Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny on 07/09/09
Last updated 07/09/09

Download a 10-line petition to gather signatures for S.604 and H.R. 1207, bills to audit the Federal Reserve. More information about these bills is available from the Campaign for Liberty's Audit the Fed page.

This petition has 10 lines per page, making it easy to count number of signatures when you have multiple pages to submit. The full petition text is at the top of each page so that it is clear that people knew what they were signing.

The files are two-page documents, which makes it easier to set up two-sided printing. If you will be printing one-sided pages, just print half the number of copies you need.

S.604 Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (submit to your Senators)

• PDF format
• Microsoft Word format
• Open Document format

H.R.1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act (submit to your Representative)

• PDF format
• Microsoft Word format
• Open Document format

We used this petition to gather over 400 signatures in three days. Our Representative signed on as a cosponsor within a week.

To get signatures quickly, visit public places like busy parks and recreation areas, apartment buildings, and public universities. In most jurisdictions, you should legally be able to collect signatures from pedestrians on public sidewalks and other public lands. Go where the people are!

Posted 07/14/09 DHAndrew Concord, TN

Thank you for sharing. Tennessee Liberty Alliance www.tnliberty.org has collected hundreds of signatures for delivery this week.

Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny on 11/09/09

This video is well done and worth a watch. What do you think of it?

Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny on 10/10/09
Last updated 10/08/09

My comments on another forum on health care and the role government takes in protecting consumers. The text written by the other person I am indenting in the quote boxes.

You bet healthcare is a HUMAN right. I feel sorry for those who put enterprise /money before mankind. And in terms of the Declaration of Independence... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... hard to acheive when being exploited by insurance companies... or lack of funds prevent medical treatment...

Do we agree that a right is something to which one is entitled, something which is inherently possessed? You have a natural right to your own life (no one can legitimately kill you), your liberty (no one can enslave you), and your property (no one can steal what you have labored to produce or purchase). If we agree on this, then health care cannot be a right, because health care must be produced by someone.

If a doctor removes a tumor from your lung, his time and talents must be employed to perform the operation. If the patient has a right to that operation, then it is in violation of the doctor's right to liberty and property (his time and talents) and (s)he is essentially a slave to the patient. Health care is not a right. It is a need. How we as a society provide for that need is the question at hand.

"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. " - what happened there?

There is a difference between saying, 'we're all in the same boat so we all need to row together if we are to achieve independence from the Crown' and saying 'you are all entitled to the product of everyone else's labor, so start sharing'. Also, rights cannot be granted by any document; they are inherent: the fact that the Constitution and other founding documents refer to our natural rights does not mean that the Constitution, etc., are the granters of those rights.

If you so dearly heed the words of the Declaration of Independence, why not then stand with us in defiance of health insurance companies' tyranny over us! Was it not tyranny that inspired the D of I? Do you not see insurance and big pharma price gouging and claim denying and the majority of bankruptcies related to huge medical bills as tyranny? Or is it the corporations inalienable right to drain the good people of this country with high premiums and prices and low payout? What about the confirmed price gouging and rebranding the same drugs to prolong their marketability? How about denying domestic abuse victims for PRE EXISTING conditions? Health insurance ONLY cares about obscene profits - not you, not me, not your family, not mine, not anyone that costs them money! WAKE UP!

People on both sides of any divisive issue are always encouraging the other side to 'wake up', both believing that they themselves are fully 'awake'. Trust me, it's not like I haven't fully considered this issue. Either one of us is wrong or we both are, and its our job to civilly talk about the issue until we can come to an agreement. That's difficult since there's a lot of money being dumped in by those with a vested interest in the outcome, and that tends to muddy the waters of civil discourse. Facts are difficult to come by, sources are biased, and statistics are skewed. On all sides.

Health care in the U.S. is expensive because of massive government intervention - the regulations, mandates, etc., that have turned our health insurance industry into a byzantine third-party payment system rife with waste and lobbyists. The big players in the field have quashed competition by pushing through thousands of regulations designed to make it difficult and expensive for new health care providers and insurers to enter the field.

