Founding Fathers, Constitution, Health Care, and Locke... Just What's Wrong With Obamacare

If there's a problem, the government can fix it. That's the motto of the Progressives. Let the government work and fix the problems the country faces, especially economically. Why is there such a cry for the involvement of more and more government in our daily lives? Do they not know history? Do they not understand the importance of the liberty granted to them by the Founding Fathers through the Constitution? Some champion the idea that by the unalienable right of "Life", the Founding Fathers meant the right to recieve with Health Care from the Government at the expense of others. How can they reach such a conclusion?

The Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence (1776) that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The origins of the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" can be attributed to John Locke. In Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, he listed the rights of people to be "Life, Liberty, and Property (1690)." He described what he called the State of Nature, the period before the creation of government, where the basic rights of people were Life, Liberty, and Property (Chapter 2). The right to Life is essentially the key to the other two, for without life there can be no Liberty nor Property. It an aspect of nature for life to come into existence and then cease to exist; thus the instinct to survive is what truly provides the right to life. He then explains the problem that arises from such a state of anarchy. There would be some who would attempt to leave the State of Nature and thus act violently or in a way that ignore the rights of others for the purpose of gaining power, creating an unnatural State of War (Chapter 3).

Locke asserts government was created by people to protect their rights from being violated by others (Chapter 8). In chapter 11, Locke explains the limitations of power the government must have. "First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people... for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another." Because Locke defines property as anything anyone puts work into, this means the government has no right to take away the property of another, which would include the taxes that would pay for Government-Run Health Care.

Even though the Founding Fathers changed the word "Property" to the phrase "pursuit of Happiness", the meaning is not lost. In chapter 11, Locke refers to joining into society as a means to enjoy one's property in peace and safety; in essence allowing them to pursue their own desires, or happiness. Furthermore, the Constitution (1787), was basedlargely on the ideology of Locke, which was to establish a government that would protect the rights of the people. In concordance with the limitations and purpose of government described by Locke, the Preamble of the Constitution reads (each part has its most important relation to Locke's work as [chapter x]), "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union [chapters 7, 8], establish Justice [chapter 2], insure domestic Tranquility [chapters 7, 11, 14], provide for the common defence [chapters 3, 7, 12, 14], promote the general Welfare [chapters 11 - 14], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [chapters 10-15], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Therefore, the Constitution was established to function for the purpose of protecting the rights of man, as described by Locke.

Furthermore, James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, created a Bill of Rights to add to the Constitution to prevent "misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution." The Bill of Rights (1789) contains the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, and reinforces the importance of the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property that Locke championed.

The First Amendment grants the rights to speak freely, exercise religion freely, and petition freely, reinforcing the importance of liberty in general. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own firearms, reinforcing the right of life; to be able to defend oneself from the dangers (or powers) that be. The Third Amendment prohibits soldiers from taking over the private homes of individuals, reinforcing the right to Property. The Fourth Amendment prohibits a person or their property to be unreasonably searched or seized without a warrant for search or seizure, reinforcing the right of Property. The Fifth Amendment (1989) prohibits the state from taking one's life, liberty, or property without due-process of law or just compensation. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from using cruel and unusual punishments for crime, reinforcing the rights to Life and Liberty. The Tenth Amendment grants all power not explicitly granted to the government in the constitution nor granted to an individual state to the people, reinforcing the importance of Liberty.

By understanding the relation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to Locke's political theories, it is very clear why the idea of Government-Run Health Care is unconstitutional. It can be seen from examining the roots of the foundation of America that there are three natural rights: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property). Life is obtained by birth, and ends at death; the right to life means the right not to be murdered or killed, and to defend oneself from possible harm. Liberty is the freedom to do anything that does not violate the rights of another. And finally, pursuit of Happiness or Property is the right to not have anyone take, steal, or damage one's assets that are earned through labor.

Government was established by people to protect these rights, not to infringe upon them. A Government-Run Health Care system would most certainly infringe upon the property from one (or many), and give it away to another to provide a "right" that simply does not exist. The government would be stealing from one to give to another. It is targetting an individual with the intention to harm, which creates an unnatural State of War. It also gives the government a power not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, which is a clearly contradictory to the Tenth Amendment. For all of these reasons, Government-Run Health Care is most certainly unconstitutional, and must be stopped.

www.campaignforliberty.com...



Watch from the 6 minute mark, for about 15 minutes, although I would say that most people will watch the entire thing. It's THAT good! You WILL thank me for sharing this video... trust me.



There, I did it... now I can remove myself from threads about this topic. All I have to do is reference this thread.



