"Healthcare is NOT a 'right'
David E. Smith - Guest Columnist - 3/24/2010 7:05:00 AM

Like many Americans across the nation, I watched intensely as Congress debated and ultimately passed the onerous healthcare "reform" bill Sunday evening. One main point of contention is the idea -- affirmed by some radically "progressive" lawmakers -- that healthcare is a "right." This is nothing short of socialistic propaganda.

The implicit claim in the assertion that healthcare is a "right" is that it is a constitutionally protected right. All experts agree that healthcare is neither a constitutional nor a legal right. In America we understand that our rights to the free exercise of religion, to speak freely, to bear arms, and to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure come from God.

To see the difference in government-mandated healthcare and real rights, look at how they are exercised. Historically, American citizens have been free to exercise their real, constitutionally protected rights -- or not -- as they see fit.

For example, the government does not compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom. The government does not compel citizens to own a gun in the name of the Second Amendment. And the government does not force citizens to engage in the political process in the name of free speech.

In contrast, our radically "progressive" friends are eager to compel every American using the heavy hand of government to exercise their so-called "right" to healthcare. Should we celebrate the passage of a bill that in the service of non-existent rights actually diminishes our liberty?

What is really at issue is not whether healthcare is a "right," but whether citizens have a right to taxpayer-funded healthcare. What other cherished American "right" has ever required that we diminish another's liberty? Does the right to free speech require newspaper owners to print every op-ed and editorial? Does the right to bear arms require the government to arm its citizenry? Does the freedom of religion require government-funding of churches, mosques, and synagogues? Of course not!

Why then, does this "right" to healthcare require the government to take from some to give to others? When in the history of our country have we had to secure a right by trampling on the liberties of others?

Make no mistake...that is exactly what is happening with this government takeover of the healthcare industry. This new healthcare "right" will be forced on every American; and it will be made possible -- in the words of Karl Marx -- by taking from citizens "according to their ability" and giving to others "according to their needs."

According to U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), this legislation will create 160 new governmental boards, commissions, and mandates, and will require $500 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Of course, that will be only the beginning, as additional taxpayer funds will most certainly be needed.

Healthcare lawyer and policy analyst John S. Hoff illuminates the troubling questions left unanswered by the phrase "right to healthcare," which he argues "does not address the relevant issues that must be considered in considering taxpayer subsidies for healthcare":

How much healthcare is to be paid for by the taxpayer, for what beneficiaries, and under what circumstances? Does it include the most advanced or experimental treatment?

Indeed, what is healthcare? Long-term care? What are the parameters of self-responsibility? Should there be taxpayer subsidies for smokers, drug abusers, and dare-devils?

And which taxpayers should be paying? Should the working young and low-income workers subsidize the healthcare costs of those who are wealthier and sicker?

These are political judgments that we have barely addressed, and they are camouflaged by invocation of a broad principle of a "right" to healthcare.

President Obama and many in Congress are celebrating the passage of this ominous legislation -- legislation that forces American citizens into the newly created, socialized healthcare system. Sadly, the costs of this new government program are much higher than we think. Although the financial cost to taxpayers is substantial, the cost to personal liberty is incalculable."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/ ... ?id=948956