Health insurance is not insurance at all. 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 and attend 4 years of school before they could turn a screwdriver. You'd have no idea how much an oil change cost, but it wouldn't matter because someone else would be paying for it. Etc.

I challenge you to put yourself in someone else's shoes and imagine what someone without the good fortune you have might have to go through to get treatment. Perhaps you can ponder having to sell your home because you can't afford it with all your medical bills. Got a comfy car? Good because you may have to live in it. And I hope you never have a catastrophic medical crisis that may threaten your good fortune as it has for more than half of our countrymen that file bankruptcy every year.

This is a common accusation of those who want to force taxpayers to pay for other people's health care, food, housing, etc. If I oppose forcible taxation for the provision of services to the poor, then that makes me selfish and lacking compassion. To the contrary, I certainly am thinking of people less fortunate than me. My desire is definitely not to trample on the downtrodden, but to help them in a way that actually helps rather than to provide for their needs in a way that makes them dependent (and slaves to the state) and destroys real charitable giving. Believe me, I care for the poor just as much as you do.

The poor (and I myself probably qualify as 'poor') should seek 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 one doesn't genuinely 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 find it ironic that in the name of freedom, some defend the freedom of corporations to oppress this country. UGH! Capitalism has become an ugly beast when we are so blind as to turn our backs on humanity.

We in the United States have corporatism, not capitalism. Over the years, companies have secured special privileges for themselves from government. The very concept of incorporation violates the rights of the consumers, because the people behind the corporations obtain, through government mandate, special protections from any damages that may result from their corporation's activities. This makes it much easier for companies to screw people over because the company, rather than the people that own it, bears most of the risk.

I absolutely oppose corporatism because it is NOT freedom. We do NOT have a free market or capitalism in the United States (nor really anywhere in the world). Capitalism is the scapegoat because we have what on the surface looks like capitalism but is actually a very mixed economy.

Companies only get as big and powerful as they are because government itself allows them to be. Without the protection of the government and the regulations that stifle true competition, these companies would be quickly replaced by other companies that provided what consumers actually wanted at a lower price and without screwing people over. Ask yourself: "If all health insurance companies are evil and constantly screwing the little guy and putting profit ahead of people, then why don't I get together with some friends and start my own insurance company that is actually nice to our customers and provides a good product at a fair price? People will come in droves to buy insurance from us and we'll rule the insurance market easily."

The answer to this hypothetical question is that you can't. Because the existing insurance companies have so heavily protected themselves with government that you cannot be nice to your customers and stay afloat. If we want to solve this problem, we need LESS government, not more. Government is and will always be the tool of Big Pharma, Big Banks, Big Everything. Government is NOT ON OUR SIDE because we only have votes and the Big Guys have the money. When you vote to put the government in charge of protecting us from the companies (through regulations, mandates, etc.), the companies themselves will, in short order, buy off the politicians and regulators and stack the deck in their favor. The companies can screw us over and be protected from retaliation by the system we voted into place.

I am tired of getting screwed over; we all are. We need to (gently and quickly) dismantle the system that is allowing this to take place.

Posted 10/11/09 Durden Orlando, FL

Very well done, bravo to you sir. Going to post this on my Facebook.

Posted 10/11/09 ksa4liberty Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

I really admire your ability to cut right to the point with surgical precision and clarity. Your posts should be as widely disseminated as possible...they are excellent. Have you thought of/do you do public speaking as well?

Posted 10/11/09 Hudsoner Cold Spring, NY

I second what the others have said. This is probably the most articulate and clearly presented case for free market healthcare I've read yet. Looking forward to your next posts!

Posted 10/11/09 amyers68 JAMESTOWN, OH

Awsome! Fantastic job!!

