A Toast To Your Health

What with the US Congressional battle heating up over the so-called "Obamacare" debacle, now is as good a time as any to attack the entire concept of socialized healthcare.  The entire notion of government running anything, much less something as intimate and important as healthcare, is about as insane as it gets.  Furthermore, healthcare is not a right, it is a commodity that can be purchased based on one's needs and desires.

Over the past half-century or so, it has become almost axiomatic that individuals have a "right" to healthcare.  You don't.  You have a right to access and purchase any product or commodity you deem appropriate to your health and happiness, but it is not a right, as such.

The first thing wrong with socialized healthcare is that it places in the hands of government the decision on who gets how much of what healthcare.  Not only is this situation completely anathema to a "right," it allows government to determine what constitutes "healthcare" and how much of what treatments and cures one can receive.  In other words, it makes healthcare a privilege apportioned by a remote and faceless bureaucracy, not a right.

Socialized healthcare forces every individual to pay for every other individual's healthcare.  I chose to smoke and drink alcohol despite the copious warnings about the health risks because I deem the activities a necessary part of my pursuit of happiness.  It is my right to do so and I exercise it at every opportunity.  By the same token, I do not have a right to force anyone else to pay for the health consequences, should there be any.

I have knowingly accepted certain risks in order to obtain enjoyment.  If I should develop lung disease or liver cirrhosis, that is my responsibility and the treatments - should I choose to accept them - are my expense and no one else's.  By extension, I also have the choice of what treatments I seek and how much I am willing to pay for them.  However, none of these personal choices implies the responsibility of anyone else to help cover the cost, nor does it give the right to anyone else to choose the treatments for me.  Nor do I have the right to expect anyone else to cover my costs for treatment.

Let's take cancer as an example.  If I develop the disease, there are many types of treatment available, such as Chemo-Radiation, Herbal, Homeopathic, Acupuncture, etc.  Because I have been forced by law into a government-controlled healthcare program that only allows and will pay for Chemo-Radiation treatment (because some lobbyists paid-off a bunch of legislators), my right to choose is immediately withdrawn.  This is not to mention the fact that my payments into the system were extracted from me at the point of a gun in the first place.

Exactly where in the above scenario does my right to healthcare come in?  I was forced to pay into the system, forced to choose only one of several treatment options, and in many cases, I can be forced to take the treatment even if I opt to just die rather than go through the horrors of Chemo-Radiation.

At no point in all of this have I exercised a right.  I have either been granted a privilege, or forced to accept a product I don't want.  Thus, the whole concept of a "right" to healthcare is completely null and void, since a right invokes a choice on the part of the individual.

Arguing further into this problem, suppose I am a gang-banger on the mean streets of Chicago.  I have chosen, as is my right, to engage in a lifestyle that has a high mortality rate.  I know this; you know this.

One night, I am involved in an altercation with other gang-bangers and I get shot.  Do I have a right to force you to pay for my lifestyle choice that led directly to my getting shot?  By the same token, if I have the right to force you to pay, then don't you have the right to force me to choose another lifestyle in order to save your out-of-pocket expenses for my care?  Once force enters any part of the equation, we are no longer discussing rights.

Ultimately, this discussion strikes at the root.  So much of what we call modern society does not involve rights.  It is symptomatic of the century-long effort to remove personal responsibility from the free individual.  Frighteningly, many individuals willingly surrender their rights because they don't want personal responsibility.  They would rather remain child-like their entire lives, free of long-term ownership of their choices and actions.

As part of my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I have the right to smoke and drink to my heart's content, but if I develop lung disease or liver cirrhosis, then I must also be willing to accept responsibility for that outcome.  This goes for any personal choice.

If I choose to surrender my personal freedom to a remote faceless bureaucracy in order to remove my personal responsibility, then so be it.  But I should not be forced to participate in that system if I so choose.  At the core of this argument is the fact that much of what we consider society is compulsory adherence to someone else's idea of what I should be doing.

I have no problem with a government-administered healthcare program that is voluntary, like any insurance scheme.  Anyone who wants to join it may do so, and they can share the costs of every other member's stupidity.  But do not force me to join the scheme, nor force me to join any other scheme.  If I die in the gutter of cirrhosis because I don't have a health plan or a family that cares for me, then that is the result of my choices and I take full responsibility for it.

