The right to have someone give me anything I want

Is health care a right?

You can die without heath care, so it must be a right. Right?

You can also die without food. Is food a right?

We’re not likely to make much progress here — beyond name-calling — until we figure out what a Constitutional right IS.

First, when we call the first 10 amendments to the Constitution the “Bill of Rights,” we’re being imprecise. They’re really more a “Bill of Restrictions” on government.

Government doesn’t “grant” any rights. Rights are things we or our forebears were naturally free to do before the government was empaneled, liberties which all agreed at the founding this government shall not be allowed to “infringe.”

Did you think the sixth amendment granted you a “right” to a jury trial? Go down to the courthouse and ask for your jury trial. They’ll ask what crime you stand accused of. “No crime,” you say, “I just have a right to a jury trial; I’m tired of waiting; I want mine now.”

You won’t get it. What the amendment says is that government can’t seize your stuff, put you in prison, even take your life, without granting you the opportunity to throw the question on a panel of 12 of your peers, fellow citizens not “in government,” who must agree unanimously with what the government wants to do. It’s a “restriction” on the government.

(Jury trial is the one provision in the Bill of Rights that creates the most definitional problems, since it would appear to be something that can only be “provided by government,” though in fact Saxon warriors were sitting as jurors long before they had any courthouses or salaried judges. As currently enforced, moreover, my “right” to a jury trial does appear to impose a requirement on my innocent neighbors, who are conscripted to serve on the jury. In fact, though, this is more about our current government seeking to stack panels of dimwits unaware of their historic power to judge the law as well as the facts. There is no need for such coercion. Simply raise the juror’s stipend. Plenty of retirees and those between jobs would volunteer to form our jury pools. They might even figure out they don’t have to convict unless the judge lets them read the law for themselves, retaining the right to acquit on account of incomprehensibility.)

We have a right to freedom of speech. Does this mean the government is empowered to tax our neighbors in order to buy us a microphone, a radio station, a printing press? No. It merely means government shall do nothing to shut us up.

Does the “right to bear arms” mean the government has to provide me with a free machine gun? Actually, under the separate responsibility of the central government to help arm the militia, that’s an interesting question. But for our purposes today, no, the Second Amendment imposes no duty on the government to seize money elsewhere to buy me guns — it simply means that, if I care to prioritize my resources so as to buy arms, the government has no legitimate power to limit me.

A “right” is something I or my forefathers could do before we/they created the current government. A “right” can’t be something that can only be delivered by government action (since government is funded by taxes, which have to be grabbed from someone else), nor can my legitimate attempt to exercise a “right” create a situation in which government goons get to use force or coercion or the threat of same in order to seize something from someone else, or force an action on the part of someone else.

So, again, do I have a “right” to health care? Of course I have a right to get a reasonable amount of exercise in order to try and preserve my health. But this neither grants the government any authority, nor imposes on it any duty, to buy me a trampoline or a treadmill.

Of course I have a right to take vitamin supplements. But asserting this “right” neither empowers me to go down to the pharmacy and steal vitamins at gunpoint, nor does it grant the government any power to use force or threat of force to do this theft and looting FOR me.

(If doing a thing is immoral, how can it be moral to delegate or deputize someone else to do it for you?)

Similarly, while I suppose I have a “right to eat” — in the sense that government should not steal from my mouth or my family’s the bread I’ve grown or gathered or purchased with my labor (that’s Jefferson) — the assertion of this “right” cannot grant government any power or duty to go steal me my food, or to tax from others the wealth needed to feed me, even if I’m “underprivileged,” “at risk,” whatever euphemism du jour you favor.

By easy steps, we thus reach the question of whether I have the right to employ the services of a nurse, a physician, or a hospital. Of course I have the right to negotiate for those services, at a rate of payment agreeable to the provider. Once government gets out of the picture, I imagine installment payments might again become the norm. But to contend I have a “right” to such services without paying for them would violate the 13th amendment, since it would turn people foolish enough to have become medical professionals into de facto slaves.

Nor is it much better to assert that government goons can order these medicos to treat me for lower fees than they would ask in the free market. This merely approaches the same slavery by smaller, incremental steps.