Posted 10/11/09 rightsman Las Vegas,, NV

Jonathan Kovaciny, Your protagonist states that health care is a human right. And I would agree with him 100%. The responsibility lies with the person with the right. We, each of us, have the right to life. The responsibility lies with the owner of that life to care for it, protect it, and ensure that no one takes that life. Every right comes with a responsibility. The responsibility to protect that right. The government(s) with their mandates and regulations have forced the general populace to abandon the responsibility and look to someone else for the right to health care. We have the right to own a car, but we have the responsibility to pay for it. We have the right to shelter but we have the responsibility to pay for it. A very good article. Thank you, Robert Walker

Posted 10/11/09 CTLovesNathanHale Atlanta, GA

Anyone who thinks they have a right to "free" health care is a slave, a very dangerous individual indeed, and a lost soul. These creatures feel like they are prize animals on a plantation, and therefore their masters should keep their bodies well looked after. In the modern era, no longer are people enslaved in most states by force. They have voluntarily entered the ranks of slavery, like an unwritten contract of indentured servitude. The deal is that the slaves receive certain freebies from their masters, i.e. the "elites" controlling the government, in return for the slave's blind trust and willingness to support the endeavors of said masters, including attacking free members of their own society, and waging war against other peoples. (Of course, the freebies aren't produced by the "elites", just stolen from the rest of us.) The willing slave, what I call the "happy slave", is just as culpable as the "elites" it serves in crimes against humanity.

Posted 10/11/09 jazzycat Galena, MO

This is an excellent article. One of the best I've read in a while. Very concise and understandable. Thank you

Posted 10/11/09 ifc69 Midland, MI

When people go on about the massive profits insurance companies are making, I wonder if they've ever questioned why there aren't more start up companies being created to compete for a piece of the action. I recently filled out the paperwork for my own LLC and even that was almost enough to make me not want to bother. I imagine if more people tried starting their own companies they would soon see where the problem in health care lies.

Posted 10/11/09 retornado30 Roosevelt, UT

Very nice response. I had to laugh when I read your antagonist say that the "pursuit of happiness" is hard to achieve when, "lack of funds prevent medical treatment.." Where does he think "funds" come from? Following his logic you would have to assume that the government is then the dispenser of "funds". And that economy is a government created phenomenon, instead of naturally occurring communication and exchange between individuals. That just sounds plain crazy doesn't it?

Posted 10/11/09 Sarah Denhof Grand Rapids, MI

This is a really nice article. I appreciate how you highlighted the connection between big govt and big pharma, big banking, big agro, big food etc. That's a good rally poster. Of course, govt also reinforces the need for health care by subsidizing these industries. The burden on the health care system would not be nearly so great if it were focused on prevention and healthy lifestyles rather than fast and processed foods, drugs, vaccines, radiation and surgery, oppressing small farmers and suppressing natural healing remedies. This is where health care truly needs to be reformed, not simply insurance. Doctors are the third leading cause of death - and now I have to pay $1,000 NOT to see one? This health care reform is about control, of course it's not their only grab for our bodies, but it is a powerful one. We must continue to resist.

Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny on 09/21/09
Last updated 09/21/09

Over the last couple of weeks, I've participated in a letter-to-the-editor exchange with a local high school social studies teacher on the subject of government-provided health care. (My previous blog post, Health care is unequivocally not a right, which was featured on the Campaign for Liberty front page on September 11, includes both letters.)

Scott Urban's reply to me was published on September 17, where he argued that the Golden Rule should apply to health care:

Either health care is an unalienable right or it is unequivocally not a right. We have a choice.

This is the fundamental argument underlying the health care reform debate today. How we, as a people, respond shall determine the well-being of countless future generations of yet unborn citizens.

Which vision for America's future do you embrace?

I presented my liberal vision (published Sept. 4) and Jon Kovaciny delivered his conservative rebuttal, published Friday.

I was saddened to read on the eighth anniversary of the greatest act of terror in American history, that some had forgotten how our neighbors and our government rallied to aid those who lost everything. The better angels of our national character inspired Americans to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

This powerful concept eloquently describes a universal ethic of reciprocity. The Golden Rule motivated our nation after 9/11 to care for each other and today it inspires the crusading spirit of health care reform. Those who share this ideal, recognize the unalienable right to medical care and a shared social responsibility to ensure equal human rights for all.

