted 09/11/09 3:26 PM Colossal Chris Reno, NV

Great explanations and argument layout. I'll be showing some of my family members this letter! Thanks for your hard work.

Posted 09/11/09 3:31 PM RosemarieAshley St. Clair Shores, MI

Want to know what progressive liberals think? I'm a progressive liberal - in some cases and extremely conservative in others. We need to make a distinction between ideals and practice. In the idealistic Capitalistic society, we would all earn our living doing what we love while free and accurate information with no government intervention would regulate industry to provide only the best products and services. In this fantasy land, every person who worked hard, educated himself, applied his knowledge and was willing to do a fair day's work gets a fair day's pay. In this imaginary world, you are right. Get up off your ass, earn a living and pay your own way through life. All well and good, if you want to go that route. But that isn't how it works. Capitalism does not have free and accurate information. In fact, I'd love to know whose investments increased last October. I'll bet corporate leaders colluded with other wealthy elite world leaders and decided to make a little withdrawal - at the expense of the middle class retirement income - that laws encouraged us to invest. It is government intervention that pays farmers not to grow crops while millions of people starve to death. It is intervention from corporate lobbies that makes laws to serve unnatural monopolies that squeeze out independent competitors in say hardware, for example. Ideally, yes. Those who have will give to those who have not. But it is the elite haves that have created the have-not situation more and more in which formerly middle-class Americans find themselves. Standing on principles is great. I am a pacifist. I will not work for the military or any of their suppliers because I will not support state ordered murder to promote war racketeering. That's all fine and good. But if someone is approaching me or my family with a weapon, I will fight and kill, if necessary to stop a violent crime. Capitalism rewards ruthless, deceptive, collusive, greedy people with profit, directly correlated to their qualifications and the degree to which they eliminate compassion from their consciousness. No, I'm not a communist or a socialist. I have a MBA (4.0 gpa) and experience in Management Consulting, Corporate Training, Marketing, Management and Mortgage Originations. I did NOT sell toxic mortgages and warned prospective clients not to. I did not mislead the borrower, bribe appraisers, violate RESPA and went out of business because of it. I have been seeking paid employment and find wage-masters from big companies (the only ones hiring) are demanding more hours for less money, expecting those of us who have climbed the corporate ladder to fight for the peanuts they offer. I have changed the resume to a number of recommended formats, reduced my apparent age by 10 years, wrote professional cover letters, casual cover letters and no cover letters. No one calls. I lost tens of thousands of dollars in the crash, caused in part by the Mortgage Meltdown, caused by deceptive practices that made my competitors rich and put me out of business. I spent more tens of thousands of dollars to pay living expenses as my income disappeared, exhausted my savings, took equity out of my house. Then my husband, my former business partner, needed an emergency root canal. A month or two later, he slipped in the tub, broke the soap dish and nearly severed two fingers. I negotiated for $20,000 off the surgery and withdrew equity for the mandatory down payment. I was denied Medicade because I have not completely exhausted my IRA that I will be penalized and taxed for withdrawing. Jonathan, congratulations for having a thoughtful opinion and getting published. But getting help from family and friends is not always available. I live outside Detroit. Unemployment is in excess of 15%. Employment is not about what you know but who you know. After 18 years in Mortgages, "who" I know is worthless. I've opened my own record company, wrote and recorded 16 radio-quality songs, but can't get radio play in this country because of the corporate/government owned media selecting generic music to play over the entire country (you can listen free at http://www.sassyalternativemusic.com/downloads). I have an IQ well above average, work tirelessly and can't find sufficient work. I played by the rules of Capitalism but now can't afford to pay the bills that were half of what I used to be able to reasonably qualify. Jonathan and those of you who agree, can you look me in the face (well, obviously not literally) and tell me that my husband deserves to die because we can't afford to pay for his blood pressure prescription or I should let the cavity in my mouth abscess until it explodes in my brain, killing me? If Capitalism worked ideally, I wouldn't be in this situation.

