Why There is No Right to Health Care (and other Progressive Ideas)

Rights are based on God-created equality among human beings–nothing else. Because men are created equal in their basic worth by being made in the image of God–they are entitled by God to the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (acquiring property through labor). Everyone’s life is equal in intrinsic value; Everyone’s freedom is equal in breadth and beauty; And everyone’s right to pursue happiness (through acquiring property and wealth) is equal in opportunity.

But that’s where equality and rights end. All other things related to human beings are unequal and thus unworthy of the status of a “right.”

This is obviously and expressly true in the area of health–which is why President is wrong to declare health care a right. It can never be a right because too many factors make its demands unequal. These factors include:

  • Genetics – some of us are born with great genes that are less susceptible to certain diseases and others more prone to heart problems, cancer, and neurological disorders. Due to our genetic make-ups, there is no way to “equally” distribute the right of health care. Why should someone prone to horrific diseases be able to demand a million dollars in health care over a lifetime and another who is relatively healthy be required to contribute to the tab through taxation? This is a simple matter of fairness. The general public is not responsible for the genetic disposition of others.
  • Lifestyle Choices –I shared last week how my Canadian friend, Graham, bilked the Canadian government-run health care system out of hundreds of thousands of dollars becaue of his choices to live most of his life as a chain smoker. He destroyed his lungs over decades by sucking in nicotine. As a result of his poor choices, why should another healthy or wiser choosing Canadian be stuck with his health bills? It is simply not fair to charge someone else for another person’s sins and mistakes. This comes back to basic justice and decency.
  • Personal Circumstances – Human beings also encounter many circumstances in life that are neither genetic or a product of their choices. Life just happens–filled with joys and sorrows that are totally non-comparable. One person has a house that burns to the ground. Another loses a child in a terrible traffic accident. From a health perspective, one might have an accident that requires major medical attention, while another is blessed with easier circumstances. Again, because of the inequalities involved in normal life, it would be wrong to ask one person to foot the bill for another. It would be essentially unjust and impossible for a human government to balance.

There is another important reason why there is no right to health care. This one relates to our relationship with our Creator. He is the author and giver of life–and oftentimes uses our personal circumstances to teach us His ways, create humility and obedience in our hearts, and draw our eyes toward eternity. If we remove that important means of personal growth through a government right to health care, we remove one of the greatest incentives to personal growth and drawing close to our Maker.

For seven years–from 1994 to 2001–I suffered with a very painful burning sensation in my throat. It got progressively worse over time and led me to consult over ten doctors, have two rabbit-trail surgeries, and cry out to God with all my heart for relief of pain and understanding of His ways.

During this difficult period, God continually drew me to 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 where the Bible declares that “my grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” I learned during this test in my life to be humble, prayerful, trusting in God and not in myself. I learned to take a deeper measure of my weaknesses and bad attitudes and asked him to produce a greater wealth of his goodness within me.

It was a hard time because I speak for a living. Every time I used my vocal cords, they were painfully sore and the intense burning in my throat got worse and worse. I remember numerous times getting ready to speak to an audience, crying some tears and asking God for the grace to get through the message. He always helped me and I learned to trust him as never before.

Late in the seven year test, I sensed that my deliverance was at hand because of his work in my life. I began to pray fervently for his will to be done, and opened my Bible to a special promise he had given me many years before.

One day in 2001, my wife was talking to her best friend who asked a simple question: “Have the doctors ever checked out Ron’s teeth?” When I heard the question, a bell went off inside of me and I immediately scheduled an appointment. To my dentist’s shock and surprise, they discovered that an abscessed wisdom tooth had created a ping-pong-ball-sized noxious cyst in my jaw–which leaked its poison into my throat every day. I had surgery within days, the cyst was removed and my throat eventually returned to normal. I never returned to “normal.”  My life had been changed through this health care test.

I’m glad I didn’t have a “right” to health care during that ordeal. There are many lessons I would not have learned, many character traits that would not have been fully developed. If I’d had a right to everything, I would have demanded that right and forgotten about God. That’s the way we human beings tend to work.

Not having an automatic right to health care is very beneficial from a personal development standpoint. Suffering draws us closer to God. We seek his will and his answers. If the government’s footing the bill, there’s no one to seek but them. They are usually not as helpful as the God of the universe.

Health care must remain a personal responsibility–not a government right. We are genetically different, we make different choices in life, we encounter different circumstances, and we are all involved in a different relationship to our Creator in which he desires to work for our good. If the government and other tax payers become our new fountain of health, then justice will be impeded and many character lessons will be lost.

This is also why all other “progressive rights” ring hollow. There is no such thing as a right to a job, to a certain level of pay, to a house or car, or any other societal desire–because of the unique differences between people. All of these blessings are privileges–not rights–to be gained by the prayers, hard work, and wise choices of the individual.  God is involved in all of these life opportunities also–and wants us to look to him for provision and personal spiritual growth.

It is through our suffering and pain–and very different circumstances in life–that we learn to grow up and put our trust in God. Insurance policies, church affiliations, and other voluntary arrangements–and even government–can be helpful in the process–but never to be depended upon.