As a liberal, I believe that our neighbors should be treated with equal consideration, equal respect, equal compassion and equal medical care.

We, the people, are the government. We are our neighbor's keepers in times of war and peace. We made that irrevocable commitment with the radification [sic] of the Constitution.

Today, my liberal conscience demands all Americans have healthcare at all times and in all ways, regardless of their wealth. What do you think?

What is your conscience telling you?

I couldn't leave it at that, of course, so I sent in my reply right away, which is published in today's issue. Unlike last time, the editors didn't make any changes to my submission.

In his Your View reply published Friday, Scott Urban implied that my disapproval of government-provided health care indicates a selfish and uncaring attitude toward those in need. He also neglected to answer a single point I raised.

Urban chains together these words: consideration, respect, compassion, medical care. The first three are worthy attitudes we should all hold; the fourth is an action. It is our individual responsibility to act on these attitudes in the form of charitable giving and volunteerism.

Delegating this responsibility to the government is neither charitable nor truly compassionate: If I take $100 from my neighbor and give it away, that is not my compassion at work, but my desire to seize his money for a cause I support. Interposing a layer or two of government doesn't magically make it ethical, regardless of how noble the cause or how "selfish" my neighbor appears. Perhaps my neighbor would rather donate that $100 elsewhere, or employ someone for a day, or even purchase something, which employs others.

It is not the government's role to decide what our actions should be and impose them. Nor is it the beneficiary's right to receive any generosity, it is their blessing. We should exchange needed support through family, friends, and charitable institutions. The government's so-called "safety net" has eroded these important community connections and depersonalized the acts of giving and receiving. This depersonalization makes it easy to ask for help when one doesn't sincerely need it, which leads to overuse and dependency.

I suggest that Urban, along with all voters, read Col. Davy Crockett's 1884 speech to Congress, "Not Yours to Give", and view "The Philosophy of Liberty" on jonathangullible.com.

Credit where it's due: a couple of passages in my letter were originally written by a friend who gave his permission to reuse them.

The speech and video I to which I referred: Not Yours to Give and The Philosophy of Liberty.

Posted 09/21/09 steve5044 New York, NY

spoken like an upper middle class white guy who has never had to worry about losing his health insurance or had a medical emergency. you clearly lack basic economic knowledge outside the few books by Austrians you may have read, much less a clear grasp for health economics. did it ever occur to you the current system how the current system is robbing the average person of liberty?

Posted 09/21/09 Alan Smith Austin, TX

Love it!

Posted 09/21/09 Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

steve5044, the current system is terrible. The proposed system is worse. Also, I am far from an "upper middle class white guy who has never had to worry about losing his health insurance or had a medical emergency". Our health care system is already littered with government intervention. This is the cause of the problem, not the solution to it.

Posted 09/21/09 RiverRock Concord, NC

I completely agree with your arguments. I just don't understand the part where you say health care is unequivocally not a right. I think health care is a right that should not be obstructed or distorted by government (like it is currently). It is a part of the right to life? Just like someone said before, we have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean the government is allowed to take money from someone else and buy me guns. It just means the government can't do anything to stop citizens from "bearing arms".

Posted 09/21/09 Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

We have a right to health, and we have a right to purchase or produce health care, but we do not have a right to health care itself.