This is not a merely theoretical objection. I have spoken to medical professionals who now advise their gifted children to go into other fields, rather than put up with the increasing government regulation of medicine. If you want to know where that’s heading us, ask how many people flew from here to collectivist Russia in search of their fine medical care last year.

Yes, you have a right to health care — as much as you can buy.

You just don’t have a right to steal it, or to hire bully-boys with government badges to steal it for you.

If you don’t like today’s prices, demand that government get out of the business of regulating medicine, which drives up costs enormously. No such power is granted to any branch of government, anywhere in the Constitution, anyway.

Even “health insurance” would be vastly less costly if it were no longer “pre-paid routine medical care,” loaded up with state coverage mandates most of us don’t need — if instead we were simply “allowed” to buy high-deductible, catastrophe-only policies across state lines.

Ask your insurance agent.

Some will complain, “Oh Vin, you’re being unrealistic.”

Fine, Explain to me, if we craft public policies designed to encourage and reward greed, avarice, envy, theft, and a sense of “entitlement” — creating no incentive for people to work hard and save for a rainy day, in fact branding those who do such things “losers” who will only see their savings grabbed to fund the “needs” of the indolent — why we should then exhibit any shock or surprise when we find ourselves in a hell full of violent looters, who even when caught snarl, “I wanted it, you greedheads have more than you need, and there’s nothing you can do to me!”

19 Comments to “The right to have someone give me anything I want”

  1. Vin Suprynowicz Says:

    To the statement above that “Of course I have a right to get a reasonable amount of exercise in order to try and preserve my health. But this neither grants the government any authority, nor imposes on it any duty, to buy me a trampoline or a treadmill,” let’s briefly develop the obvious corollary:

    If the government taxes my neighbor to buy me a trampoline or a treadmill (since exercise benefits my health and I have this supposed “right” to good health), and my neighbor then successfully squawks that the government must in turn tax ME to buy HIM a trampoline or a treadmill, it is not sufficient merely to say that “In the end, neither of us have thus gained anything.”

    We MIGHT hope that, at the very least, the government running out to buy 300 million treadmills would result in lower treadmill costs due to efficiencies of scale. In real life, however, what tends to happen is that — realizing treadmills are now “free” — more people line up for treadmills than can ever be supplied, resulting not only in treadmill shortages following the inevitable “treadmill price controls,” but also in the diversion of valuable raw materials into state-subsidized treadmill production, creating shortages (which will be blamed on greedy capitalists, greedy Arabs, anybody but your congressman) of things that would otherwise have been built with those raw materials.

    We won’t even get into the inevitable subsequent “fraud, price-fixing, and kickback” prosecutions of the resulting “Greedy Wall Street Treadmill Barons.” But surely it takes no great mathematical gift to figure out that, in the end, both my neighbor and I will have paid MORE for our treadmills than if we’d simply gone out to buy them ourselves, given that under any such scheme each of us must now pick up a share of the salary (and lavish lifetime pension and benefits) of at least one bureaucrat in the new federal agency we’ll call the Regional Treadmill Acquisition and Redistribution Department — RETARD.

    Feel free to apply this model to “Green jobs,” “Alternative energy,” “Government Motors,” or any part of our current government-regulated American “health care” industry, as needed.

    — V.S.

  2. liberranter Says:

    Since the majority (i.e., the Amoricon Sheeple) are as amoral as they are economically ignorant, the only way that the points you make, and the immutable laws of economics upon which they rest, will ever come across is when the whole house of cards collapses. Quite frankly, this society is so far gone now that I doubt that even then common sense will set in. I certainly hope I’m wrong in this pessimistic prediction, but my daily interactions with said majority don’t give me any reason to believe that any other outcome is possible.

