Health Care Bear

The health care debate is all the rage these days [emphasis on rage]. It’s a complex issue. As the Dude would say: “There are a lot of ins-and-outs. A lot of what-have-yous”. But I’m going to steer clear of the complexities and attempt to get to the heart of the matter. Because as Adam Duritz would say: “It’s the heart that matters…” Ok, no more references. I promise (I think).

So the Obama administration and the Democrat party want universal health care for all U.S. citizens. What’s the real meaning behind this intention? It’s that health care is a natural right, and our government is going to pass legislation because it recognizes this right. Question begged: is health care a natural right? Answer proffered: nay.

Our rights are self-evident and stem from being creatures, not citizens. Of course we enjoy some rights as U.S. citizens that some citizens of China do not, but that’s just because the U.S. has done a better job of ordering law to nature. Just because a law exists in a land, does not mean that law is just. For instance in China there’s a limit on how many children a woman can bear. This is unjust and should be challenged. But there are also just laws in China such as the unlawfulness of stealing. This law should be respected. But anyhow, in the words of Walter (the Dude’s partner in justice): “The Chinaman is not the issue here Dude!” Sorry, I had to.

Why is universal health care not a right and hence an unjust law? I think there are a couple of reasons. First, it’s a service, and services cost money. It’s that simple. You are responsible for procuring the services you want, not the government. A government that pays for its citizens’ commodities infringes on liberty and contributes to a slothful nation. Second, even if the ends were just the means Obama proposes to use are not. I watched the press conference where Obama first announced his intention to pass universal health care. Of course this would cost trillions of dollars, so where does this money come from? He said through streamlining the existing industry and through taxes. Silliness alert! The government, after expanding into the health care industry, is going to make the process more efficient and save money through doing so? Someone please give me some precedent for this? This over-haul will only expand the government. And more government means more inefficiency. Then there are taxes (which there is precedent for). What Obama means by “paying for health care through taxes” is through taxing the rich, the government will provide health care for the poor. But the government and the poor do not have a right to a rich person’s money. As a Christian I believe in tithing and works of charity, but that must be from an individual’s own volition. You know you’re in a totalitarian state when your government performs your works of charity for you.

Though it seems as difficult to pass as a kidney stone, Obama and friends are still trying to move this health care bear of a bill. They’ve already tried a number of times and failed, but hey, forcing an unjust law on society should be a difficult process. Here’s to hoping that stone stays put.