The Liberal's Guide to the Non-Right to Health Care

I still remember my sense of shock as I sat at my computer, stunned at the images of desolation in Thailand wrought by the tsunami in December of '06.  I imagine that feeling is shared by liberals across the country following the midterm elections.  In spite of the liberal prediction of a ripple, the tsunami that conservatives predicted materialized after all.  In its wake is the wreckage of the careers of dozens of Democrat pols, and the wrecked Obama agenda for, "change we can believe in."

Newly energized Republicans have already announced the intended centerpiece of THEIR agenda: the repeal of the unaffordable, "Affordable Care Act," aka health care reform, or ObamaCare.  What brought the liberal left to this dismal impasse?  It was the foolish notion that in America health care could ever be a fundamental right, which springs from ignorance (or denial) of what fundamental rights are in this country.  For a primer on that subject, read the founding documents.

A right is not a tangible object.  That would be a commodity.  A right is much more precious.  Rights are not bestowed on Americans by a benevolent government.  Rights are given to us by God, and the founding documents were written to ensure that the government can't take them away.  The liberal intelligentsia, who tend to be Humanist (euphemism for atheist) have a philosophical problem with this fact.  That's tough.

A bullhorn is a commodity.  Freedom of speech, immeasurably more precious, is a right.  Bibles, Books of Mormon, Korans, and Torahs are all commodities.  Freedom of religion is a right.  A rented arena is a commodity.  Freedom of assembly is a right.  Lest any liberal readers still don't get it, allow me to elaborate.  "To keep and bear arms," is a right.  The Second Amendment guarantees that the government can't interfere with my -- God given -- right to defend myself or my family.  Furthermore, it guarantees Patriots the right to band together  to defend the country against a government that becomes as tyrannical as King George III, but thanks to the genius of the founder's, revolutionary change can be non-violent.  The founders called such principles, "natural law," which in enlightenment thinking is synonymous with God's law. 

Although it is my right "to keep and bear arms," I can't expect to be provided with a gun by the government at the expense of other taxpayers.  A gun is not a right.  It is a commodity.

So it is with health care.  Surgeries, staples, and sutures are not  rights.  One of the problems with a government dispensing commodities and labeling them rights is, who gets to be the arbiter of which commodities are dispensed?  I don't need health care from the government.  I take care of my own health.  But what I really could use is car care.  My family owns three vehicles, and all of them could use a little work.  Why not a "right" to car care?  There is an airtight, logical argument that automobiles are essential to the U.S. economy.  The nation has a vested interest in car care.  And once health care is established in the American psyche as a right, who's to say car care won't be next?  The problem?  Car care is a commodity.  The Democrats could have spared themselves a "shellacking" with a simple review of rights, "the laws of nature, and nature's God."
I still remember my sense of shock as I sat at my computer, stunned at the images of desolation in Thailand wrought by the tsunami in December of '06.  I imagine that feeling is shared by liberals across the country following the midterm elections.  In spite of the liberal prediction of a ripple, the tsunami that conservatives predicted materialized after all.  In its wake is the wreckage of the careers of dozens of Democrat pols, and the wrecked Obama agenda for, "change we can believe in."

Newly energized Republicans have already announced the intended centerpiece of THEIR agenda: the repeal of the unaffordable, "Affordable Care Act," aka health care reform, or ObamaCare.  What brought the liberal left to this dismal impasse?  It was the foolish notion that in America health care could ever be a fundamental right, which springs from ignorance (or denial) of what fundamental rights are in this country.  For a primer on that subject, read the founding documents.

A right is not a tangible object.  That would be a commodity.  A right is much more precious.  Rights are not bestowed on Americans by a benevolent government.  Rights are given to us by God, and the founding documents were written to ensure that the government can't take them away.  The liberal intelligentsia, who tend to be Humanist (euphemism for atheist) have a philosophical problem with this fact.  That's tough.

A bullhorn is a commodity.  Freedom of speech, immeasurably more precious, is a right.  Bibles, Books of Mormon, Korans, and Torahs are all commodities.  Freedom of religion is a right.  A rented arena is a commodity.  Freedom of assembly is a right.  Lest any liberal readers still don't get it, allow me to elaborate.  "To keep and bear arms," is a right.  The Second Amendment guarantees that the government can't interfere with my -- God given -- right to defend myself or my family.  Furthermore, it guarantees Patriots the right to band together  to defend the country against a government that becomes as tyrannical as King George III, but thanks to the genius of the founder's, revolutionary change can be non-violent.  The founders called such principles, "natural law," which in enlightenment thinking is synonymous with God's law. 

Although it is my right "to keep and bear arms," I can't expect to be provided with a gun by the government at the expense of other taxpayers.  A gun is not a right.  It is a commodity.

So it is with health care.  Surgeries, staples, and sutures are not  rights.  One of the problems with a government dispensing commodities and labeling them rights is, who gets to be the arbiter of which commodities are dispensed?  I don't need health care from the government.  I take care of my own health.  But what I really could use is car care.  My family owns three vehicles, and all of them could use a little work.  Why not a "right" to car care?  There is an airtight, logical argument that automobiles are essential to the U.S. economy.  The nation has a vested interest in car care.  And once health care is established in the American psyche as a right, who's to say car care won't be next?  The problem?  Car care is a commodity.  The Democrats could have spared themselves a "shellacking" with a simple review of rights, "the laws of nature, and nature's God."

RECENT VIDEOS