  3. larry hurdiss Says:

    Greetings, Vin…
    I don’t even know where to start. You begin by rewriting the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. I don’t remember learning, in my high school, about the Bill of Restriction. And our “founding Fathers…[ landed white Gentry ], did NOT agree about the “things we or our forefathers were naturally free to do…” etc.
    and on and on…with one inflammatory comment after another. Perhaps if you dropped the reference to “bully boys”, and “government goons” we could actually begin a civil discourse on this vital topic.
    No one would deny your right to purchase as much health care as you can afford. My concern is for those who, for whatever reason, can NOT ! Unless you are in a very high income bracket, you are one paycheck or pink slip away from not being able to purchase health care that may be vital for your continued existence.
    As for the “medical professionals” you have spoken to who advise their gifted children to go into another field…etc…that is also their right. I could see you, and raise you more than a few fellow doctors that I personally know, including myself, who are very proud that our children have also chosen a career in medicine.
    What concerns me the most about your diatribe is that you actually did NOT state whether or not you consider health care, for everyone, a right, or a privilege.
    This problem has many facets, but the most basic one is that health care COSTS have exceeded general inflation for the past several decades, and the blame for that is squarely on the hospital corporations. As you probably know, America spends more of our GNP on health care than any other developed country, and still we have the 25-30 th worst level of care. Bottom line, Vin, don’t lose your job, or your insurance, because an MRI I read for you will still set you back a thousand bucks…and we are just getting started.. stay well, since nothing i say to you, or people who think as you do, will ever change your mind. I will leave you with one of the world’s oldest rhetorical questions, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” I am sure you know the source.

  4. Jerry A. Pipes Says:

    While we’re at it, we might as well have Appetite Care Reform too, right?

  5. John Taylor Says:

    @ larry hurdiss: all the other inanities aside, your use of Cain’s famous smart-ass remark is terribly revealing, on two levels. First, it is clear that you do not understand what Cain was asking, and second (and inextricably related) you clearly believe that you _are_ your brother’s keeper.

    Cain’s infamous retort was meant to insult God, the questioner, by pointing out that he, Cain, was not Abel’s overseer, as in ” ‘keeping’ watch on his sheep by night”. The idea was that God would never acknowledge one man’s domination/control over another. Taken literally, Cain was _not_ Abel’s keeper, and Cain knew it, and was throwing that fact in the face of God; further evidence of Cain’s psychopathy.

    It is evident that you would prefer to be the overseer of those you perceive as being somehow inferior or incapable of providing for themselves … the classic progressive ‘do-gooder’. “I will provide for you because you clearly cannot do so for yourself.” Such hubris! In such cases, clearly it is acceptable to steal from others to provide funds to control those you deem inferior. To paraphrase your final snide comment, I am sure you know the source of such political philosophies.

  6. Vin Suprynowicz Says:

    Our correspondent asserts “Health care COSTS have exceeded general inflation for the past several decades, and the blame for that is squarely on the hospital corporations.”

    To the extent that “hospital corporations” have purchased and made available new technologies including MRIs, and that these cost more than old methods of diagnosis, I suppose this may be at least partially true. (DARN those greedheads for developing better tools and treatments! The old leeches worked fine!)

    But the clear implication is that said “corporations” are charging more than can be justified, in order to generate “excess” profits.

    A free market economy provides an obvious solution. In a free market for medicine, Dr. (?) Hurdiss would be free to purchase his own MRI, set it up in some storefront location, and hire people to operate and maintain said machine. Then, if “greedy corporations” are making “obscene profits” above their real costs, he should be able to provide MRIs for 40 percent less, or 60 percent less, or whatever. Consumers will beat a path to his door, he will grow rich, and the “greedy corporations” will either drop their prices or be driven out of business.

    Has he penciled this out? He doesn’t say. But if such a thing were feasible, surely entrepreneurs would be stepping in right now to take advantage of this “middle.” If they’re not, either a) existing providers are NOT making obscene profits, once we consider the need to pay a return to their investors for their “cost of capital,” or b) government regulations — requirements that a would-be provider obtain a “certificate of need,” showing he won’t impose “excess competition” on existing providers, etc. — are blocking such desirable market corrections. In which case one might wish that in the original column above I had written: ” If you don’t like today’s prices, demand that government get out of the business of regulating medicine, which drives up costs enormously. No such power is granted to any branch of government, anywhere in the Constitution, anyway.”

    Oh, wait: I did.

