Posted by patriot4liberty on 11/06/09
Last updated 11/06/09

The St. Clair County Members of Campaign for Liberty are sponsoring a FREE Health Care Forum for the public on Monday, November 23, 2009, 7:00 p.m.  Location: Port Huron Municipal Office Center, 100 McMorran Blvd., Port Huron, Michigan, 48060.

The forum will feature a panel of professionals representing both sides of the issue.  The panelists are not yet confirmed, but may include:  doctors, nurses, dentists, chiropractors, attorneys, insurance representatives, and legislators.  Questions from the audience will be drawn at random.  We have seating for up to 200 people.  People from all nearby counties are encouraged to attend.

Please spread the word and encourage family, friends, co-workers and aquaintances to attend!

The forum will be moderated by a member of Campaign for Liberty, and we will have a table with information, petitions and literature available.

For more information, you may contact:  Laura McBride at (586) 662-0220.

Posted by patriot4liberty on 08/05/09
Last updated 08/05/09

As I watch and listen to the debate about health care go on, I notice Dr. Ron Paul is the only one who is making this statement:  "It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare." (Texas Straight Talk, Aug. 3, 2009).  Truly, that is the important question.

Yet, something else is bothering me about this whole debate;  another question keeps coming to my mind, and it is:  Aren't we confusing "health care" and "health insurance?"  Maybe it is only a quirk of language or semantics, but to me this changes the entire argument.  To me, the terms "health care" and "health insurance" are not interchangable.  They mean two different things.

When I think of the term "health care,"  I think of the system of doctors, hospitals, care facilities,  research institutions, etc.  When I read about reports and polls that many Americans think we have a great healthcare system, I am inclined to agree.  I have no complaints about the care I receive at my doctor's office, or the care I have received in local hospitals.  I am quite confident, in fact, that I have received top-notch care from my "health care" providers.  Here in the U.S., we have some of the best medical schools, cutting edge technology, effective treatments, etc.   There are some parts of the system that are broken, admittedly, but overall, I would probably not trade it for any other country's system.

Now "health insurance," that is another story.  The biggest complaint is that many Americans cannot afford health insurance.  Even if a plan is offered by an employer, there are usually large premiums, deductibles and co-pays that make it so expensive that some eligible employees cannot afford to enroll.  And if an employer doesn't offer insurance, trying to find an affordable plan as an individual or family is just about impossible.

Why is "health insurance" so expensive?  My guess is that we expect our "insurance" to pretty much cover everything.  Why is this a problem?  Well, think of your automobile insurance.  The basic point of automobile insurance is to pay for catastrophic damage due to an accident or disaster.  Some policy owners may never have even one claim against their automobile insurance.  That means that the premiums those people pay for their auto policies go to pay for the relatively few actual claims paid by the insurer. 

It is the same with your homeowner's insurance.  It will pay if your home or belongings are damaged or lost to fire, hurricane, tornado, theft, etc.  I pay my premiums year in and year out, and I might never get any monetary benefit, if I do not suffer a qualifying event that results in a claim.

Another aspect of insurance is the assessment of risk.  Those who are statistically more likely to have a problem that results in a claim usually pay a higher premium.  Those who are low-risk pay less.   This makes common sense.  A person who has been at fault in several car accidents is statistically more likely to have future accident claims, and thus pays a higher premium than someone who has never caused an accident.  It is the same reason that people with higher credit ratings pay less to borrow money than those with a low credit rating.  The risk that the lender will lose money is greater for those with bad credit, and thus they must pay more money to borrow.

In other words, if an insurance company is at greater risk of paying a claim for you, you will pay more for your policy.

Imagine, however, if we demanded that our automobile insurance cover all routine maintenance:  oil changes, tire rotations, new tires, tune-ups, new freon for the A/C, every scratch and ding, every rip or stain in the upholstery.  In that case, the risk would be the same for everybody.  People would be regularly submitting claims to their insurer, and expecting payment.   In order to cover all these claims, the insurer would need to bring in more money, and the way to do that would be to raise rates.  It simply makes sense that if we expect our "insurance" to pay for more things, the cost will go up.  And because you are now paying into the system with more premiums to cover all your claims, this would essentially be "pre-paid auto care," but not "auto insurance," which is based on risk and pays only for rare, disastrous events. 