Base your argument on principals of freedom, and you always win. Shut up Charlie Sheen, I know I'm winning!

So basically, Alexander Hamilton was an elitist.. interesting theory and quite plausible.

I believe someone else has the same ideologies as Alexander did over 200 years ago...

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Source

At one point I did read something about Bush saying that a perk of his job was to bend the constitution to fit the needs of the POTUS.. no link, just going on the top of my head here..

At any rate, obviously laws were generalized in some scheme to create more government control.. so here we are 2012 and it's starting to catch up.

it is very clear why the idea of Government-Run Health Care is unconstitutional.

You should tell whoever wrote this that Obamacare is not "Government Ran Healthcare". We already have that, it's called medcaid.

reply to post by RealSpoke
If it's taxed it is.. just because the states have the option to opt out doesn't make it constitutional.

reply to post by 31Bravo


It is not government ran healthcare. It is supposed to "encourage" people to buy PRIVATE healthcare or be taxed.

reply to post by FractalChaos13242017


the expense of others,no not the expences of the PEOPLE,,
,AT THEexpense of Good Government,
,that used the resources and people,
wisely enough,in the past 200 years,, too have made it so, by now.
It was a Living Constitution.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by 31Bravo

 

It is not government ran healthcare. It is supposed to "encourage" people to buy PRIVATE healthcare or be taxed.

Encouraged by the government by penalizing, therefore, government ran and really unconstitutional.

Health reform’s insurance mandate says if you do not have “adequate” insurance, you’ll have to pay a fine as part of your tax return. If your business doesn’t provide “affordable” coverage, that business may have to pay a fine to the IRS, too, as part of its tax return filings.

Source

Granted, that is for states who opt to accept the reform.

reply to post by 31Bravo


The healthcare is not being ran by the government. It is buy healthcare or be taxed, the government isn't running the healthcare itself.

Medicaid is healthcare being ran by the government.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

it is very clear why the idea of Government-Run Health Care is unconstitutional.

You should tell whoever wrote this that Obamacare is not "Government Ran Healthcare". We already have that, it's called medcaid.

edit on 2-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Yes, medicaid... another abomination, very good young padawan.

It is not government ran healthcare. It is supposed to "encourage" people to buy PRIVATE healthcare or be taxed.

It SHOULD not be the governments position to "encourage" such practices, based on the leverage of taxation. This is the part that people just DO NOT UNDERSTAND!

The pursuit of happiness, and the quality of life should be enough for an individual to strive for working towards the ability to afford healthcare. and... no, I'm not addressing those who are rendered incapable from birth to do so... yet, even so, it should be a community of caring individuals that help make it possible for an individual or family to take on such costs. A perfect example of this(well, in my home state and where I'm from) are people holding fundraisers for those in need. When I was younger, I worked at a bar/bowling alley, and at least once a month there was a charity event that aimed to helping a local family with medical issues. This is the TRUE means to creating a better society, and having the ability to help one another.

btw, I see you're a tyler the creator fan... have you seen Hopsin's parody of him? It's to die for! He eats handfuls of bugs lol, it's great.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017

 

the expense of others,no not the expences of the PEOPLE,,
,AT THEexpense of Good Government,
,that used the resources and people,
wisely enough,in the past 200 years,, too have made it so, by now.
It was a Living Constitution.

Many would argue, that the interpretations taken by Congress and the Supreme court alike still address it as a 'living Constitution'. The 60's and 70's were chalk full of crap that went straight against the Constitution, as well as the Bush and Obama administrations and the Congress' that accompanied them.

If it were not a 'Living Constitution', then we would have never seen many of the passed crap that we see hurting the private market today. The government is not there to place incentive, it is to allow for the responsibility of the people to create conditions in which Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are conducive towards developing incentives that parallel this sentiment. I'm not all that knowledgeable about 'everything' Locke had to say, although I've read quite a bit and he's very clear about what he means, which is the basis for much of the Constitution. I would suggest that he's currently rolling in his grave, witnessing the destruction of a Nation that was founded on his principals.

A proper government is one whose sole reason for existence is the protection of man’s individual rights. The protection of a man’s right to his life, his liberty, his property, and his pursuit of happiness to name a few.

A proper government is one whose goal is to eliminate the initiation of force in society. It is able to do this if it acts as our agent for our own right to self-defense. A proper government therefore would be the only institution that holds the exclusive power to use force (as a consequence of our individual right to self-defense).

www.robertvaughan.ca...

The expense of government, is the expense of the people, and the people are to have their property protected, in all forms. It's that simple. Yes, do away with monopolies, set regulations... but there is a fine line between government intervention/regulation of markets and straight up hijacking markets to fit a desire.