    One reason costs per patient are so high is that doctors, fearful of malpractice lawsuits, order multiple tests. each improving diagnostic certitude only marginally over the last, cheaper test. When the rare patient asks, “What will that cost?” he’s told, “Honestly, I don’t know. But what do you care? — insurance will cover it!”

    Reforms that restore to patients some incentive to ride herd on costs would be fine by me. But they have nothing to do with whether we have “right” to cheap (or free) health care, enforceable via government compulsion.

    The entire column details the type of health care to which we have a “right,” while asserting that we have no “right” to hire bully boys, give them uniforms and badges, and authorize them to either coerce medical professional to act as slaves, giving us the health care we “want and need,” or else to loot from our neighbors the wherewithal to buy said care FOR us.

    The rebuttal, as I understand it, is that I am somehow not allowed to call the enforcers of such unconstitutional and immoral looting schemes and edicts “bully boys” or “government goons.” And here I thought I was being gentle. They are, in fact, despicable state-socialist looters who should be hanged by the neck until dead for practicing theft and extortion under color of law. Is that better?

    Americans do not suffer a poor level of medical care. The self-serving groups that devise such statistics place a high priority in their grading schemes on whether a nation self-declares that it provides “free” socialized medical care to all. (Look it up — they frequently admit this.) Such scorings are agenda-driven. They are also wrong to assert America DOESN’T provide free medical care for all. Go to a hospital ER, declare you’re having chest pains, and that you absolutely refuse to pay any bill presented you. You will receive free treatment , anyway — as required by LAW. Meantime, in Great Britain — a nation that scores quite high in such rankings — yet another scandal surfaced last month when a number of patients died while waiting in parked ambulances outside an overstuffed hospital. Shall we judge such socialist schemes based on what they PROMISE, rather than what they can actually deliver? Canadian cancer patients have miserable survival rates compared to the U.S., since they wait months for initial treatment. But Canada ASSERTS it provides free treatment for all, and thus “score higher” than the U.S. in such rankings. What a bunch of guff.

    The rebuttal to my explanation that the Bill of Rights would be more accurately dubbed a “Bill of Restrictions” on government action is, as I understand it, that Mr./Dr. Hurdles never had it explained to him that way in the mandatory government youth propaganda camp to which he was assigned (I’m shocked!), and that my citing and analyzing the existing wording of the documents in question somehow constitutes “rewriting” them.

    Plans to encourage people to set aside savings for future medical needs in tax-free accounts, or to grant to individuals or fraternal lodges the same tax deductions now granted employers to provide “health benefits” (in order to sever medical insurance from employment) would be fine by me. But yes, those who work hard and save for the future can and should be able to afford better medical care (better food, better housing, everything) than those who decline to apply themselves and learn valuable skills, decline to work hard, decline to save and invest, assume “society” will give them all this stuff for free when they need it.

    Those who believe otherwise are socialists, who sometimes assert the Bible instructs us to practice socialism. The problem is, as the Pilgrims discovered after their first disastrous growing season with their “community gardens,” as the Russians managed to prove even after 74 years of unrivaled terror and coercion and forced starvation, socialism doesn’t work.

    And Benjamin Franklin was not “landed white gentry.” And rejecting the genius and accomplishments of any of America’s founders because of their sex or color is despicable.

    — V.S.

  7. Bruce D Says:

    In Canada, the big selling point was that ‘nobody should have to lose their house in order to get medical treatment’. What we have is the right to keep our house but lose our life in the process. Lets not forget the concept of practicing medicine without a license. Why do we not have people who can simply treat a cut without a license or certification to do so. The cost of “Experts” is eating us all alive. Why shouldn’t someone be able to set up shop who has studied the techniques, ensured their facility is sufficient for the task and chosen to buy insurance to cover themselves if there is a problem. How about when you look something up on the Internet. That’s self diagnosis isn’t it? Are we then practicing medicine without a license? Maybe we are. Shouldn’t we be able to do this? Of course. While we’re at it, why shouldn’t we be able to go to the drug store and buy the medicine we know we need from this diagnosis. When we’re required to go to a “Doctor”, we’re going to someone who is part of a monopoly who may or may not be competent or care much because the person who’s paying them is not the person who they are treating. Right now, in the community in which I live, where 25 years ago there were 50 hospital beds and now there are 13 with the same population, it takes 4 hours to get seen in an emergency room. When you are seen you’re packaged up and sent to the next larger community that has the resources. Want socialized medicine? Brace yourselves.

