Now, I only have my Pocket Constitution handy, and maybe they left one out so to make it fit the pocket-sized format, but I don’t really think so.
Last night, the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party stated that he believes that health care is a right. Flat out. Point blank. No BS from BO.
So I’m going through the Bill of Rights and I’m looking for any other Right that requires me to give money to the government so that the government can spend it for me to fulfill said “Right”.
1st Amendment – The government will not provide me with a radio or television station, or even a sturdy crate made of wood or plastic to scream off of, or even an internet connection to blog via. Nor will they build me a church to worship in. None of my tax dollars are spent to provide me with what is needed to use this right.
2nd Amendment – The government will not buy me a gun so that I can use this right. Thankfully, because instead of the M14’s that I’d enjoy having (and that Clinton had hacked to scrap), they’d probably issue me a very well used M9. None of my tax dollars are spent to provide me with what is needed to use this right.
3rd, and 4th Amendments – No and no. Both of these expressly tell the government to NOT spend money screwing me over. None of my tax dollars are spent to provide me with what is needed to use this right.
9th and 10th Amendments – Again, no and no. Both of these are free of charge to any and all. They simply and clearly state that the federal government cannot say that the first eight amendments to the Constitution are the ONLY rights given to the people and the states. None of my tax dollars are spent to provide me with what is needed to use this right.
5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments – I previously skipped over these for a reason. There is a good deal of tax money spent providing me with a forum where I can pursue these rights.
However, the people employed at these forums are employees of the government, with those in positions of decision making either elected by the people or are appointed by those elected by the people. I know I shouldn’t give guys like Obama any ideas, but I do not see anywhere in his plan where he will buy the hospitals and clinics and make the doctors, nurses and other staff all employees in a new bureaucracy of grand scale.
For thousands of years, doctors have plied their trade as individuals and as small groups. Conversely, it is historically only government, whether it be one selected by the governed or self-appointed, who has issued law.
It is only a 20th Century construct to bring medicine into the realm of government as a birthright. This idea has been shown to be an epic, almost murderous, failure wherever it is tried and no one has yet to explain exactly how or why, within reason, it should be placed in the hands of government and not left alone.
This includes the Democrat Party’s Presidential candidate. He simply says it is what HE says it is and then goes on to explain that he needs my money to make this farce happen.
If he cannot lay it down in simple terms that even a prole like me can understand, why should anyone believe him?
Medicine was organized enough in the days of the Founders to have been included as a Right, if that’s what they wanted to do. They didn’t.
In fact, if my earlier studies of European Socialism were thorough enough, I can’t even recall the early Socialists enumerating a “right” to medical care.
This “right” is simply another device of liberals to further ingratiate the lower classes to their political masters, all on the dimes of those who actually prepared for this necessity of life by EARNING it.
The best way to skewer a Liberal, of course, is to get him or her to write down all the entitlements he or she believes folks are due from the gummint. At the same time, you busily write NOTHING only your paper, or, if you desire, provide this handy list you’ve come up with. When the two lists are compared, with yours being the one which references the Constitution, and theirs being the one that quotes no one, (or maybe quotes Karl Marx or WEB DuBois), then you have made your point.
Pingback: Thor’s Hall | Debate 20081007 - I
What’s even worse is that he justified his position with words to the effect of “…in a country as affluent as the United States…”
That leaves the entitlement door W I D E open to pretty much anything that he feels that an affluent society can afford. I’m sure that one of the first things on his shopping list will be massive quantities of foreign aid to third world nations. Muslim ones in particular.
Item #2 will be the little perks that our rich country can easily afford to provide for the down trodden here, like housing, education, transportation, entertainment…