This is a country built by those who sacrifice, in all areas. The Government is not supposed to be the one to instill such sacrifices, while directly opposing the fundamental principals of its founding. Simply put!

Locke a;ways did the if,,then,,thus,,
God is the Living part,,
Personally i believe the contract between the States, and the corp. and god,,was fullfilled by the election of Pres.Obama,,
u know ALL men free,,completed.
this new Constitutional debate, over,,which direction , America will embark on,, will be on there own two feet.

Originally posted by 31Bravo
I believe someone else has the same ideologies as Alexander did over 200 years ago...

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Source

Your source is wrong.

Bush never said that, and the author of the article cited by Rense.com retracted his claim.

www.factcheck.org...

The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.

Update, Feb. 21, 2011: The author of the Capitol Hill Blue story has now withdrawn it. Doug Thompson messaged us to say:


Doug Thompson: This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads:

"This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database."

I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries. In addition, I have asked that it be removed from a documentary film.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

it is very clear why the idea of Government-Run Health Care is unconstitutional.

You should tell whoever wrote this that Obamacare is not "Government Ran Healthcare". We already have that, it's called medcaid.

edit on 2-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

We also have Medicare, which is also government run.

I work in a hospital, and when people that come in that do not have insurance, the first thing the hospital does is sign them up with either Medicare if they meet the requirements, or Medicaid. They are assured they get paid. There is no "self paid" anymore, unless someone opts to self pay for an elective surgery.

Once in a while, people *do* opt to do that. They negotiate a rate with the hospital and physisican, and sign a contract, pay in full prior to surgery, and have their operation.

Usually, though, it is traumas that come in, DUI's that have hit someone else, or someone that was hit by a DUI, and either one or both are uninsured. Amazingly, one or both are also not motor-vehicle insured.

The hospital, however, assures that both parties are insured medically, and get their bills paid. Rarely, *very* rarely, does a case come through the door in my unit that leaves "self pay", with a debt.

The real problem is not if they have health insurance. The real problem is what Medicare and Medicaid will reimburse, or allow, as acceptable coverage.

In my opinion, for what that's worth, people are arguing the totally wrong points in all of this....

Medicare and Medicaid pay well below market value, allow the most miniscule of items for bare medical care, and everything else is taken at a loss for the hospital. This is what causes the huge mark-ups on health insurance and "self-pay" bills, You, the responsible parties, are paying for the cheapness of the government payout.

Therein lies the real truth. Perhaps try looking into what is "allowable" for people under Medicare guidelines. United Healthcare and Kaiser also go by Medicare guidelines for allowable coverage.

For instance a person at home that has a diabetic foot ulcer: (this is just an example)

1 package of sterile gauze 2x2
1 package of sterile gauze 4x4
1 box of 50 pairs of gloves
2 bottles of peroxide
1 bottle alcohol
1 roll of paper tape
2 package of sterile gauze pads

per month

This sounds like a lot, but when you have to cleanse and dress a wound perhaps 3-4 times a DAY? It's the bare minimum.

Now, I am not even talking about the inflated 17.95 for the hospital Tylenol. I am talking replacement of perhaps 0.10 per pill. That isn't even replacement value. The difference in the coverage, is written off at a loss, the loss is then made up in the 17.95 Tylenol charged to YOUR insurance company or self pay bill.

Along with this is the simple fact that *all* hospitals are required to take in a certain amount of "indigent care" per year, at a loss, or lose federal funding. That loss gets passed along. Guess who pays it? Lets not even mention Government funded not-for-profit hospitals. Most of their "not-profit" comes from insurance patients that get elective surgeries, such as back surgeries that are non-emergency, or knee-replacement. These *are* considered elective surgeries, and are what keep hospitals afloat.

Last year my not-for-profit hospital made about $30,000 profit for the year, but managed to build a multi-million dolar heart center. It's all semantics.

Healthcare is already free to people, and we are already paying for it, but the ignorant multitudes are being led down the garden path by the nose, and don't even know it. Not one person, ever, is turned away from getting care, and not one person leaves without being signed up for Medicare or Medicaid to have their bill paid.

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by 31Bravo
I believe someone else has the same ideologies as Alexander did over 200 years ago...

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Source

Your source is wrong.

Bush never said that, and the author of the article cited by Rense.com retracted his claim.

Well it's good to see another member that checks sources, most just believe what they read so I commend you for that, however, that really wasn't the point of my post. I could care less about how true that statement was because Bush is almost certainly an elitist. It would be safe to assume that is how he truly feels anyway and more than likely has said it behind closed doors anyway.