Posted 09/21/09 steve5044 New York, NY

If you believe government intervention is the cause of our healthcare issues and the free market is the solution, you badly misunderstand healthcare economics. First, go to the CMS site and study cost trends under Medicare. How is it Medicare can cover the oldest and by definition the sickest slice of the population, yet keep medical costs lower by 100 bps over the last 25 years relative to the insurance companies? http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf Heal th insurers follow a very simple model: revenues (our premiums) minus costs (medical costs) = profits. You are a cost to the insurer, and under a free market, it is the insurers duty to lower costs by denying coverage when you get sick, deny pre-existing conditions (and yes, pregnancy is a pre-existing condition…how does that make you feel ladies?). What happens when an insurance companies may miss their EPS target? They certainly won't lower their administration costs or salaries. They find (make up) ways to deny coverage, all in the name of the free market. This is an absolute 100% fact. You ok with this? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27kristof.html So why in the middle of a nasty recession are insurance premiums going up on average 10% this year? Because insurers know middle class workers will continue to sacrifice wage increases for coverage like they have for the last 10 years. And emoployers have tax incentives to provide insurance instead of wage increases. And this will continue. You call this liberty? I call this robbery. I believe in small government, but I also believe in my government standing up for what's right and defending my liberty when it's being stolen by greedy insurers in the name of capitalism. Most of the current proposals making their way through congress are terrible. But they are the step in the right direction, and better than the status quo. I am a free marketer and know the free market works for the vast majority of goods and services. It never has, and never will work for health care and insurance. One size fits all ideology's are just bad policy, whether you are a libertarian, Austrian, liberal, conservative, saltwater, etc…. Healthcare is absolutely a right. It sickens me people spend more time, money, and energy defending the 'right' to buy a semi automatic had gun than the 'right' to be able to see a doctor on a regular basis.

Posted 09/21/09 Jonathan Kovaciny Mankato, MN

Health care cannot be a right because it must be provided by someone. You don't have a right to something that someone else must labor to produce. 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 someone else would be paying for it. Etc. We don't need a health care 'system' any more than we need a grocery system. If left alone, the market is easily able to provide for nearly everyone's needs, and the charity market is able to pick up the rest (since the costs have not been driven sky-high by govt interference).

Posted 09/21/09 RiverRock Concord, NC

Jonathan, would saying, we don't have a right to government forced/provided, welfare, health care be more accurate? Steve5044, health care is like it is because employer provided health insurance (caused by government policies since WWII), government regulations, and government huge subsidization from medicare and medicaid that completely distorts supply and demand. Under a free market (which just means all of us as a whole making decisions about what we want and what it is worth) insurance companies couldn't do what they are doing nor would the costs of health care be so outrageous. A free market is the fairest and most efficient way we have to distribute limited resources at this time in human development. A large central government over such a large country, by its very nature is the opposite of fair, and efficient.

Posted 09/21/09 nkleffman Austin, TX

RiverRock, You have a right to your own property, and you have a right to enter into contracts. Everything else is a privilege that is extended to you and can be withdrawn at any time for any reason. So you are correct, I have a right (to contract) for healthcare the same way I have a right to keep and bear arms, since the object of both rights is the property of my body that I have a responsibility to protect and to keep healthy. But like you say, that doesn't mean that government can steal money from my neighbor to supply me with a gun, just like they can't steal to supply me with health care. I would suggest watching Michael Badnarik's constitution class, or at least the first hour. It makes the rights / property issue as clear as night and day. http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html

Posted 09/21/09 huntingtonsteam Huntington Beach, CA

If the unconstitutional Fed did not have the monopoly over our money, if Congress again asserted its constitutional prerogative and had direct control over the value of money, if silver and gold coins once again were money and ceased to be commodities on the stock market, and some other basic ifs I left out then there would be no healthcare debate. The country would have industry ,the unit of exchange would no longer be primarily for speculative purposes only ( which is exactly what the 1913 Fed Reserve Act did, turn our dollar into a speculative instrument) but would be what it originally was , a unit for productive exchange, the citizens of our country would no longer be debt slaves to a debt money system. If this all were true NOW, there would be no debate and all the people who used to be fighting for an AUDIT OF THE FED NOW! but are being distracted by arguing about healthcare would be fighting for that Audit NOW!

Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny on 09/11/09
Last updated 09/17/09

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 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 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 ShedPlant Slough, United Kingdom

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

Posted 09/11/09 Alan Smith Austin, TX

I liked the eggs comparison. lol.

Posted 09/11/09 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 sweetliberty San Rafael, CA

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 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 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 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 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.