Liberty requires the ability to govern oneself, and that is a moral quality. If you are not capable of governing yourself you are not free and you will never be free.
Freedom and morality are inseparable. I would say they are two sides of a single coin.
Iwonder how many who support this understand that if the govenment is in charge that their lifestyle is now ruled by government. Too much fried food, no healthcare. Too much smoking dope or alcohol no heathcare. The next decades could get very nasty.
Wonderful commentary, thanks for the contribution to our homeschooling today!
This is a very important point. You cannot go to a court of law and argue that your health care was inadequate or denied when the government decides what is adequate and what is appropriate. As long as the government mandated regulations were observed you have no grounds to claim you should get anything more or anything different. The gov defense would be "you got what everybody else gets. Your universal right to health care was fulfilled as the law requires and says it is to be fulfilled."
An individual cannot base his/her grievances on a collective right. (unless something was done or not done according to the state's mandates) The state decides collective rights in an ever changing flow of legislation and bureaucratic regulations. If the courts accept this new right to health care they will follow the laws and regulations as to what is and is not your right to receive. You will have to prove that you did not violate any of the standards set down regarding your lifestyle or treatments as well. (or hope the gov defense doesn't show that you did)
--------------------------------------------------
That means that the health care providers have no individual rights. The collective right of the people to get 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 supersedes the individual rights of others.
It may not be stated in any of the bills that patient's rights to care supersede 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 care.
Weiner’s view is collectivist, fascist and totalitarian. His 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. How much clearer can it be that these bills abrogate the concept of individual rights?
This piece constitutes a level of discourse which can help Americans to evaluate the grave matters before us in terms of:
"1. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, individual freedom and creativity?
"2. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, the power of some citizens over other citizens?
"3. Does this legislation or idea recognize that the persons who will exercise the power are themselves imperfect human beings?
"4. Does this legislation or idea recognize that government is incapable of creating wealth?
"5. Does this legislation or idea authorize taking from some what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong?
If 'thou shalt not steal' is a valid commandment, can we assume that it is meant to apply only to individuals and not to government (which is made up of individuals), even if those persons in power pass laws which sanction such redistribution of the wealth of others?'
"6. Does this legislation or idea encourage, or discourage, the very highest level of morality and responsibility from the individual?
. . .when government makes actions 'legal' by some citizens at the expense of other citizens, the result may be behavior which would not be considered possible by individuals acting alone.
"7. Does this legislation or idea propose that the 'government' do something which the individual cannot do without committing a crime?"**
**7 principles drawn from James R. Evans book, "America's Choice," and reprinted in a Stedman Corporation (Asheboro, NC) booklet entitled "I'm Only One, What Can I Do?"