Posted 09/11/09 3:48 PM Andrew Ward ,

@Rosemarie Your use of the word "capitalism" is insufficient in describing the kind of system we live in. By calling this system "capitalist" all you're doing is blaming free, voluntary trade among independent property owners for the problems caused by a system of managed trade among dependent tax-payers. "I lost tens of thousands of dollars in the crash, caused in part by the Mortgage Meltdown, caused by deceptive practices that made my competitors rich and put me out of business." You need to look into the Federal Reserve's system of easy money and the incentives it creates to invest and go into debt for cheap. A lot of people who understand that our corporatist/socialist system is top-down knew better - didn't buy the propaganda - and got out. They did this because they didn't trust our non-capitalist system. There's nothing fantasy about capitalism working. The real fantasy is believing a leviathan state cares about you or your loved ones, and can effectively take from you and your loved ones (and strangers, for that matter) and make the world a better place.

Posted 09/11/09 4:33 PM RosemarieAshley St. Clair Shores, MI

Want to know what progressive liberals think? I'm a progressive liberal - in some cases and extremely conservative in others. We need to make a distinction between ideals and practice. In the idealistic Capitalistic society, we would all earn our living doing what we love while free and accurate information with no government intervention would regulate industry to provide only the best products and services. In this fantasy land, every person who worked hard, educated himself, applied his knowledge and was willing to do a fair day's work gets a fair day's pay. In this imaginary world, you are right. Get up off your ass, earn a living and pay your own way through life. All well and good, if you want to go that route. But that isn't how it works. Capitalism does not have free and accurate information. In fact, I'd love to know whose investments increased last October. I'll bet corporate leaders colluded with other wealthy elite world leaders and decided to make a little withdrawal - at the expense of the middle class retirement income - that laws encouraged us to invest. It is government intervention that pays farmers not to grow crops while millions of people starve to death. It is intervention from corporate lobbies that makes laws to serve unnatural monopolies that squeeze out independent competitors in say hardware, for example. Ideally, yes. Those who have will give to those who have not. But it is the elite haves that have created the have-not situation more and more in which formerly middle-class Americans find themselves. Standing on principles is great. I am a pacifist. I will not work for the military or any of their suppliers because I will not support state ordered murder to promote war racketeering. That's all fine and good. But if someone is approaching me or my family with a weapon, I will fight and kill, if necessary to stop a violent crime. Capitalism rewards ruthless, deceptive, collusive, greedy people with profit, directly correlated to their qualifications and the degree to which they eliminate compassion from their consciousness. No, I'm not a communist or a socialist. I have a MBA (4.0 gpa) and experience in Management Consulting, Corporate Training, Marketing, Management and Mortgage Originations. I did NOT sell toxic mortgages and warned prospective clients not to. I did not mislead the borrower, bribe appraisers, violate RESPA and went out of business because of it. I have been seeking paid employment and find wage-masters from big companies (the only ones hiring) are demanding more hours for less money, expecting those of us who have climbed the corporate ladder to fight for the peanuts they offer. I have changed the resume to a number of recommended formats, reduced my apparent age by 10 years, wrote professional cover letters, casual cover letters and no cover letters. No one calls. I lost tens of thousands of dollars in the crash, caused in part by the Mortgage Meltdown, caused by deceptive practices that made my competitors rich and put me out of business. I spent more tens of thousands of dollars to pay living expenses as my income disappeared, exhausted my savings, took equity out of my house. Then my husband, my former business partner, needed an emergency root canal. A month or two later, he slipped in the tub, broke the soap dish and nearly severed two fingers. I negotiated for $20,000 off the surgery and withdrew equity for the mandatory down payment. I was denied Medicade because I have not completely exhausted my IRA that I will be penalized and taxed for withdrawing. Jonathan, congratulations for having a thoughtful opinion and getting published. But getting help from family and friends is not always available. I live outside Detroit. Unemployment is in excess of 15%. Employment is not about what you know but who you know. After 18 years in Mortgages, "who" I know is worthless. I've opened my own record company, wrote and recorded 16 radio-quality songs, but can't get radio play in this country because of the corporate/government owned media selecting generic music to play over the entire country (you can listen free at http://www.sassyalternativemusic.com/downloads). I have an IQ well above average, work tirelessly and can't find sufficient work. I played by the rules of Capitalism but now can't afford to pay the bills that were half of what I used to be able to reasonably qualify. Jonathan and those of you who agree, can you look me in the face (well, obviously not literally) and tell me that my husband deserves to die because we can't afford to pay for his blood pressure prescription or I should let the cavity in my mouth abscess until it explodes in my brain, killing me? If Capitalism worked ideally, I wouldn't be in this situation.

