Posted by truthbeknown2 on 09/21/09

We've seen a lot of discussion over whether health care is or isn't a right. Just for a moment, let's imagine that health care is a right. What are the implications of health care being a right?

Proponents of government-run health care would have us believe that the status of "a right" automatically confers two important properties. Firstly, rights should be paid for by the government with taxpayer dollars in order to ensure that those with less money maintain equal access to the right. Secondly, individual citizens should not be allowed to opt out of said right, because it is in their best interests and in the best interests of our country as a whole.

What happens when we apply these principles to other things that are guaranteed by our founding documents as rights? The Second Amendment of the Constitution famously proclaims "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Under the same principles touted by proponents of government-run health care, the government should be paying to arm every citizen. In fact, individual citizens should not be allowed to opt out of owning a firearm, because it is in their best interests and in the best interests of our country.

The "pursuit of happiness" is listed in our Declaration of Independence as an "unalienable right." Just imagine what it would be like if these same principles were applied to the pursuit of happiness and all other rights listed in our founding documents.

I do not mean to imply that there is no significance to something being considered a right. Our founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the preservation of certain unalienable rights is the purpose of a government being established.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The significance of something being a right is that the government is not to prohibit you from attempting to obtain that thing. "The right of the people peaceably to assemble" (First Amendment, US Constitution) is not about the government paying for a location in which people can assemble. It is not about paying for people's transportation to a location where they can assemble. It is not about requiring people to assemble if they would rather not. It is simply about the government not stopping or prohibiting people from assembling peaceably. The same would be true of health care if it was a right.

Posted 09/22/09 AeroNumen Atlanta, GA

I liked this! I'm going to use the "if we treated the 2nd amendment as a right like health care the government would have to buy us all guns" as soon as possible. It's a great way to turn the whole "rights" thing on it's face!

Posted 09/23/09 shawn91210 Macon, GA

Hmm.. I agree that health care is a right and, in fact, we already have it. Anyone can go to a hospital and get health care. Health insurance, however, is completely different. I wish our government would stop using the word health care and start saying what they are really trying to give us, which is universal health insurance.

Posted 09/24/09 truthbeknown2 Upland, CA

I agree with your point about health care and health insurance being very different things. I just used the term "health care" because that is the term they are batting around in the news. I feel that health care (in the non-insurance sense of the term) is one of those things that falls under the broad umbrella of things we are allowed to do because we are free, because we have liberty. The same would be true of things like every citizen being allowed to eat. I don't feel that a "right to health care" (non-insurance meaning) or a "right to eat" need be specified as individual rights under our government. There are specific foreseeable and historic reasons why the "right to bear arms" was included separately. Like you said, we already have the right to health care itself.

Posted 09/24/09 truthbeknown2 Upland, CA

Historical, rather. Sometimes I wish there was an edit function, even if I understand why they don't have one.

Posted by truthbeknown2 on 08/14/09

The irony just cracks me up. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57C5OQ20090813

China and Iran are censoring the internet.  Censorship is bad.  It's so bad that the U.S. Government needs to get involved in other countries' business in an effort to stop the censorship.  But don't worry, U.S. taxpayers.  We're still censoring pornography with our anti-censorship technology.  Freedom of speech for everyone!

(Mind you, I hate pornography and feel it can severely harm people.  But that's not really the point, is it?  Eating moldy food can harm people too.)

Posted 08/17/09 AdamCabrera Upland, CA

Do as WE say, not as WE do!

Posted by truthbeknown2 on 06/12/09
Last updated 06/12/09

I noticed that many others on here posted a copy of their letter(s) to their congressmen regarding HR 1207, so I thought I'd follow suit.  I'd also like to mention a few strategies I have been personally employing.