There is no right to health care. Creating that right would be creating a new god in America who would not serve us well.

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts Miracle: Scott Brown – The Male Version of Sarah Palin

Scott Brown’s stunning victory in Massachusetts on January 19, denying the 60-vote stranglehold in the US Senate and possibly dooming the government takeover of health care, is the secular progressive’s worst nightmare.

That’s because Scott Brown is the male version of Sarah Palin–and that doesn’t bode well for their desired future for America.

Let’s remember for a moment why the liberal media tried to destroy Sarah Palin.

Since Governor Palin joined Fox News team, she has been asked repeatedly why she was so viciously and unfairly attacked in the 2008 presidential campaign and why the hatred persists. She says she’s not sure, but that it has something to do with her “common sense” solutions to the nation’s problems.

That answer is true–but it goes much deeper than that. Sarah Palin’s emergence on the national state in 2008 was an absolute nightmare for those who want to change America. Here are some of the reasons:

1. She was the wrong kind of woman–a conservative female. After the liberal establishment’s desire for an African American president (Barack Obama), their second choice would have been to nominate a liberal woman (like Hillary Clinton). The left in this country loves diversity of color and gender–but is completely intolerant of diversity of worldview. For a conservative woman like Sarah Palin to become Vice President of the United States–and then possibly run for president–was absolutely unthinkable. Hence the all out assault on her family, beauty, clothes, intellect, and governorship which eventually led to her resignation from Alaskan politics and “re-loading” of her career and influence. Secularists love feminism–but only women with statist views.

2. She was an evangelical Christian. The battle for America future is actually rather simple. On the one side is the historical Christian worldview which is America’s political, economic, and religious foundation and the reason for American exceptionalism. The United States has played a unique role in history because we have chosen to honor the God of the Bible in our political structures, economic system, individual liberties, families, and social life. The US is a Christian expression of civics–certainly not a complete one–but a unique role model in history. The competing worldview in America is secularism (now taught almost exclusively in our government-run schools)–a belief that there is no God, truth, absolutes, and thus man becomes God through an ever-increasing and all powerful State (read “government takeover”). In the 2008 election, Barack Obama ran on the secular platform. Sarah Palin, even more so that John McCain, symbolized America’s Christian heritage and future. Thus Sarah Palin had to be chopped down to size by those who long for a secular progressive socialist vision.

3. She was a common person with everyday common sense. This was her preferred answer to the liberal slander, and it was true. Most Americans related to her Cinderella story and working class background. She was one of us–thought like us–valued our same traditional (i.e. Christian) values–and wanted to bring those common sense solutions back into American political life. Statists really don’t respect the common person though they talk incessantly about policies that will “help the people.” But they really believe they’re smarter than their subjects, know what’s best for us, and tend to rule with elitist demagoguery. Classic example: the present health care bill which the American people oppose but that the liberals nearly crammed down our throats via bribes, kick-backs, sweetheart deals, and Chicago-style politics.

Which brings us back to the Massachusetts Miracle–something the secularists should deeply ponder and should lead them to faith. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 3-1–where a Republican senator had not been elected in forty years–in a seat held by far left senator Teddy Kennedy who was the strongest advocate for nationalized health care, Scott Brown decisively and providentially  ran away with the prize.

The Massachusetts Miracle was stunning. Historic. Unbelievable. Exhilarating.

And he won, partly, because Scott Brown is the male Sarah Palin. The secularists were stopped in their tracks in the bluest of blue states by the male version of the former Alaska governor. What is this nation coming to?

The answer: It’s coming back to its senses and roots. 

The comparisons between Sarah Palin and Scott Brown’s are numerous:

  • They both come from normal, working class American backgrounds.
  • She drove her SUV all over Alaska meeting the people and relating to their concerns. Scott Brown drove his now famous “200,000 mile” truck into every corner of the Commonwealth to meet and greet the people of Massachusetts.
  • She was a popular gal from the small town of Wasilla. Scott Brown was well-liked in his hometown of Wrentham, Massachusetts.
  • Both were star basketball players with Sarah leading her team to a state championship and Scott being a star at Wakefield High School (where he also ran track and still holds a school record). In her basketball career, Sarah was known as “Sarah Barracuda.” Because of his shooting ability, Scott Brown’s nickname was “Downtown Scotty Brown.”
  • Sarah won some beauty contests and Scott worked as a male model, even appearing in Cosmopolitan magazine at the age of 22.
  • Both are strong on the military and the need to keep America safe from terrorism. Sarah’s son has served a tour in Iraq and Scott has served for over thirty years in the Army National Guard.
  • She was a pit bull with lipstick; He ran as a Doberman with mousse.
  • Both are big on freedom and the need to lower taxes. Sarah follows the tax-cutting principles of Ronald Reagan. Scott agrees with the tax-cutting values of John F. Kennedy (the fiscal conservative of Camelot).
  • One’s from a Red State–and one’s from a Blue State. Parties don’t matter much to either and both are loved by Independents.
  • Both attend evangelical churches. Scott’s home church is Grace Chapel in Franklin, and he also has ties to a Catholic order in Wrentham.
  • Both Sarah Plain and Scott Brown are pro-life and pro-family. Brown’s stance is weaker than Palin’s on various points, but that would be expected due to the difference in their home states.