Posted 09/11/09 4:59 PM RiverRock Concord, NC

The United States is a bad mix of government Tyranny, Corporatism and Socialism. There is only a glimmer of true capitalism left in this country. A country that once obtained such prosperity that it dwarfed all other historical empires and nations of the Earth.

Posted 09/11/09 5:16 PM Libertas Windham, NH

Ok. I think it's time debunk this myth of "the General Welfare" clause once and for all! I hear people cite it over and over and over and over again, and yet they have no idea what it means or why it even exists! Furthermore, I have not heard any Campaign for Liberty member or fellow libertarian / Ron Paul supporter *anywhere* actually articulate why the "General Welfare" clause argument that so many use is erroneous. Let the truth be told. Before we begin, I would ask everyone to please get your Constitutions out as well as your copy of The Federalist Papers (in particular, Federalist 41), if you have them. If not, use these links: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm Let us begin. The preamble to the Constitution, within which the famous "General Welfare" clause is contained, reads as follows: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It is understandable how the average person with no knowledge of our history or the philosophy of liberty might confuse these broad, general statements as mandates for the National Government to fulfill. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. For proof of this, I refer you now to Federalist No. 41, written by James Madison, wherein he himself explains the purpose and meaning of the Preamble. Scroll down (or flip if you're using a hard copy) to the last four paragraphs of the document. It is here where Madison explains that the Preamble is nothing more than an introduction, and that the enumerated powers that follow are the only legitimate ones. In fact, he considers those Anti-Federalists who would even think that the Preamble sets a dangerous precedent are grasping at straws. Clearly, Madison underestimated the potential danger of the "General Welfare" clause, as evidenced by the events of today. Don't take my word for it, though, read his own words for yourself. Here are the last four paragraphs of Federalist No. 41, and the final and definitive we must all use to debunk the ridiculous "General Welfare" clause argument: "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!" Spread the word.

Posted 09/11/09 5:17 PM Libertas Windham, NH

• Mistake in the first sentence ==> should read "time to debunk"

Posted 09/11/09 5:19 PM Libertas Windham, NH

last paragraph that I wrote should read "final and definitive proof"

Posted 09/11/09 5:50 PM RosemarieAshley St. Clair Shores, MI

Andrew says "Your use of the word "capitalism" is insufficient in describing the kind of system we live in." I have to agree. I noticed and refrained from irresponsible credit practices that entangled so many unsuspecting people. I even got most of my money out in time ... the IRA - but did not fathom the depth of corruption and lost what I need now. Intending to learn from that costly mistake, I started researching the truth behind the Central bank and Fiat Money. In fact, I released a song called "Fiat Greed" a month or so ago. Listen to the full-length preview free at www.SassyAlternativeMusic.com/Downloads. We the people, with an overload of information, have little knowledge, as Andrew seemed to alluded. If you want to help educate the masses, invite them to the site for listen. Then be there to answer "What the hell is she talking about?" questions. CampaignForLiberty.com is rare in that it has educated, thoughtful opinions ... and civil debate. I have another controversial song called "Incite Social Evolution", warning the masses of corporate greed, wage-slavery and ignorant investing. If you are open-minded enough to accept the fact that "Social Evolution" doesn't have to mean Socialism or Communism, the message is for individuals to engage entrepreneurial and negotiation skills to define their own terms of employment.

Posted 09/11/09 5:56 PM boeingdriver29 Southport, Australia

Johnathan I am amazed at the price you had to pay for an ultra-sound and an xray. I live in Australia and the other day had to get a back MRI. The cost to me was $224AUS or $190US. We have far less MRI units than you have in the U.S. which should keep the costs high. I would be interested to know the cost of an equivalent MRI in the U.S.

Posted 09/11/09 6:43 PM Fudwamper honolulu, HI

Libertas you are incorrect. Here is the general welfare clause. You are correct that what Madison wrote that if you just read the first paragraph that there would be no reason to list the powers of congress. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Posted 09/11/09 7:20 PM Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

Thanks for your comments and support, everyone. I really must credit all of you, over the past couple of years on various web sites and in person, for educating me on Austrian economics and the proper role of government--and for stoking the fires of freedom under me. I asked on a couple of sites for some input before submitting my letter to the editor, and the comments there helped greatly. I also learned today that the author of the original letter is a social studies teacher at a local high school.

