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 by BeTheWheel on 09/22/09

On September 22, 2009, Congressman Tim Walz was supposed to be at the county library in Fairmont, MN to meet with his constituents in our area.  Due to other obligations in Washington, Congressman Walz was unable to attend but sent two members of his staff in his stead, Mr. Rick Howden and Ms. Ann Spicer.  The following is the text of the statement I intended to make to Congressman Walz directly but instead made to his staff members and the others present:

Congressman Walz, thank you for coming today and welcome to Fairmont.  With all the talk about healthcare reform, I'd first like to applaud you for co-sponsoring what I feel is the most important legislation currently in the works in Washington, which is HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

Mayer Rothschild, who was founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty, and was listed by Forbes magazine as one of the "Twenty Most Influential Businessmen of All Time", said "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."  No truer words could have been spoken when you look at our current monetary system in the United States.  Our Constitution gave authority to regulate the value of our money to Congress, and demanded that the money in circulation be backed by things with value such as gold and silver.  The dollar bills you and I have in our pockets used to say "Gold Certificate" or "Silver Certificate" on them.  It was basically a receipt that said you owned a dollar's worth of gold or silver.  That is what gave the piece of paper in your hand value.   When the Congress printed more money, they paid no interest on it. 

Thanks to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress has handed over this Constitutional obligation to a secretive board of private bankers and created an institution more powerful than any of our elected offices, including the Presidency.  Besides the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to relinquish their Constitutional obligation to any other body such as the Federal Reserve,  we have allowed Congress a clever way to acquire funds for every government program under the sun without having the ask We The People for it first.  Whenever they spend too much money, they borrow money from foreign countries, and the Fed prints money out of thin air to cover the shortfall.  Then we are told as citizens, we must do our patriotic duty and pay our taxes.

Now, we're supposed to believe that the paper in our pocket is the actual money.  That paper now says "Federal Reserve Note".  It is exactly that, a note.  It is something that we owe, rather than own.  And now, I have read that every baby born in America today, before it even takes its first breath of air, owes somewhere in the ballpark of $30,000 of our national debt.  And that is only based on obligations we've already incurred.  I have also read, when you factor in future entitlements to which our government has obligated the taxpayers, the number reaches closer to $200,000.  When the government reaches its debt ceiling, they simply raise the debt ceiling. 

I am no economist, but even I know the more paper dollars we have in circulation, the less they are worth.  When the Fed prints more and more money out of thin air, meaning it is not backed by anything of real value, it makes every dollar that you or I carry in our pockets worth less than it was before.  This is inflation, and there is no one that is harmed more by inflation than those who already have a hard time making ends meet.  So, government programs intended to help the poor, inevitably harm the very people they are intended to help when the government has no money to pay for the program and inflationary monetary policy is employed.  It is a hidden tax that no one talks about.  It is irresponsible as well as immoral.  Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted to Congress, under oath, that inflation is a hidden tax that primarily harms the poor.  We have evolved from an economy based on capitalism and free enterprise to a mostly fraudulent economy that is based on consumer spending and easy credit and would be more accurately described as corporatism or economic fascism than capitalism.  This is made possible by a central banking system that protects all of its Wall Street friends from the consequences of ineptitude and risky business practices and has indebted future generations of Americans by encouraging all of us to not live within our means.  Well, what happens when foreign countries no longer wish to loan us money because we continue to pay them back with increasingly worthless U.S. dollars, ultimately resulting in a collapse of the U.S. dollar? 

We have already heard rumblings coming out of the UN of a new international currency.  Well, let me revisit the words of Mr. Rothschild.  "Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes the laws".  If those words are frightening as they apply to our current monetary system, imagine if we operated under an international monetary system controlled by private bankers.  It's no wonder that even though we hear the campaign slogan of "change" every four years regardless of which political party happens to be in opposition, we never see any change.  If continued government growth and intervention into our financial, medical, and personal lives is what we want, then I guess our government is operating to perfection.