The same would hold true with homeowner's insurance; if we expected it to cover routine maintenance like replacing windows and carpets, filling cracks in the walls, paying for a plumber to unclog the drain, having the furnace or fireplace inspected or cleaned periodically, etc., we could naturally expect to be paying much higher rates, to cover the cost of all the claims the insurer must now pay out.  What would we have then?  Not "insurance," but--you guessed it--"pre-paid house care."

A few decades ago, health "insurance" operated much like automobile and homeowner's insurance.  It covered people in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury, and risk was based on a number of factors.  Families would pay for their own routine things, like medications and office visits.  Because the number of catastrophic claims was small, the rates were pretty affordable, but people could rest easy that if there was a disaster--terrible illness or car accident, for example-- insurance would cover the costs. 

Then in the 1970's government intervened in the "health insurance" system, and began requiring insurers to begin covering routine items, like check-ups and immunizations, and the mandated coverage kept expanding.  Also, companies had very little freedom to offer tailored coverage:  an elderly couple would have little use for coverage of birth control, well-child visits or pre-natal care,  just as a young couple has less likelihood of needing coverage for cataract surgery, prostate surgery or Viagra.

The result is that today, government madates mean that the American people must pay for one-size-fits-all policies that cover every health care expense imaginable, regardless of risk, need or choice.  We are taking more out of the system in claims so we must pay more into the system, by way or premiums, co-pays and deductibles.  It is no longer based on statistical risk, or catastrophic medical needs. 

Does this sound like "insurance?"   Remember, if the plan covers everything, someone needs to pay for everything.  That someone is you.  "Health insurance" has evolved into "pre-paid health care."  So let's watch our language, and call things what they really are.

I have addressed the technical difference between "health care" and "health insurance."  However, that is a minor detail in the entire scheme of things.  If we go back to Ron Paul's statement, everyone is talking about HOW government should fix health care ("insurance"), not WHY government should fix it. 

The most important questions we now need to ask ourselves are:

1) Is the federal government really capable of "fixing" anything?

2) Does the federal government have the money to "fix" the  health care ("insurance") system?

3) If the federal government does not have the money, should they forcibly take it away from Americans, through taxes, penalties etc. to pay for it?

4) Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to establish a national healthcare ("insurance") system?

The answer to each question is NO.

Posted 08/05/09 Isomies Mechanicsville, VA

I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked "is the federal government capable of 'fixing' anything?".

Posted 08/05/09 gharalam Astoria, NY

i think you hit the nail on the head on everything, im gonna use this on further arguements.

Posted 08/06/09 teapartyer Montague, MA

So glad someone has brought this to the forefront. But be careful about using the car analogy: I've used it and have had people come back at me and say, "But driving is optional, getting sick is not." They are right. Sure, not driving is a pain if you live in a rural area, but bottom line, it's not a requirement for survival. Housing, however, is NOT optional. People are running in circles about this bill because no one has taken the time to DEFINE THE PROBLEM. As patriot4liberty points out, is the problem in health care or in health insurance? What is the problem? And what about this - is there a problem? Define the problem first, Congress. And doing that will require you to slow down.

Posted by patriot4liberty on 08/02/09

    Many Americans feel the government should provide universal health care.  That, however, does not make it a "right."   A study of philosophy and constitutional history makes clear the views of the founding fathers regarding rights.  Those views were influenced by several millennia of philosophers regarding natural law and natural rights, most notably the 17^th c. philosopher John Locke, and the 18^th c. philosopher Thomas Paine. 

    The Declaration of Independence tells us people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."   Neither the government nor the constitution "gives" us any rights, they come from our Creator.  The government cannot simply create a right.   It must be inherent in the natural law.   The Declaration also says ". . . That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . ."  In the view of the founders of our nation, the job of government is to protect our rights, not to create or grant them.

    Anything the government can bestow, it can also take away;  it is therefore considered a "privilege."  An example of a government granted privilege is a driver's license.  That is not a "right."  According to natural law, our rights are "unalienable," which means no person or government can take them away.

    Universal healthcare cannot be considered a right simply because it is a popular idea.

    The writings of Locke, Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and countless others describe the three most basic rights as life, liberty, and property (referred to as "the Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration).  Property includes the fruits of a person's labor, because a person spends his time, which is part of his life, to obtain those fruits, whether they are in the form of a paycheck, bartered or purchased goods, or other reward.