  8. Steve Says:

    “A free market economy provides an obvious solution. In a free market for medicine, Dr. (?) Hurdiss would be free to purchase his own MRI, set it up in some storefront location, and hire people to operate and maintain said machine. Then, if “greedy corporations” are making “obscene profits” above their real costs, he should be able to provide MRIs for 40 percent less, or 60 percent less, or whatever. Consumers will beat a path to his door, he will grow rich, and the “greedy corporations” will either drop their prices or be driven out of business.”

    In this “free market economy” that Vin envisions, with minimal government interaction, the greedy corporations would simply hire someone to kill Dr Hurdiss, allowing them to maintain their massive profit margins. Who’ll prosecute the corporate owners? Who’ll arrest them? The people are supposed to pay for private law enforcement who will then be somehow obliged to enforce the laws that don’t exist because Vin’s deconstructed government has no moral authority anyway… And you can be sure that the “greedy corporations” will own the police force anyway.

    Libertarianism is a great idea until you realize that humans are filthy, greedy animals, and all a libertarian state is is a prelude to some tyrant setting up his own fiefdom. The rest of us will be his serfs.

  9. Sean Says:

    Wow Steve. Way to totally misrepresent what being a Libertarian means. I think you need to go find an Anarchy site, cause thats what your describing here.There is a BIG difference between NO government and LIMITED government. If you can’t see the difference you are either blinded by your political views or mentaly impared.

  10. Vin Suprynowicz Says:

    Good gracious. The opponents of liberty don’t settle for half measures, do they?

    Compared to the medical “industry,” American supermarkets today are relatively unregulated. (You can open a new grocery right across the street from an existing one, with the stated intent of putting your competitor out of business by offering lower prices, with no need to obtain a government “certificate of need” demonstrating the neighborhood is “underserved.” The states do not limit the number of “grocery licenses” issued annually — and required on threat of jail to “practice grocerying” — in order to further limit competition, etc.)

    So: do we currently see a lot of former CEOs of Kroger’s and Stop&Shop serving time in prison for hiring assassins to rub out competitors who were underselling them by a nickel on a can of beans? Not to my knowledge.

    The hysteria of these surprisingly shrill arguments against allowing considerably more freedom and entrepreneurship rival the warbled warnings — in the Soviet Union 20 years ago — that if distributing groceries were left to greedy capitalists, they would jack up prices through the roof and the poor would starve.

    It’s tempting to ask “Why is it this never happens?” In fact, there is one set of circumstances under which the projected homicidal disorder does occur. When government regulation becomes so onerous that it amounts to a virtual prohibition — as with alcohol from 1919 to 1933, and with marijuana, cocaine and opium ever since — those who pursue these trades find themselves with no recourse to the courts to enforce their contracts. THEY tend to solve disputes over contracts & distribution territories via assassination. Note these “black markets” spring up not in the ABSENCE of a powerful regulatory state, but DIRECTLY DUE TO THE IMPOSITION of a powerful regulatory regime.

    I guess I will disagree that all humans are, by nature “filthy animals,” though if by “greedy” our correspondent means that they will generally tend to act in their own enlightened self-interest, he may only be stating the obvious in a manner meant to offend.

    The socialist will generally condemn as “greedy’ a man’s wish to spend his own earnings on the welfare of his own family, while seeing no “greed” in the expectation of a drunken, indolent lout that the government should steal for him from the productive class whatever he wants or needs.

    I believe I would prefer to live among men who have grown used to taking responsibility for themselves, and acting responsibly toward their neighbors, than among the mobs of mendicants who may (briefly) roam the streets when our current unsustainable regulatory/nanny state collapses, shrieking that if someone doesn’t bring them all the stuff they need, real soon, they intend to take it.