Posted 09/11/09 7:24 PM slickrickjamesbrown Mountain View, CA

Nice job Jonathan, very well written. One argument I like to make is that to claim healthcare, something that needs to be produced, as a right is to advocate a degree of slavery.

Posted 09/11/09 9:23 PM jwfox1965 Las Vegas, NV

Great Job Mr. Kovaciny ! your responses were ALL spot on and well written.

Posted 09/11/09 9:48 PM TripWire Parkville, MD

Mr.Kovaciny, your LTTE and follow-on responses are very articulate and addressed each point with reasoned thought. Kudos to you on getting published in what I imagine is a left-leaning op-ed section. I hope RoseMarie will take your words to heart. Perhaps she'll be inspired to visit mises.org and read some of the profoundly relevant materials there. You know once she stops blaming 'capitalism' for specific instances of fraud in her previous field of endeavor. And perhaps after she stops blaming her husbands clumsiness and resultant accident as part of a grand failure of all things 'capitalist'. She's pretty bitter, so it's doubtful. But I'm an optimist. I believe in liberty!

Posted 09/12/09 06:29 AM Break your chains Byron, GA

You make some excellent points, but this approach that "healthcare is not a right" is a bit of a double-edged sword, speaking from a Constitutional standpoint. The ninth and tenth amendments of the Bill of Rights do, in fact, cover healthcare (don't get mad yet, I'll explain). The 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." There are hidden dangers when suggesting that heathcare is simply not a right, when indeed the above clause exists in our Constitution; the unintended side-effect is that you are inadvertently morphing the plethora of our non-enumerated rights from their natural and inalienable status into a strict listing of rights which now limits the people. And everyone here knows the 10th Amendment, I presume. This is the CAVEAT; the thought-provoking questions, and the part before which you might have quit reading before you got to: Can you have a RIGHT that is not a POWER of government? Absolutely. The two are mutually exclusive. For example: The first amendment guarantees us the right to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, etc. But, is the government authorized to purchase everyone a mega-phone and a ream of paper for their petitions? —The 1st Amendment guarantees that there shall be freedom of religion, but even explicitly states that there shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion. So, you can worship freely, but you'll have to build your own church/mosque/tabernacle. The second amendment guarantees us that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Is the government required to buy everyone a firearm? These are rights, retained by the people, which are not powers of government. SO, even as a Constitutional conservative, I argue that you do have the right to—shall we say—seek healthcare. But the government does not have the power to take from others in order to allow you to exercise your right. I'm not pointing this out for the sake of being disagreeable, but I do think that the 9th Amendment is perhaps the most valuable, although the most over-looked, amendment to our Bill of Rights. —Just something for you to chew on.

Posted 09/12/09 07:31 AM Liberty Tree Crownsville, MD

great article!

Posted 09/12/09 10:55 AM RomanRepublic Hicksville, NY

"Promoting the general welfare" does not give constitutional authority for government healthcare! Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution cite this as a mission of government. Under the Articles the central government was much weaker and I don't think anyone would disagree that its role was not to provide individuals with healthcare. The founders meant to "generally" improve the Union, thus benefiting citizens by extension, a "synergy" if you will. I doubt the term has different meanings in each document as the same group of men wrote both of them. Furthermore, the way it is worded is important. The preamble states to "provide" for the common defense, but to "promote" the general welfare. The definition of PROMOTE is "To contribute to the progress or growth of". The defintion of PROVIDE is "To give something useful or neccesary". Paying for citizens healthcare would be providing, while creating an environment where competition thrives and insurance companies are held responsible would be promoting. Promoting the general welfare is perhaps the most misinterpreted term in the US Constitution and those who invoke it should be met with a prepared and logical argument.