Related to that, if I gather 100 people who contract with each other to pay into a fund each month, and we establish a Board of Directors and a set of rules for payout, why should I have to license or register this private fund with any government entity?

Additionally, if I choose to combat a cancer by smoking big-ass hog-leg joints of weed, sucking down herbal potions and sticking needles in my nerves, what the hell business is it of anyone else to tell me I can't?  My medical situation is a direct result of my actions, and the treatment and costs should also be my choice.

As the new US Congress get down to fisticuffs and name-calling, which is the modus operandi of US politics, one can hope that they opt for individual freedom and responsibility.  I have no problem with Obamacare per se.  Anyone who trusts government enough to administer their money and healthcare should be free to sign up, but for god's sake, leave me out of it.  I don't want it.  I don't trust it.  And I sure as hell don't want to pay for anyone else's lifestyle choices, nor do I expect anyone else to pay for mine.

Most of all, the best thing the Congress could do is get the hell out of everyone's lives, legalize and deregulate all herbs and remedies, and let people make their own choices.  Sure, a lot of people will scream and holler.  These are the people who want to remain child-like the rest of their lives and nothing short of round-the-clock coddling and cradle-to-grave Big Mommy will make them happy - may, not even that will be enough.  Let them form their own corporate entity and pay for their own "security."

This problem and a vast number of other societal ills are all related to an out-of-control System that we have argued many times needs to be completely dismantled - lock, stock and two smoking barrels.
There is no repairing this mess because the underlying assumptions are themselves faulty.  Any attempt to do repair a faulty system will only make it worse.  The ony real solution is personal freedom of choice and personal responsibility for those choices.  Period.

BTW, do a google for "images healthcare."  When, exactly, did the color blue become the "official" color for healthcare?  Every single damn image is blue!

Lead Poisoning

It's times like these when you wish they still taught civics in high school.  Apparently, no one knows the laws in the US, nor are they able to look them up.

As the debate about gun control rages across the US, and even across the world (China for instance), it behooves us to go back and take a look at the laws that allow US citizens to own guns, and why.  First, a look at the Second Amendment in the US Bill of Rights:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So far, so good.  Now we ask ourselves, how is the militia defined in law?  For that, we turn to 10 USC Sub. A, Part I, Chap. 13, Sec. 311 - Militia: Composition and Classes:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Source

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7),Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a),Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

While you're checking my facts, keep in mind that the US Constitution and Bil of Rights was written on hemp paper, just in case you think hemp should be illegal and that the Constitution allows government to do that.

Now, a quick history lesson.  During the American Revolution (Part I), the regular army was hopelessly outmatched in every way by the British army.  Oh sure, they had some good strategists, but they were broke and ill-equipped, so when they marched onto the field of battle, they were mostly mowed down like a hay harvest.

What made the difference?  A bunch of farmers with hunting rifles ambushing the British and wearing them down bit by bit.  It was guerrilla warfare, much like what is kicking the US army's butts in Afghanistan and other places.  Instead of everyone wearing pretty uniforms and lining up in a field and blowing each other to bits until the last man standing, the militia looked like farmers and non-combatants.  They could blend into the population, be anywhere in a town or on a country road, and they knew the land in a way that a general with a map could never know it.

The writers of the Bill of Rights knew this and knew that governments that had a monopoly on power (like the one they had just defeated) inevitably become totalitarian police states.  One only need to scan a history book to discover that fact.

So they made it a codified right that every member of the unorganized militia should be armed and have some basic training and practice in order to protect the nation from invasion...and from out-of-control governments.

Now, some people read the "well-regulated" part and think in terms of rules and regulations, but that is not the meaning intended here.  In military terms, well-regulated means trained and equipped.

Back in the old days, when I was a kid, we were trained as militia.  I received my first gun for Christmas at 8 years old.  It was a Browning .22 rifle, and boy was I excited!  However, in order to quality for that gun, I was trained to shoot from the age when I could hold a gun.  From my earliest memories, I was going out to the farm with Dad and other friends and relatives to plink can and bottles down at the creek.  I distinctly remember my first real lesson.  I was handed a .12 gauge shotgun and told to shoot a coffee can thrown in the air.  I had a bruise the size of Rhode Island on my shoulder for a week.  I learned really fast to respect guns.