    Ah, the proud legacies of state socialism — cemeteries, displaced persons, and abandoned death camps.

    — V.S.

  11. Asmodai Says:

    Ah one of my favorite logical fallacies of the statists: “humans are filthy, greedy animals”.

    Let me see if I have this straight – the inherently corrupt nature of man completely invalidates the concept of a free society. But somehow if we have central planning we can select wise and benevolent leaders who are obviously not human since all humans are “filthy, greedy animals”.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either humans are “filthy, greedy animals” and therefore none of them are to be trusted to rule others, or they are not “filthy, greedy animals” and then can be trusted to rule themselves. Which is it?

  12. Steve Says:

    “I believe I would prefer to live among men who have grown used to taking responsibility for themselves, and acting responsibly toward their neighbors”

    My problem is that people don’t act responsibly toward their neighbors, and more so when there is a lack of any kind of governmental or police authority that can stop them.

    You need to live in some underdeveloped nations where you can see firsthand the “greed” I’m referring to. The courts are corrupt, the government is corrupt or nonexistent, and the people with money and power do what they want with impunity.

    Try to open your grocery store in China. I dare you to undercut the gangsters across the street by a nickel. They’ll have you thrown in the nearest ditch, and more so if you’re a round-eye foreigner. No-one will stop them and no-one will care, because the people who are supposed to help are already owned by the gangsters.

    A lot of what you say makes sense, Vin. Your comments on an armed populace in Bosnia being able to protect themselves against genocide were brilliant and a genuine eye-opener for me. As was the idea that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if there’d been armed folks on those planes. I don’t have a problem with your comments on drunken, indolent louts expecting handouts for free from hardworking, honest folk. And I despise the idea of the nanny state.

    But the idea of a truly free, unregulated market economy… I can’t see it resulting in any benefit for the average person out there. Rich and powerful people can use their positions for their own benefit and nothing can stop them. Want to add (possibly) toxic chemicals to foods because it’s cheaper than using something wholesome (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/221917/nation/fda-monitors-food-products-from-taiwan-for-dehp)? No problem. No one will ever find out because no one has the right to investigate and check. Of course, the theory is that the people themselves will pay for a supposedly independent regulatory body to verify that their foods are clean and non-toxic, but where will they get the money and how can we guarantee their impartiality?

    I feel that one of the roles of the government is to protect the people from this sort of thing – especially when they can’t protect themselves. There’s no denying that it doesn’t work perfectly or consistently, but it seems to me that your alternative is for the people to be responsible for themselves, and I don’t see how they can be.

    Sorry for going off-topic. Feel free to delete if you feel I’m completely out of the scope of your article and thanks for your previous responses.

  13. Steve Says:

    “If you can’t see the difference you are either blinded by your political views or mentaly impared.”

    Hi Sean, instead of calling me names, how about you explain the difference in simple terms that a “mentaly impared” (sic) person like myself could understand. And while you’re doing it, help me understand how the Limited government can prevent Anarchy or Despotism without becoming an Unlimited government.

  14. larry hurdiss Says:

    Greetings, Vic;

    I am saddened that we are, collectively, not able to engage in what C.S. Lewis called a “civil discourse”, regarding these topics, but having read only two of your posts, I can see how this is so. There is no need for a ( ?) regarding my licensure. I have held the degree Doctor of Medicine for 40 years.
    As for the idea that I could open my own clinic, that notion has been kicked around for a couple of decades, and I would encourage you and your followers to search the web for details of the recent law suit, in Houston between a “doctor owned” hospital { Do

  15. larry hurdiss Says:

