Universal Radio Versions Single Record
|
One of the indispensable distinctions among America and most each other country in the world is our faith in humane rights. We hold a distinct position in our faith that all men are invented equivalent with sure unalienable rights that were endowed to all men upon their birth. So what is the meaning of “unalienable right” as applied in the Declaration of Independence? Unalienable means something that can not be transposed or assigned (given to another). In this case we are considered “endowed” as being percentage of us that can not be separated. These rights are likewise known as natural rights. Rights derived from nature and not granted by any government. It is also understood that rights come with responsibilities. We know that the right of freedom of speech comes with the obligation to use that right without infringing upon others. We have all heard the saying that freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Although this saying is partly rectify the truth is you perfectly DO have the right to say it, but you likewise bear the obligation for HOW you use it. An elaboration of the rights and obligation position is that the obligation is placed upon the person enjoying the right. In the above scenario Jack could not be kept accountable for Tom yelling fire in the theater. Every right is predicated upon the obligation of the person to use that right unless and until it infringes on the right of another. Each and each right has a direct bearing upon the operator of that right. The person bears the cost of enjoying that right as well as the gain that it entails. For instance; we have the right to freedom of press. We may write and/or read anything we may wish to but we must purchase, burrow, or other than as supposed or expected legally obtain that item. We have the right to freely move regarding the country any time we want but we do so by our own means. Should we as a citizenry, because we have the right to freedom of the press, demand that the government buy our books for us? We have the right to keep and bear arms; will have to the government provide them to us? We have the right to travel freely with regards to the country. Should the government likewise provide us a “free” means of transportation? The answer in each and each one of these is a resounding NO. First of all our rights do not come from the government, the government is only supposed to protect our rights from being unjustly taken from us. Anything the government provides the government may take away and accordingly it is not a right. There are those who say that “universal health care” is a right, but how may that be? I would agree that each and each person in this nation ought to have equivalent access to health services. And just as I cannot afford a million dollar mansion, I buy what I may afford. Because I cannot afford to eat steak and lobster each day I make due with hamburger and lunch meat. I do not begrudge the person who has earned a living and may afford more, good for them. And because I cannot afford to fly to the Mayo clinic to receive the best possible health care I go to my local doctor and get what I may afford. Most people forget that a mere fifty years ago, (less time in a good deal of places), there was no health insurance. We purchased and remunerated for health care from what we earned and we salaried as best we could. And we went only when we perfectly had to. Of course health care costs were much lower back then before the government got involved with regulating each aspect of our “care.” There is not one government agency in existence today that runs expeditiously in spite of the trillions of dollars the government takes from us each year. Do we in truth want the same government that has bankrupt the nation to likewise add another layer of costs to an already out of control industry? I have heard from galore liberal organizations that they want the government out of the bedroom and their laws off their bodies. They state that humans will have to be free to do with their bodies what they will and they do not want to have government interfere in what they see as their “right.” I would have to say for the most percentage I agree with that logic. And using that logic I may also say that even though I do not agree with a person’s lifestyle or selections I believe they have the right to do as they will as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. That being said; a right likewise has it is responsibilities. If a person wishes to engage in conduct that puts them at danger for contracting a deadly virus, dealing with pregnancy, overdosing, or any of the myriad of dangers that await us in life, they likewise must bear the cost. As Andrew Wilkow, Sirius Radio talk show host says rather often, “Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.” It is the person who is responsible for the conclusions they make and the rest of society is not and must not be responsible for their care. Remember, health care is not “free” an individual has to pay for it. That an individual is me, my neighbor, Joe the plumber and each other hard working American. The cash we earn is our property and property ownership is a right. Why ought to I and the rest of us have to remunerate for others reckless behavior? This is an infringement on OUR rights. The question then arises; if a person has a right to universal health care then whose obligation is it to remunerate for it? Remember, rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. And by establishing those that have a obligation to recompense for another’s right you establish a class scheme which further divides our country. We actually have a version of universal health care in existence today; it’s called the Veteran’s