Rights and Freedoms

I saw something the other day that has been bothering me ever since. It said "Healthcare is a RIGHT".

Rights are things God gave each of us because we are alive. We have the right to be individual. We have rights that are God given and Constitutionally protected; Freedom of Worship; Freedom of Speech; the right to be secure in our property and papers.

You will notice that none of these rights require any action or participation from anybody but ourselves.

So what makes taking the labor of anyone else a right?

Why does a Lawyer have a right to a Doctor's services? Does the Doctor have that same right to the services of the Attorney? He has the right to representation certainly; any representation he can afford, or if he can't afford representation, then he gets what the County will provide.

Or, does a Farmer have the right to the Doctor's services anymore than the Doctor has to the Farmer's?

I mean; isn't eating a right as well?

Saying you have a right to something means you can possess it without payment. None of the rights guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights cost a dime to use. Neither do they cost anyone else for us to exercise them. Like the Free Speech right I am using now. I can write on Blogger for free, and you can read it for free, or not read it, as you choose.

But if I exercise my 'right' to healthcare? Someone has to provide that service. I am expecting another individual or group to use their time and talents to provide a service. I have no more right to that service than anybody else has a right to my services for any purpose.

We certainly are guaranteed a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but where does health come in? We are not guaranteed a healthy life; even the best, most expensive and most competent healthcare cannot guarantee a healthy life. Franklin Roosevelt is proof of that.

That is not to say that we cannot give of our time and talents to help our fellow man; in fact that giving is encouraged.

But the transfer of $5.00 from one individual to another can happen two ways; gift or theft. My making the conscious decision to give my services to another is vastly different than the other individual forcing that 'gift'. You making a conscious decision to take $5.00 from me is theft, no matter who facilitates the transaction.

Even if it is a 'lawful' taking by the government from one to give to another.

And that is not a RIGHT anyone has.

The Goal was What Again?

Yesterday was the final day of Open Enrollment for ObamaCare. Maybe, kinda-sorta, depending.

And according to the REVISED required enrollment numbers where 7 million enrollees were needed, the goal was met, according to the Administration. But, then, no details or back up was available. We can take their word for it, right?

So; lets take their word for it, shall we?

Let's applause the fact that 7 million people now have health insurance. We'll ignore the fact that we don't know how many of these people have paid for these plans, or how many have actually received insurance cards or actually benefits from the insurance company. We'll also not look at the idea that it took 6 months to hit this revised goal; a goal that was revised because of the slow start the website had, or the multiple extensions it took to even get to this lower goal. We also won't question how many of these 7 million were a part of the 30 million previuosly uninsured, or how many were a part of the 7-8 million who lost their insurance because of ObamaCare.

We are going to focus on the what it took to get these 7 million enrollees.

It took over 600 million dollars to create the most dysfunctional website a government has ever produced- and that is saying something.

It took a total disruption of the health insurance industry- a disruption we have not seen the end of yet. Insurance is not a charity; it is a business. One that depends on risk management and costing. If there is no analysis of the risk pool, the costs cannot be assessed and policies costed effectively. Right now policies are priced by SWAT; Strategic, wild-ass guess. That system is unsustainable, and once true costs start rolling in policy costs will skyrocket. Or benefits will be drastically cut; take you pick.

It took the reassessment of staffing and hiring at companies all across the country, based on who was worth having for more than 35 hours a week, and paying the cost of benefits. All hiring is now based on the avoiding or complying with ObamaCare.

It took a possibly illegal maneuver to get passed in Congress, when the Senate passed a reconciliation to avoid Scott Brown's ability to vote on- and vote against- the bill.

It took the President of the United States to lie to the American People constantly and consistently. These weren't errors in understanding, these were calculated lies; lies considered and approved by the Obama Administration because they were needed to sell the program to the American people.

It took the Supreme Court to hear the Administration defend the program by definitely describe it as NOT a tax, only to approve the entire scheme only because the government has the power to tax, and then declared the NOT a tax program a Tax program.

And we still have, by the best figures available, 23 million uninsured.

Or more.

Now; you tell me; was it worth it?

Round 2

The other day I did this post about Hobby Lobby being turned down for an Obamacare exemption by the Federal Court in Oklahoma.

Today a Federal Appeals Court gave a private business owned by a Roman Catholic an injunction, keeping them from being forced to pay for birth control and abortion pills.

This does two things; it gives Hobby Lobby a basis for an appeal and it sets up an almost automatic Supreme Court Challenge, since we have two lower courts with two polar opposite opinions.

It also gives us hope that we may yet get relief from onerous Obamacare legislation.

Lets give Roberts another chance to get it right.

Moral Choices Have Been Made; and Stolen

Here is a sad story; both the article and the comments. The story is sad because the Federal Court has refused to even hear arguments that individuals who own companies have a right to not pay for items that violate their religious convictions.

The comments are sad because the idiots on the left are convinced that their right to something trumps your moral right to believe that that something is wrong. They also are either so dense, or are playing at being so dense, that they believe Hobby Lobby's right not to PAY for contraception equals Hobby Lobby trying to ban all contraception.

Realistically, when it comes to religious based morality I don't believe the government has the power to legislate. They can no more require me to do something I consider immoral than they do to force you not to do something you consider moral.

Like birth control. As the article make clear, Hobby Lobby has drawn the line at the 'morning after pill'. Birth control pills for a daily regimen they consider fine, as they are a prevention technique (although some religions will not even accept that level of birth control), but consider anything taken after the act as abortion, and something they cannot support.

If I refuse to pay for a specific contraceptive, that does not disallow you from using that same contraceptive. I am not refusing you the use, on your moral grounds of the product, why are you refusing me the right, on my moral grounds, not to pay for it?

Again we are talking about actions that are strictly moral or immoral according to an individual's point of view. Some things can be considered immoral, but not illegal, just as other things can be considered illegal, but not immoral.

Other parts of reproduction, or the interruption of reproduction, are not just immoral, but should be illegal. Its a fine line, and is an individual choice. I know there are some who who have all contraception banned. I think that's wrong.

Contraception can take may forms; from the very basic- abstinence- on the far right to the morning after pill on the far left. Every one of us has drawn the line graph represented by those choices and drawn a line that determines our choice between moral and immoral. Contraception is just that; a bar to conception taking place. If you conscience believes a contraceptive act or failure to act is moral, then its none of my business. There are disagreements between the major religions on the various forms and steps that are allowable, and the law should stay out of the way; forcing a morality on no one.

A distinction Obamacare fails to make.