    If the fruits of one's labor are considered his property, and property is an unalienable natural right, no person or government can take that away without permission.  When the government levies a tax on people, forcibly taking the fruits of their labor, in order to provide something (universal healthcare for example) to another group of people who have not expended their labor for it, that is a violation of the right to property.   

    So, under the natural law, universal healthcare is not a right.  At best, it is a misguided utopian goal.  At worst, universal healthcare is a gross violation of our legitimate rights to liberty (freedom of choice) and property (the fruits of our labor).

Posted 08/11/09 dwsnyderbelousek Raleigh, NC

You have misrepresented the natural law tradition. John Locke, the first authority which you cite, states the law of nature in these terms: "The state of nature has a law to govern it, which obliges everyone; and reason, which is that law; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." (Second Treatise of Government, Chap. II Notice two things here in Locke's formulation: (1) Locke clearly states that, according to the natural law of reason, health is the equal right of all persons; (2) the right to health is listed after the fundamental right to life but before the subsequent rights to liberty and property. Whereas life and health are basic rights, liberty and property are dependent rights. The exercise of liberty by means of one's labor to acquire property depends upon the life and health of the body: without life, liberty is impossible; without health, liberty is impotent. Locke, therefore, held that health is a natural right which, like the right to life, is prior to the rights of liberty and property. Thus, to use the rights of liberty and property to trump the right to health, as you do, turns the natural law tradition, at least as understood by Locke, on its head.

Posted 09/15/09 patriot4liberty Marine City, MI

Tom Mullen's article of 9-12-2009, "The Natural Law Provides the Answers," prompted me to post a comment there, regarding his quote of John Locke: "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." Mr. Mullen responded to my comment with this: "Patriot4Liberty, I am glad you pointed out Locke's statement of the non-aggression principle as the chief dictate of the law of nature, that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." You make an important point: His mention of the word "health" does not indicate that people have a right to have health care provided to them by others (as this is harming the providers in their possessions), it merely means that no of us is allowed to HARM them in their health - in other words, we are probibitied from not only killing one another but also from beating the crap out of someone in aggression, though they may be left alive afterwards. To try to infer that "not harming" is equal to an obligation to provide something is completely illogical. As I said in another post, this is where Jefferson got his philosophy - How do I know that? Because he said so."

Posted by patriot4liberty on 05/18/09
Last updated 05/18/09

Anyone concerned or interested in the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act of 2001 (also known as H.R. 3162.ENR) should look at the following link from the library of congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107jr9lzi::

It looks like you can access the entire text of the bill here (if you can devote several weeks). This will boggle the mind!  "Section I: Short Title and Table of Contents" is five pages long.

This will make for some interesting browsing!

 By the way, it makes my skin crawl to think that this legislation uses such a contrived acronym to call itself the "Patriot Act."  This tarnishes and defiles the true meaning of the word "patriot," which I otherwise proudly call myself.  According to Webster's New World Dictionary, a "patriot" is "one who  loves and zealously supports his country."  One would think in order to zealously support one's country, one would have to support and follow its constitution, which this Act defies in more ways than one can count (unless one has several weeks and a good constitutional expert on retainer)

Posted 05/18/09 RobPepe Pennsburg, PA

Judge Napolitano on the Patriot Act... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sgO6qGYOnM

Posted by patriot4liberty on 04/16/09

Yesterday, many thousands of people in dozens of cities across America gathered at "Tea Party" protests.  It made my heart glad to see so many Americans exercising their rights to assemble;  but it is even more promising that so many people have had their eyes opened to the dangers of big government!

So many Americans hand over money to the government through payroll deductions, and then (after the government has used the money as an interest free loan for the year), the same Americans are so "happy" to have a refund--of their own money!  They act as if the government is actually giving them some kind of bonus, when it really was the people's money all along!

I think that if we didn't have the "convenience" of payroll deductions, Americans would be even more irate about the amount of money they pay in taxes.  For example, If you had to pay a lump sum once per year of $5,000, that would seem like a lot of money.  As it is now, with payroll deductions, American workers never seem to miss the money that they never see to begin with.  (By the way, the same theory works for putting a percentage of every paycheck into savings;  many people say they cannot afford to put money into savings, but if it came out of your check right off the top, you would hardly notice the difference!)

I have heard from some C4L members that were at the Tea Parties that many people signed up or took literature about Campaign for Liberty.  Let's all hope that our membership numbers increase as a result of these peaceful protests, and that more American will wake up to the fact that the government that "gives" them so much is taking away even more.