Association (VA) Medical System. This system takes care of the medical needs of the military veterans of our nation. I have applied this system personally and have found that, for the most part, a person may get adequate medical care. Of course you have long lead times, numerous times a month out, before you may get in to see an individual and most oftentimes it will not be a doctor but a physician’s assistant. They are always crowded with waiting times to pick up prescriptions of now and again more than hour and a great deal of visits as long as four hours total. The VA, as with each other government agency today, is mired in red tape. Each and each action of the staff has a specified procedure that will have to be followed to make sure everything is done a sure way. There is no deviation from the prescribed list. When I was introductory seen at a VA hospital for injuries to my back I received in Afghanistan the “list” required that I be seen by the Physical Therapy unit. I was given pain drugs and muscle relaxers. Next on the list was spinal injections and then the referral to the neurologists. Then in the middle of my treatment my occupation required that I move. I checked in to my new VA medical center to carry on my care. The new doctor saw my chart but could not send me directly to the neurologist, oh no, I had to initial be seen by the physical therapists, more pain pills, spinal injections, etc. This is what the list says will have to be done, even even though I had already gone through the list at the last hospital; it had to be done by “their” staff. A year later I moved again to another VA hospital thousands of miles away. I checked in and through the progressed miracle of computers my file was transposed and all was wonderful. Well, after another round of physical therapy, more drugs, spinals, etc. I was then competent to see the neurologist who looked at my cat scans and pronounced that I had in truth ruptured two discs in my back and one in my neck. However, because the inter-spatial distance amidst the discs hdd not scaled down to a specified dimension they were not permitted to operate to repair the problem. He could tell I was in pain and asked if I wanted more drugs? I asked if the operation would make it so I was no longer in pain and he assured me that in the majority of cases the procedure would remove or principally diminish the pain I was sentiment but he was not permitted to operate because of the procedures the government places on them. It is their position that pain may be mitigated by the use of drugs until such time as the patient’s condition meets the requisites and that pain was not a factor as that could be controlled by drugs. This same mentality will be entrenched with any universal healthcare scheme our government would create. It is the nature of governments to document each minutia of what transpires and the cost to apply and maintain such a system will be astronomical. Currently in our society numerous people do not go to their doctor for mutual colds and sniffles. We go to the pharmacy and get our cold medicines, get a great deal of rest, chicken soup, etc. However, if health care is “free” then why would you spend your own cash on cold drugs? Just go to the universal health care clinic and get if for free. Heck each time an individual stubs their toe they will be at the clinic for their free health care, just get in line. But we won’t mind waiting because it’s free and the staff won’t care how they treat you, after all your not paying for it. And those who do the right things, exercise, eat healthy, and take care of themselves will have to recompense for the burden of those who abuse themselves and the system. Where is the right of these persons to not be unjustly burdened with paying for an individual else’s abuse? Will the government then have to limit caloric intake of obese people? Well they have the police monitoring people to make sure they are not engaging in unsafe sexual acts or sharing needles that disseminate HIV? What rights do those paying for the “free” healthcare have to assure their cash is not being wasted? If government takes over the health care industry what recourse do the citizen’s have if something goes wrong? The government cannot be sued if it does not give it is consent to be sued. Either we will end up with no recourse if they block law suits or the flood gates will open if law suits are permitted because the government would have almost unlimited funds for the ambulance chasers to go after. As far as rights go do not forget one thing the government does not grant rights it may only concede privileges and immunities. Universal Health care is a privilege; but as with Social Security, in time the public will receive it as a “right”. Once it has Universal Health care has begun any politician would be committing political suicide to undertake and remove it once it has been instituted. This would result in a permanent entitlement, like Social Security, that will increase the national debt to record levels that will place future generations into debt servitude. As in the immortal words of President Ronald Reagan “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Not only is Universal Health care not a right, it is also something we can not afford as a nation. Every nation where Universal Health care has been enforced it has been deemed a failure. Those that may afford to compensate for private heath care do so or stream out of those nations to come to America to receive the health care they desperately need. The long waiting lists for sure life saving procedures in a literal sense has people dying while waiting for their turn. So they come to the only vestige of real health care left in the civilized world, America. Let’s not screw it up. |