If liberty is what we desire, then I feel it is time to start holding our representatives accountable to their oaths of office, which is simply to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  If we do that, then many of the other debates we are currently having become irrelevant.  We as a people will only have the freedoms and liberties that we are willing to fight for.  History has proven that.  It is up to us, not just Congressman Walz and his colleagues. 

Once again, Congressman Walz, I applaud you for cosponsoring HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve, and I ask that you continue to fight to make sure that this bill passes the House and eventually is signed by President Obama so that we can finally find out where all of our money is going.  You no doubt will meet heavy opposition from outside special interests in this fight.  I also ask that you simply uphold your oath of office to defend and protect our Constitution.  It is the moral and honorable thing to do.  You certainly will never make everyone happy by doing this, but you will never need to defend yourself for doing what is moral and honorable, which is to honor your oath.  There are thousands who will support you in that effort. 

The Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, was written to restrain the power and scope of government, not to grant powers to it.  We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy.  That means there are certain things the government may not do, regardless of how many votes they can muster in the House or the Senate or how much favor and goodwill they enjoy in the court of public opinion.  The power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.  In order to expand the power of the government beyond its constitutional limitations, We The People must give our consent through our elected representatives by amending our Constitution.  We, the governed, have consented to too much unconstitutional intervention into our lives, and as government has grown out of control over the decades, we are now subjected, on a daily basis, to government interventions into our lives to which we never consented. 

There is one verbal commitment I would ask that you would make to all of us here today, Congressman Walz.  It is no secret anymore that Congress often passes legislation without even reading the bills prior to voting.  This is unacceptable and indefensible.  I would ask that you make a vow to personally not vote for any legislation that you have not personally read and of which you have not had sufficient opportunity to obtain a thorough understanding, and that you will fight to prevent a vote on any legislation if you have reason to believe that your colleagues have also not done so.  Other than an imminent threat to our national security, there is nothing that you will ever vote on that is so urgent as to require such irresponsible and hasty measures.

In times like these, I believe it to be proper to seek counsel from the wisdom of our founding fathers, and I'd like to close with a couple of quotes that I believe are relevant to the issues of today.

The first is from Thomas Jefferson, and I'm assuming this statement was made sometime after the creation of America's first central bank, which I believe was name the First Bank of the United States, and was later dismantled.  Jefferson said, "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. . . . I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

  In order to climb out of the hole we are in, we must first stop digging.  We often hear talk of reaching across party lines, and setting aside partisan politics in the name of "getting things done".  Unfortunately, "getting things done" usually means further shackling our kids and grandkids with the financial burdens of our generation's irresponsibility.  Rather than uniting to "get something done", it is time We The People set aside our partisan politics and unite in the name of Liberty.  We have created a huge mess because of our willingness to allow all of the governing to take place in Washington.  We must return to the guidance of the Constitution and the principles of self-government.  The concept of self-government means that we have the right to govern our own lives without government interference as long we do not interfere with the rights of others to do the same.  For those that believe the Constitution is outdated and no longer meets the needs of today, let us remember that autocratic rule and oppression are as old as history itself.  In the grand scope of history, liberty and self-government are still in their infancy, but are sadly on life support.  Our founders called our system of government the "Great Experiment" in a time when Thomas Paine said, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."  Does it really only take 200 years for the concept of liberty to lose its luster?  What would those who sacrificed so much to create something never before seen in history say about what we have done to our country?  Our early patriots revolted over a 1 cent tax on tea, yet the tax burden that we now bear is staggering in comparison. 

Thomas Paine said, "If there be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace".  Well, we have trouble in our day.  I pray to God that we will choose to find a remedy that does not further burden the generations of those who do not yet have a voice.  Will posterity refer to us as the generation that reignited the torch of liberty, or will they look back on us with contempt for leaving behind a legacy of lost liberties, indebtedness, and corruption?  I believe the answer to that question lies not in Washington, D.C., but with We The People.  An understanding of true freedom and liberty requires an ability to respect the differences of others and a willingness to allow others to pursue happiness in any way they choose as long as it does not interfere with the rights of anyone else to do the same.  It requires a willingness to refrain from imposing your beliefs or your goodness on others.  I believe that message, if delivered properly, is a powerful one and one that needs to be delivered now more than ever. 