    {ooo0ps } forgive me, and FB’s policy of the “enter” key….onward….the law suit between this single, doctor owned enterprise, and the large local hospital chain…Memorial Hermann….It was alleged that the big hospital told local insurance companies that if they credentialed and accepted the small hospital, the big hospital would not accept patients from the insurance company….so, essentially, the little hospital would have to accept cash only and full payment from its patients…obviously untenable for the “greedy patients” you and your followers describe…..Bottom line, the little hospital never even opened, and after a “nolo contedere” payment from the big hospital chain to the doctor owners of the little hospital, the big hospital bought the little one…and prices for identical MRI studies in this city are now two-three times what they are at the varioius outpatient facilities around town, As for your blogger who knows much better that I what Cain meant….I must bow to his superior understanding…and my hubris at deciding to dedicate my life to saving the lives of thousands of others….my apologies are not forthcoming. You, Vic, havent responed to my stating that most doctors I know do not dissuade their children from a career in medicine, and my son has taken a commission in the U.S. Navy to pay for his medical education [ I used the Army ] His college roommate went directly to Goldman Sacks, and shall earn in his lifetime far more than my son. That is his “Right”. You and I obviously disagree at the vary base of our beings, about the role of government, and I respect both your right to do so, and my “Restriction” from forcing you to agree with me. However, this nation, of “landed white gentry”, does have laws, created by elected representatives [ when not sexting to their constituents ], that govern the citizens of this nation. And the choice is simple, obey them, or not, stay or go, or run for office yourself, and change them. If Newt, Glenn, and Sarah can, why not you ?… I am unapologetically Hamiltonian, and you shall not get my vote, but..that is America. May you stay healthy, Vic, and not lose your coverage, or your ability to pay.

  16. R Says:

    @larry hurdiss – ” I will leave you with one of the world’s oldest rhetorical questions, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” I am sure you know the source.”

    In this question as posed by Larry we have the entire Progressive mindset on display. God knew full well what Cain had done to Abel. “Am I my brother’s keeper” is Cain’s insolent response to God’s query. Progressives view themselves as imbued with the powers of God himself, the ability to render outcomes they envision as just and moral, and the right to interfere in your right to choose what is best for your life. Larry, since you are a “Doctor”, along with some of your offspring, you and your kin have enough income to VOLUNTEER to wholly subsidize a significant number of uninsured people. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and live on the average American’s combined household income of $60K and give away the rest so that you may then adequately live the creed that” you are your brother’ s keeper”? To make this plan easier for you to enact, since you are a doctor by training and not an ethicist, an accountant or an administrator, an unaccountable panel will decide which recipients will receive the healthcare you are to fund. This panel will also investigate and examine your healthcare usage to make sure you are not receiving more than your alloted “fair share”, because if other doctors are too busy tending to well-heeled high paying customers, that will negatively impact the availability of healthcare for “underprivileged” recipients of your subsidized healthcare funding program. In addition, the panel will eventually also need to set price controls on all aspects of the profession you and your kin engage in as healthcare providers because the runaway costs caused by such high demand could seriously jeopardize the ability of the healthcare panel to continue to adequately use your funds to fully subsidize the people they have decided should be the recipients of your voluntary largesse.

  17. MamaLiberty Says:

    Extra good one here, Vin. And bravo, R! It seems that the folks who go on the most about how “we” are to be “our brother’s keeper” are the least enthusiastic about having their own lives and property destroyed to provide for these “less fortunate.” It’s always someone ELSE that should be robbed.

    Charity is a wonderful thing, and Americans are the most charitable people in the world. Theft is an abomination. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

  18. Dave, MD Says:

    Sir,

    Medical care cannot be construed as a “right” for the simple fact it requires others for its delivery. I am a physician, and if medical becomes a right, then I could be forced to provide medical care whether or not I want to, for whatever reason I may have. Yes, it’s a long slippery slope but have you noticed VA doctors make much less than those in private practice? And if all doctors are paid from a single source as UbamaCare may lead? The government –in a stretch — could legislate that all doctors get paid $[insert unreasonable amount here]. Your rights end when they infringe upon my rights.

    The actual Rights listed in the BoR seem to protect you from others’ behavior, from limiting you speech, religion, or choice of arms and less directly protect you from government’s actions (bail, speedy trial) etc. They do not ‘give’ you anything from someone else, rather they protect you from others.

    And yes, I spoke long with my niece NOT to apply to medical school and finally convinced her.

  19. child custody Says:

    fathers for justice…

    Vin Suprynowicz » Blog Archive » The right to have someone give me anything I want…

Comment:

RSS 2.0" title="Subscribe to this posts comments via RSS 2.0">RSS subscribe