Then there were the NRA camps.  We would spend a summer learning to carry, clean and shoot all sorts of guns.  We went to competitions to earn patches and pins for 50-yard, 100-yard and 150-yard targets.  I earned my Marksman patch at 12.  For a time, I could put a bullet through the hole made by the previous bullet at 50 yards.  If it weren't for the spotters, you might have thought I missed the target.

My first year in high school was in a small town called Shiner.  We all drove to school, though us freshmen and sophmores didn't have licenses.  They sheriff didn't bother us unless we were being crazy.  Pretty much every car and pickup in the parking lot had at least two guns and plenty of ammo.  It was a way of life.

The next year, I transferred to a school in downtown Houston.  Every Thurday, the skeet club met after school.  Those days, there were probably 30 or 40 shotguns with ammo at school.

Never once was there a problem.  No one every pulled a gun in anger or made threats.  No one ever went on sprees down the hall killing and maiming.  Maybe some folks thought about it, but given the fact there were dozens of other guns in the school, they would have been a damn fool.  If someone ever tried it, they wouldn't have made it ten steps down the hall without having their brains decorating the wall.

Then there's folks like my idiot liberal sister.  She's one of those bleeding-everything pacifists that would gladly hang a sign in her yard saying, "This is a gun-free home."  Even mentioning the word 'gun' gets her all hypoplectic.  Yet, when push comes to shove, she's more than happy to throw a cop at it, which is nothing more than gun violence by proxy.

Whether I point a gun at you, or I have someone else do it for me, the result is the same.

Now comes the question of things like body armor.  Well, as I read the Second Amendment, it says, "well-regulated," meaning equipped.  Therefore, any member of the militia should be able to own guns, body armor, silencers, etc.  If the army can have it, then the militia can have it...by law.

So what's the solution to so-called 'gun violence' that doesn't cross the boundary of law?  Easy!

All males 17 to 45, and females in the National Guard, should be required to attend training for some amount of time and be certified as militia members.  Then, they should have to attend annual refresher courses.  Finally, they should all be required to keep and bear arms at all times, just like the Swiss.  If the simple requirements of the law were followed, no one would ever think of going on a shooting spree.  They wouldn't make it ten feet without a couple of dozen militia members putting a quick stop to it.

Imagine if the law was actually followed.  There'd be millions of trained and armed citizens everywhere.  Anyone who thought of robbing a store or shooting up a mall would have to remember that they'd likely be mowed down before they could take two shots.  The theater shooters would face down 20 armed militia members.  A mall shooter would have dozens of well-regulated individuals ready to stop them.

The problem here is not the need for more laws, but proper enforcement of existing laws.  The only reason why the current laws would not be enforced is because there is an agenda to rid the common man of his means of defense.  And the only reason to do that is to allow government free reign in the public sphere without fear of reprisal.

At the moment, there are millions of law-abiding gun owners in the US.  This fact alone has forced the government to attack rights by stealth and by propaganda.  Without all those gun owners out there, the bastards who like treating people like slaves would have free reign.  They wouldn't have to nibble at the people's rights, they could gulp until satiated and no one could stop them.

Like the old saying goes, "If you criminalize guns, then only criminals would have them."  We can safely assume that government wants to ban guns in the hands of everyone except government agents.  So what does that make the agents?  Why, criminals of course.

One last note...there is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'.  Any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon, whether it's piano wire, water boards, electricity to the gonads, or a gun.  In the hands of a law-abiding citizen, all rifles are defensive, just like a shield.  Stop using 'their' terms and think for yourself.  That's the first step in becoming a free individual.

By the same token, any government that bans guns is protecting itself, not the people.

A free man defends himself.  A slave is defended by his owner.  We are either property, or we are free individuals.  Take your choice.  The battleground is the right to be armed and defend yourself and your family.

And if you are worried about school shootings, then home school your children.  You will all be better off.  After all, the first school shooting in the US was Kent State, and the 'authorities' were the bad guys.