Who Owns Your Body? Under Obamacare, not you.

The Weekly Standard ^ | August 31,2009 | William Anderson

[Scanian]

We are berated, ad nauseam, with imprecations that America is the only advanced nation that fails to have universal health care. This statement is often followed by the rueful remark that the debate over government controlled health care has been going on without progress for 60 years and, ipso facto, it is time to settle it.

All right, let's do that. Let's look a little deeper. Why is there no settlement of the issue, and why is America unique in its obstinate reluctance to follow the example of our older cultural brothers in Europe?

When a debate continues for decades without resolution, it is prudent to consider the deeper underlying assumptions. Principles which underpin the arguments are likely being ignored and marginalized rather than addressed in a forthright manner.

America is the only advanced country whose founding assumption is popular sovereignty. This is a proposition that stands with hardly a seconding voice throughout the contemporary international community. Yet it is the taproot of American exceptionalism.

Even here, however, the principle of government subordination to the people is by no means universally accepted. It has never been firmly ratified by our political class, those spiritual descendants of Europe's nobility. Our soi-disant elite appear to view with dismay their countrymen's continuing preference for self-rule.

Thus arises the question of corporal ownership. For Americans, the answer has been settled. Since the terrible bloodletting of the Civil War, and now excepting military service, ownership of one's body is a matter between the individual and God, with no intermediation by government.

[SF_Redux]

" Yet assertions are now being made that government should have responsibility for, and thus authority over, the maintenance of our bodies. It necessarily follows that government must have the power to approve or withhold care. This concept collides destructively with the founding principles of individual responsibility and autonomy upon which popular sovereignty depends."

[4rcane]

To Obama, get your laws off our bodies

[givemELL]

The bodies of all slaves are owned, and slavery is thus re-instituted in the US by governmental assumption of authority over the bodies of 300,000,000 people minus the 535 and probably a few more with the healthcare legislation. The “slaves” are to be levied with impossible taxes that make the exercise of theoretical liberty unattainable and immoral as well in the heart and mind and intent of the overseer. Martin Luther King, a Republican, would agree. The civil rights battle, after all, was fought against the Democrat Party in the main in his day.

“Coincidental” features of the healthcare legislation should be looked at from the standpoint of compliance with Sharia law. This has not been done to date, and someone should take a look at this potential aspect of relevance to see if it exists. After all, Sharia banking is being advanced here with little resistance and examination as it is in Europe. Sharia banking involves zakat to clerics, some of which is funneled off thru charities to fund jihad as a firmly institutionalized pathway that has existed in Islam all thru its’ history.

The recent Ramadan speech showed sophistication in regard to that holiday. Less public sophistication may increasingly show up in US legislation.

[Misterioso]

For Americans, the answer has been settled. Since the terrible bloodletting of the Civil War, and now excepting military service, ownership of one's body is a matter between the individual and God, with no intermediation by government.

Unless you are pregnant.

[Mark was here]

The government assumes ownership of your body, Why do you think it is illegal to sell your body parts? The true “owner” does not wish to. This is why I think these Organ Donner programs are horrible and ran by commie sympathizers (They believe everything belongs to the State).

I wish those who push for Organ Donations, would explain exactly how the Founding Fathers granted title to our bodies to the State.

[ReignOfError]

You own your body ... unless you want to put certain substances in it, or use it to provide sexual gratification for pay, or sell parts of it. The original post acknowledged that the government can impound it for military service.

Sorry, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

[ReignOfError]

I wish those who push for Organ Donations, would explain exactly how the Founding Fathers granted title to our bodies to the State.

Organ donation is voluntary.

[Manta]

Under fascism, the government nationalizes people not property. If you nationalize people, you do not need to nationalize property.

[Mark was here]

Organ donation is voluntary.

It is against the law to choose to sell your organs, due in no small part to those who have forced the public to voluntarily give them the goods they turn around and sell.

An open market would increase supply of needed parts and provide a financial boost to the estate providing the parts. The market will settle in on a fair price. An increased supply will lower wait times and reduce costs for those purchasing the parts. Funny how they have to purchase "donated" parts now. So when did we give title / ownership of our bodies to the State, in our form of self-government?

[ReignOfError]

It is against the law to choose to sell your organs, due in no small part to those who have forced the public to voluntarily give them the goods they turn around and sell.

No one is forcing the public to do anything, and organs are not sold -- there are administrative costs, and of course the surgeons, nurses et. al. are paid for the labor.

What you're talking about here, the prohibition against selling organs, is not a matter of the government owning your body; it's a question of the government controlling commerce. You can do anything you wish with your organs except get paid for them (or serve them as a meal; I believe anthropophagy is illegal in all 50 states).

An open market would increase supply of needed parts and provide a financial boost to the estate providing the parts. The market will settle in on a fair price.

I'm not dismissing your point out of hand; there is certainly room for debate. But it's not entirely clear that the effect would be a lowering of costs. Paying for organs would pretty much erase the supply of donors, adding another layer of cost. It wouldn't bring down the costs of prepping, transporting and transplanting the organs.

The more dangerous potential is that of living donors. There would be a vast potential for fraud or coercion, especially with imported organs where the provenance and the conditions under which the organs are harvested would be difficult or impossible to track. If we can't keep lead out of imported children's toys or e.coli off of imported produce, how can we be sure that a "donor" wasn't murdered for his kidney?

[kabumpo]

I am completely against so-clled “organ donor” programs, where they can’t wait to take a LIVNG PERSON off life support to “harvest” their eyes and internal organs while the person is still living.