I have been contacting my friends, relatives, and old co-workers from committee member districts to encourage them to send a quick email to their non-co-sponsoring representative.  I have found that many of my friends are on board with HR 1207, but don't want to spend the time to draft an original letter.  I think original letters work better than form letters, so I have offered to draft letters on behalf of my friends in those cases.  Of course I have the friend read it and approve the content, then my friend submits the letter themself. I make it as easy as possible for my friend, by also including a link to their representative's form submittal contact page.

When drafting a letter for someone, I make sure its content is specific both with regards to the person sending the letter and the representative receiving the letter.  For instance, my mom has lived in her district for over 30 years, but has never once written to any of her representatives.  I pointed that out in the letter I drafted on her behalf, so that the representative understands that this bill is a big deal.  This email isn't from the same person who emails once a week about every single bill.

Other people may disagree with my strategies here, but this is just how I have chosen to write my letters:

- Short - So the rep (or their staff) reads it and doesn't get bored

- Personal - So the rep can hopefully "connect" to it, and so they can see that some time and effort was put into it

- Interested in their rational - I don't just want to pressure them to co-sponsor the bill.  I want to know why they have chosen not to co-sponsor.  Perhaps they have been misinformed as to a point of the bill, but haven't read the bill themself yet.  Perhaps I can help clear something up.

- Polite - Of course, it's always important to be polite and respectful.  You'll get better results too.  Think of how you would feel if someone else was trying to unceremoniously ram an idea down your throat.

Don't forget to thank your representative if they have co-sponsored!  The battle isn't over just yet.

Here's the letter I wrote to my congressman before he co-sponsored:

Congressman Dreier,

This is my first time contacting you.  I saw that your website's "About David Dreier" page states that you have been a "stalwart supporter for a more cost-effective and accountable government."  That is, of course, something that is even more important given these troubled economic times.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act (HR 1207) seems like just the bill to promote more accountability.  HR 1207 now has 186 co-sponsors, but I did not see your name on the list.  Is there a reason you have chosen not to co-sponsor HR 1207 yet?  Do you have any reservations about the bill?  I would urge you to reaffirm your committment to a more cost-effective and accountable government by co-sponsoring this bill.

Sincerely,

Melinda Allen

Posted by truthbeknown2 on 05/22/09

I haven't bought raisin bread in awhile, so I was surprised to see this note on the back of a loaf I bought:

"The government demands that there be a minimum amount of raisins in each loaf of raisin bread. But this is not good enough for Sun-Maid. Our bread has 50% more raisins than the government asks for."

I understand the argument that the FDA is trying to protect us and help us make healthy eating decisions, even if I don't agree with it.  But really, saving me from certain death by consuming a "raisin bread" with less than 50% raisin content?

This sort of thing has been going on for a long time, but still.  Think of all the tax dollars we could save if the government wasn't busy figuring out things like what the minimum percentage of peanuts should be in "peanut butter".  The minimum legal limit is 90% by the way.  It took the FDA 11 years to make a final determination on the percentages and allowed ingredients in "peanut butter", after Jif's lawyers objected to the FDA's original definition.

(Source for peanut butter info)

Posted by truthbeknown2 on 04/04/09
Last updated 04/04/09

More evidence that our government is obsessed with controlling as many companies as they can.  At least one bank has both the cash and the desire to pay back their TARP loan, but their repayment has been rejected.  "The bank has also been threatened with 'adverse' consequences if its chairman persists" in trying to pay back the loan.  Why?  Because the government has more control over the bank if the bank still has outstanding TARP funds.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

Posted 04/05/09 Haystacks Calhoun NEW YORK, NY

Obama? An egotistical control freak? How would any one ever get that idea?

Posted 04/05/09 rightsman Las Vegas,, NV

Haystacks Calhoun, The big "O" is rather egotistical, in my opinion. But he is not in control. He is controlled. Just like the old man in "Uncle Tom's Cabin", he is owned lock, stock, and barrel. So is his prejudiced wife, but their owners let her wear nice clothes. Thank you, Robert Walker