Is Healthcare a Right?
Twist, twist, twist. That’s what politicians do with our founding documents. They scrutinize every clause, every punctuation mark looking for some way to justify what they are going to do or say.
Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas has come out and said that healthcare and education should fall under the provisions of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” declared in the Declaration of Independence.
She asserts that “the opening phraseology [of the Constitution] indicates that we have come together to form a more perfect Union”.
The opening phraseology?
Was Preamble just too difficult?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”
What does this mean?
It means that the Articles of Confederation sucked, and this was their attempt to fix it. It is a reference to the Articles of Confederation, not a reference to healthcare, public education, welfare or foodstamps!
The problem that we are having in Washington is not that our representatives are stupid, but instead that they interpret our founding documents in a way that makes it say whatever they think it should say, including taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
We have certain unalienable rights. We have a right to be healthy, but that does not mean that we have a right to healthcare.
Women like to claim that they have a right to determine whether or not to carry a baby to term, regardless of whether they are trampling on the rights of the baby, or the fathers.
Following that logic, I have the right to put whatever I want into my body, be it sugar, transfats, saturated fats, or Drano.
Granted, I won’t live long on a diet of Drano, but it should still be my right. My body, my choice.
I have the right to be healthy, but I also have the right to not be healthy if that is what I choose.
But that still does not equate to the right to healthcare. We do not have the right to demand that someone provide a service to us for free and by free, I mean something that someone else, namely the government (via the taxpayers), is paying for.
That also does not bestow upon someone else the right to determine that my eating habits are bad, and to “nudge” me in the direction that they think I should go. Nanny Bloomberg’s attempts to ban sugary sodas, for example.
We have a right to an education, but that does not mean that the government should be involved. Education has been sliding downhill as the Federal government has inserted itself more and more into the middle of it.
The government does not have the right to determine that they are only going to feed your kids vegetarian meals.
Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott, who often crows about maintaining a fit lifestyle, said the launch of the vegetarian food-fest should be duplicated in schools across the city and country.
“I don’t eat fried foods. I don’t drink soda. I try not to have sweets too often,” said Walcott, who tested the veggie victuals. “And that’s what we want for our students … to make sure they eat healthy both at home and school.”
Good for you, sir! You eat the way you want to eat, but it is none of your business what the children eat at home.
This is called government creep and indoctrination. There is nothing wrong with eating meat. It’s called protein, a basic building block of life.
The Federal government is by offering incentives to diagnose our kids with ADD/ADHD.
So, if we have expanded background checks for the purchase of weapons, would being diagnosed with ADD/ADHD be considered a disqualifying “mental illness”? The government has already determined that if you are returning from a war zone that they can trample on your rights because you may have PTSD.
See how this conveniently fits together?
Just because you can do something does not mean you have the right to do so.
We have the right to work, but I do not agree that we have the right to demand a certain amount of pay from an employer. Not happy with how much you are paid? Increase you skills or apply for higher paying jobs.
Democrats believe that the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean. It’s a “living document” that changes meanings with the generations. This goes far beyond even Alexander Hamilton’s theory of “implied powers”.
They seem to believe that most rights are granted by government, to be taken away whenever someone abuses their rights.
I think if you asked James Madison if the Constitution were a living document, he would say, “not at all.”