To state it simply, both Sarah Palin and Scott Brown are average Americans who are people of faith, hard work, common sense, believe in limited government, strong defense, and traditional values. They’re also articulate, good-looking, down-to earth, and want to represent the rights and opinions of the people of the United States.

The Secular Left should be scared to death of them because they appear to be the future.

In 2010, we need to find to find 535 Sarah Palins and Scott Browns for the US House of Representatives and thirty for the the United States Senate. We need to work and vote for other everyday, common sense, traditional value people for mayor, councilmen and women, state reps and senators, and governors across the land.

And in 2012 we need one of them–or someone like them–to run for president of the United States to lead this nation back to common sense greatness.

Can the Massachusetts Miracle become the Washington, D.C. Miracle?

Yes it can.

 

It’s His Rubble Now

Peggy Noonan is a gifted writer who worked in the Reagan administration and has written voluminous political commentary since. She has an amazing ability to bring an issue down to its simple basics. In this article she rightly gauges the Obama presidency and calls him to responsibility. I hope this article made it to his desk. It could save his presidency–if he is willing to “change.” RB 

It’s His Rubble Now

And the American People What Him to Fix it

 

By Peggy Noonan

At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency—all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them—was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.

Mr. Bush surely knew from the moment he put the bullhorn down that he would be judged on everything that followed. And he has been. Early on, the American people rallied to his support, but Americans are practical people. They will support a leader when there is trouble, but there’s an unspoken demand, or rather bargain: We’re behind you, now fix this, it’s yours.

President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it? He too stands on rubble, figuratively speaking—a collapsed economy, high and growing unemployment, two wars. Everyone knows what he’s standing on. You can almost see the smoke rising around him. He’s got a bullhorn in his hand every day.

It’s his now. He gets the credit and the blame. How do we know this? The American people are telling him. You can see it in the polls. That’s what his falling poll numbers are about. “It’s been almost a year, you own this. Fix it.”

The president doesn’t seem to like this moment. Who would? He and his men and women have returned to referring to what they “inherited.” And what they inherited was, truly, terrible: again, a severe economic crisis and two wars. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive. It sounds defensive, like a dodge.

The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he’s busy with a “mop,” “cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” and he doesn’t enjoy “somebody sitting back and saying, ‘You’re not holding the mop the right way.'” Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking “Why haven’t you solved world hunger yet?” His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began.

This is not a sign of confidence. Nor were the president’s comments to a New York fund-raiser this week. Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are “an opinionated bunch.” They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—”the other side”—aren’t really big on independent thinking. “They just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, y’all thinkin’ for yourselves.” It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g’s, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn’t narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn’t do this.

But the statement that Republicans just do what they’re told was like his famous description of unhappy voters as people who “cling to guns or religion.” (What comes over him at fund-raisers?) Both statements speak of a political misjudgment of his opponents and his situation.They show a misdiagnosis of the opposition that is politically tin-eared. Politicians looking to win don’t patronize those they’re trying to win over.

But the point on the We Inherited a Terrible Situation and It’s Not Our Fault argument is, again, that it is worse than unbecoming. It is unpersuasive.

How do we know this? Through the polls. In all of the major surveys, the president’s popularity has gone down the past few months. A Gallup Daily Tracking Poll out this week reported Mr. Obama’s job approval dropped nine points during the third quarter of this year, that is between July 1 and Sept. 30, when it fell from 62% to 53%. It was the biggest such drop Gallup has ever measured for an elected president during the same period of his term. A Fox News poll out Thursday showed support for the president’s policies falling below 50% for the first time. Ominously for him, independents are peeling off. In 2006 and 2008 independents looked like Democrats. They were angry and frustrated by the wars, they sought to rebuke the Bush White House. Now those independents look like Republicans. They worry about joblessness, debts and deficits.

The White House sees the falling support. Thus the reminder: We faced an insuperable challenge, we’re mopping up somebody else’s mess.

The Democratic Party too sees the falling support, and is misunderstanding it. The great question they debated last week was whether the president is tough enough: Does he come across as too weak? It is true, as the cliché has it, that it’s helpful for a president to be both revered and feared. But this president is not weak, that’s not his problem. He willed himself into the presidency with an adroit reading of the lay of the land, brought together and dominated all the constituent pieces of victory, showed and shows impressive self-discipline, seems in general to stick to a course once he’s chosen it, though arguably especially when he’s wrong. His decision to let Congress write a health-care bill may yield at least the appearance of victory. And if Mr. Obama isn’t twisting arms like LBJ, and then giving just an extra little jerk to snap the rotator cuff just for fun, the case can be made that day by day he’s moving the Democrats of Congress in the historic direction he desires. All his adult life he’s played the long game, which takes patience and skill.

The problem isn’t his personality, it’s his policies. His problem isn’t what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don’t hit him, hit his policies. That’s where the break with the people is occurring.)

The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.

In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama’s excuse-begging and defensiveness won’t work.

Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.

At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it’s your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it’s yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That’s the American people telling him.