Posted 09/12/09 12:56 PM Tom Mullen Apollo Beach, FL

Jon, One brilliant piece of writing after another. Even the chopped up version of your new letter was impossible to weaken. I especially liked this paragraph at the end: "Adding more government complexity to the mix will not improve what would otherwise be a simple and affordable system if the government would just get out of the way. If car insurance were run the same way as health insurance, we'd be crying for national car insurance reform right now, too. You'd need a full time job to get car insurance, and the govt would require all insurance plans to cover gasoline, oil changes, and repairs. All mechanics would have to be certified by a state board. You'd have no idea how much an oil change cost, but it wouldn't matter because the government would be paying for it. Etc." I know it seems futile, but just keep putting these arguments out. I truly believe there are some who are starting to find the Kool Aid doesn't taste so sweet any more. Don't let them wear you down when they answer your impregnable reason with nonsense. On the way home they are thinking twice. THanks for the great writing.

Posted 09/12/09 1:40 PM AuthenticAuthor , TX

Break your Chains: It took a while to comprehend what you meant, but I get the picture. In other words, Rights are guaranteed freedoms, not guaranteed assets. This reminds me of how I had been in an argument with a friend of mine over what "Right to Life" meant in the context of the Declaration of Independence. I used to believe that it meant the "Right to good health, etc", but later realized this made no sense in the scope of Liberty. Ultimately, it's more accurate to say "Right to Live". Of course, there are extreme statists who believe rights were guaranteed standards of living. Point out the reality and they'll mark you as some sort of heartless barbarian, even though barbarians by definition respect no one's freedoms except their own (unless their neighbor has a weapon too). Thus, the real barbarians are the statists themselves.

Posted 09/12/09 2:58 PM Break your chains Byron, GA

AuthenticAuthor: Exactly. You said it better than I could, in fewer words. Americans have tons of rights, thanks to the 9th Amendment. But, it is up to us to lay the groundwork for exercising them. Roman Republic makes an excellent case in defining the difference between "promote" and "provide". The goverment could 'promote' the pursuit of healthcare by opening the markets to competition, outlawing the taxation of medical savings accounts, and lifting many regulations that strangle the healthcare market. It would not be necessary to 'provide' anything, as the free-market would then handle the rest. No one is harmed by more competition, lower taxes, and lack of idiotic regulations such as the FDA's banning of electronic cigarettes (which, for a brief time before their banning, were being studied as to their benefit in helping people to possibly quit smoking). On the other hand, the government typically cannot 'provide' anyone with anything without first taking something from someone else, usually without their consent. That is ultimately what we must get the democrats (and 'conservatives' too) to realize.

Posted 09/12/09 6:58 PM mattgeb84 lynn, MA

I've read Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson" twice

Posted 09/12/09 7:08 PM pwrk06 anaheim, CA

You did a very good job. I found the response of your friend interesting in the sense that the method by which it was delivered seems to be quite commonplace amongst liberals. This commonality within their method of persuasion is to subtly imply that you are a selfish and ignorant person but have great potential or capability to "look beyond yourself". I do not find this method to be polite at all. If anything, I find it to be an effort to demean and attack those who disagree with their views (even though they may actually think they are just being nice- it can be a very unconscious thing). Your response to your friend however, was completely absent of any resentment. Instead your letter was a well organized, nice, and educated response. Certainly, people of all viewpoints can offer up resentment and subtle attacks in their communication with others who have differing views. It is a human problem and not a partisan one. I commend you for not falling into that trap and stooping to that level, but rather remaining professional and dignified.

Posted 09/13/09 6:44 PM Kyle Plymouth, MI

Break your chains: I agree with the basic premise of what you are saying, and that is: We have a right to seek healthcare. But, we do not have a right to land, labor, and capital owned by someone else. Therefore, we do not have a right to another person's time without just compensation under contract. This is a subset of our "right to contract," and is motivated by our right to pursue happiness. On the same token, we do not have the right to education, a job, or a house or a vehicle. But, we have the right to seek such things as they pertain to our right to pursue happiness. This is an important distinction to make in this debate, the better people understood this concept I think the less of a debate there would really be.

Posted 09/17/09 3:42 PM Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

My friend replied. I posted an update above.

Posted 09/19/09 9:27 PM Farkasm Mankato , MN

looking beyond our bubble, i see, what could be a greater good then taking more responsibility for our own actions? programs that teach less responsibility only generate more people taking less and less responsibility.

Posted 09/21/09 08:40 AM Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

Mr. Urban replied to my LTTE, and I replied to his. Details here: http://bit.ly/UQqm6