President Obama this past week once again in his stump speech referred to healthcare as a right in any advanced industrial nation. President Obama was making the argument that all the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was accomplishing would be to usher the United States into the elite group of advanced industrial nations as finally healthcare would be guaranteed for every citizen by the Federal Government. President Obama has often spoken of his healthcare plan as affording Americans another right which should have been among those guaranteed from the outset as the United States strove to be among the most forward nations. This was also part of President Obama’s criticism of the United States Constitution as it being an improper document because it listed restrictions on what the Federal Government was permitted to do instead of listing those things which the Federal Government had to do, particularly those things the Federal Government was required to provide for the people as justification for its existence. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it steals from the people their dignity, self-worth and responsibilities replacing the latter with so-called rights.
The difference between responsibility and rights is very basic and, once understood, quite frightening. Responsibilities are those items which the individual is tasked with providing for themselves and where government is restricted from imposing limitations or obstructions between the people and fulfilling their responsibility to whatever extent they desire. A right is something the government provides and defines exactly what makes up each right, even to the point of denying government’s responsibility, or even forbidding the individual’s right to provide for themselves forcing them to be subservient to government and within those restriction put in place by the government. Obviously, when healthcare is classified as a personal responsibility then each individual is free to provide for themselves and their family as much healthcare as they decide. Often when something is treated as a personal responsibility, the argument goes, there will be those individuals unable to provide for themselves or their family and that is why the government must step up and make it a right so they can receive it from the government. The truth is that without government interference there would be charities which would assist people in need, relatives who would assist in the care of their more needy relatives, and many hospitals, especially those run by religious organizations such as the Catholic Healthcare Systems which provide care at a reasonable cost proportional to a person’s ability to pay while still providing the very best of care. When government supersedes charitable organizations and generosity of the religiously run hospitals and insists on imposing their oversight the level of care is degraded while the cost and time invested in simply documenting and performing to the relevant compliance level the government demands is wasted time which could have otherwise been utilized to treat more patents. When the government replaces the individual’s right to provide for those things which are their responsibility and instead insists that government can accomplish the same level if not a higher level of care than the individual, it will inevitable prove false and result in degraded levels of care across the board with some levels resulting in refusal of care as it would not prove cost effective on the whole to provide everybody with every conceivable level and intensity of care.
But let us simply agree that healthcare should be treated as a right which The Federal Government is required to provide, even though all the government will be providing is health insurance coverage initially, what other items in our lives could just as easily be reclassified as rights instead of being our personal responsibility. The people will have been relegated to a judgment of being incapable of deciding or procuring a level of care sufficient to provide them with a decent quality of life. If we are to believe the argument that healthcare is so important to the individual’s quality of life that it must be attended to by the government in order to guarantee that they receive a minimal level of care adequate to meet government set standards then what else would also meet such standards? It very easily could be argued, especially with the obesity levels in the United States, that food must be regulated and the decisions made by those qualified to make proper nutritional decisions. President Obama could appoint his wife Michelle to be the Nutritional Health Czar heading a new Cabinet level agency responsible for providing every individual with the appropriate calories, nutrients, carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins, minerals and everything else tailored to match their lifestyle and individual requirements. The health benefits of such a system would more than pay for themselves is lower demand upon the government provided healthcare. People could be placed on special diets as recommended by physicians who could work closely with the U. S. Department of Nutrition and Dietary Health. Every argument given for the need for the government to provide for the people’s healthcare also apply to dietary care and food delivery.
Another necessity which in some ways has already attempted to be provided by the Federal Government with varied amounts of epic failure is housing. Despite the absolute disaster that came along with Federal Housing projects, the arguments remain that people require shelter if they are to maintain a level of healthy living and comfort for which the government could easily set as a standard. Furthermore, housing would also be of immeasurable assistance when the government provided the government chosen, prepared and delivered food for each person’s daily consumption. A person must also have a certain level of shelter from the elements of nature in order to maintain the degree of health desired for each citizen by the government. Then there is a personal need for clothing which is fitting for the season, meets the requirements of their occupation, and has a sufficient level of style to impart at a minimum a modicum of pride and self-respect. To be honest there are very likely solid arguments which can be made for the government to assure almost anything or everything in life meets a minimal level for each individual and consider it a right. But by doing so it would remove every ounce of freedom and personal choice. To put it as simply as possible; individual responsibility produces freedom and independence while group rights produces dependence and enslavement. It comes down to which you would prefer to be, a ward of the government or an individual free to make their own life choices. Be careful what you choose as once you surrender your responsibilities over to the government and expect them to be treated as rights they actually become privileges which the government could just as easily take away as they initially claimed they were capable of providing. So, choose either responsibility for one’s self or surrender to the whims and edicts of what will soon become an out of control government. History has proven this as republics devolved into democracies which inevitably lead to fascist oppressions and enslavement to the state.
Beyond the Cusp
Beyond the Cusp 