Troy Stenzel

Fairmont, MN

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 by chuckp123 on 09/11/09
Last updated 09/11/09

I was recently reading through some of the Anti-Federalist papers. Being aware that Patrick Henry was an Anti-Federalist, I knew that he was an outstanding advocate for minimal government. However, I was unfamiliar with his speeches in opposition to the Federalist’s desire to abandon the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new constitution. As I was reading his speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 5, 1788, I became increasingly impressed with his foresight and skepticism of Hamilton’s “energetic” central government. Here were some of his best excerpts:

You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.

Here Henry is alluding to the classic argument between Collectivism and Individualism. Hamilton had been coming forth with several arguments for the increase in power of the central government in areas such as commerce and interstate trade. Appalled at these recommendations, Patrick Henry reminds the Federalists that the only purpose, if any, for government is to ensure that the people remain free, not that they try to regulate the ways in which the people exercise their freedom.

The Confederation; this same despised Government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: It carried us through a long and dangerous war: It rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation: It has secured us a territory greater than any European Monarch possesses: And shall a Government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility and abandoned for want of energy?

This is another shot across Hamilton’s bow. Henry is making a very valid argument against the idea of a strong central militia. Hamilton argues in Federalist #29 that a standing army is necessary for national security, and that the citizens have no reason to fear a standing army out of concern for their liberties (although these fears were clearly justified just six years later when Washington and Hamilton marched an army up to Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey Rebellion). Of course, an army with the purpose of keeping citizens in check is incompatible with any notion of freedom. As Jefferson stated, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

It is also worth noting that the American colonies, prior to the revolution, had no organized central military, other than the one instituted by England.  When freedom was at stake, the people defended it willingly.  Conscription and powerful standing armies are unnecessary in a free and peaceful country.

I mean, when it says that there shall not be more representatives than one for every thirty thousand. Now, sir, how easy is it to evade this privilege! “The number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.” This may be satisfied by one representative from each state. Let our numbers be ever so great, this immense continent may, by this artful expression, be reduced to have but thirteen representatives. I confess this construction is not natural; but the ambiguity of the expression lays a good ground for a quarrel. Why was it not clearly and unequivocally expressed, that they should be entitled to have one for every thirty thousand?

This is another demonstration of Henry’s foresight. He rightfully points out that the misleading wording in the proposed constitution would set a lower limit on the representative-per-citizen ratio, but would leave no upper bound. So effectively, the constitution could allow for there to be no more than one representative per state if the powers-that-be so desired. If we had one representative per 30,000 people, the legislators would be closer to the electing citizens, so would better represent them. If you do the math, you will realize that with the current 300 million American citizens, there would be 10,000 representatives in Washington. Some may protest: “With that many representatives, the federal government would never be able to do anything!” Exactly! Imagine how ineffective lobbyists would be in the House. It would be nearly impossible to mobilize that many legislators towards a means of further legislating away our freedoms for special favors.

Of course, in the current system, Senators would still be vulnerable to the efforts of special interests, but this problem would be greatly rectified if the Seventeenth Amendment were overturned. This would put the election of Senators back into the hands of state legislatures, rather than popular election. By keeping Senators accountable to state legislatures, Senatorial power would be held in check by the desire of state legislatures to maintain state sovereignty, effectively decentralizing federal power.

We are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny.

This quote speaks for itself. Leaders, whether democratically elected or not, will always desire power. No matter their intentions, government officials will always exercise their monopoly on violence to assume our personal rights with the intention of protecting us from ourselves. This is, of course, incompatible with any notion of a republic.

Throughout his anti-Federalist writings, Patrick Henry makes several fantastic arguments against a strong central government. Although the Anti-Federalists ultimately lost their fight against the new Constitution, we still have them to thank for the Bill of Rights. Their arguments in favor of sovereignty from the federal government are perhaps more important today than they ever have been. I would strongly encourage anyone interested in these issues to read more of their writings.

*I have also posted this to my infrequently-updated, sorry excuse for a blog at blog.mybigtop.com.

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.