Push Has Come to Shove

Never before in the two hundred and thirty three year history of the Republic have we faced as great a threat to our individual freedoms as that which is Obama. He has sought not only to co-opt a huge segment of the economic capacity of this nation through the government seizure of the banking and automotive industry, but now he and his fellow leaches on the national wealth seek to annex an even larger segment of the nation’s identity. The proposed government takeover of the health care system represents a direct threat to the individual sovereignty of each and every productive member of this Nation. These shackles, once bound may never again be broken, forever condemning us, the producer, to the same fate as that of the mindless slave. Nothing need be said about the manner in which this proposed confiscation has been received by my fellow patriots, for if one only lends his ear to the wind their voices can be heard above the din of the rabble who clamor for the blood and sweat of our toil. “Just one more piece of flesh, and we shall feast no more” our adversaries bellow, all the while they hone their blades in anticipation of the next meal delivered by the hands of governmental blackmail and faux crisis....

The proposed government takeover of the health care system represents a direct threat to the individual sovereignty of each and every productive member of this Nation.

It sure does. Does it really have any other purpose?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I oppose Health Care Reform (HCR) because it is a direct assault on individual liberties. I think that is its main purpose.

HCR is not just about rationing and wealth redistribution. It's about the end of all individual rights as the corrosive effects of the new collectivist basic human right to health care spreads throughout the legal and political system like a virus.

Congressman Anthony Weiner says that health care is not a commodity. If health care is not a commodity then doctors and nurses are not free and sovereign citizens. If health care is a right then health care workers are slaves to that right who must serve it. No health care worker could refuse to provide their services, for any reason, because that would violate the patient's basic human right to health care.

That means that health care providers have no individual rights. The collective right of the people to receive health care would supersede the provider's individual right to set their fees, their hours or change their occupational status or even decide how to apply their skills and knowledge. A collective right, by practical definition, is a state right because it is a right that is provided by the government to all not protected by the government as something possessed by each person. It is also a state right because it supersedes the individual rights of others when the two come into conflict.

It isn't stated in any of the bills that a patient's rights to care supersedes a provider's right to set fees and hours etc, but it doesn't need to. Rights are always adjudicated in the courts. The legislation simply establishes the foundation for the courts to rule in favor of the patient's collective right to health care.

Weiner’s view is collectivist, fascist and totalitarian. Collectivist because it is superior to an individual right. Fascist because it is overseen by one entity the Federal government. Totalitarian because the Federal government is the true possessor of this collective right and the administrator and enforcer of it as well.

Congressman Weiner's view is the underlying philosophy of the entire Health Care Reform legislation the House and Senate have put forth. Consider the setting up of community watch dogs to monitor various health parameters of citizens in the Senate version of the bill. Look at pages 382 - 393.

TITLE I—QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS

Even the citizens themselves will be subject to state set regulations on their behavior in order to fulfill the human right of universal health care. It isn't the individual's liberty that is being protected by that it is the state's control over its health care system that is being guarded. How much clearer can it be that these bills abrogate the concept of individual rights?

Health Care is a Liberty Issue Conservative Underground - 18 August 2009 - Tim Dunkin

Second Bill of Rights aka FDR's economic bill of rights (An early attempt to embed collective rights into American politics and society.)

The restoration of American liberty will not require secession of its states; it will require the removal of the threat to that liberty. This is, after all, our country, the physical division of which did not work out too well the last time it was attempted. Unless they who presently seek to alter America's nature and constitution decide to rejoin the Union - which in my view some have already left philosophically - it is my preference that they choose to leave it physically as well.

You read that last item correctly.

The country we inhabit today is the result of a coming together of our original Union and a Confederacy that broke away from it for reasons both good and bad. In the end, the descendants of that great struggle learned to live again as one, under a single flag and a single Constitution, whose principles of life, liberty, and property remain as vital as the day John Hancock affixed his signature to our Declaration of Independence.

Now come those who would permanently alter the relationship between our people and our government, in pursuit of a false ideal of "justice", wherein no person may be allowed to possess or achieve more than any other without critical scrutiny at least, and deprivation at worst.

There is, and always will be in a nation as ours the right of its citizens to differ strongly on numerous matters of policy. That is the right of free people, as is their freedom to speak and publish and to bring their concerns before their elected representatives. Reasonable people can and do differ on many things, but for the nation in which they live and thrive to remain vital, they must generally agree on the purpose of the government which serves and protects them, as well as upon its duties and boundaries.

There are people among us at present, including many in our government, who propose a very different vision of government and its proper role in the lives of human beings. In their view, the purpose of government is not to ensure liberty and provide for the common defense but to equalize outcomes attendant to individual effort and ability. The necessary result of such an ideology is the sublimation of liberty to distributive equality, and a government far more powerful than that conceived in our Constitution in order to achieve such an end.

If our country is to survive, those who wish such an outcome and a system of government to enforce it must be defeated. They ought then be offered a choice: stay with us and accept the responsibility and freedom that is their birthright, including the right of vigorous dissent and electoral redress, or in the alternative, be allowed to go on their own way unmolested, if they so desire.

May God save and protect the United States of America.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.