Knowledge of Constitution convoluted among debaters
As much as I dislike the socialization of health coverage that looms only a couple steps away, I believe that some good has come out of the debate.
It reaffirmed the fact there are many people that have misguided views regarding the United States Constitution, as well as rights in general.
The Constitution is not a “living document.” It is a document that defines what abilities and restrictions are bestowed upon the government.
People on the “U.S. Constitution is a living document” bandwagon seem to hate things such as the Patriot Act. Why would they consider the Patriot Act improper constitutionally? After all, the framers probably didn’t see the rise of Islamo-fascism and other terrorist activities, right?
And what about the First Amendment? The framers didn’t see the invention of the internet — so the government should be free to control content on that particular medium, right?
Given the requirements to ratify an amendment, it’s clear that the U.S. Constitution is not a “living document.”
Those claiming that health care is a right do so in the context that they place burdens upon other people to realize it.
This is wrong. Health care is a right, but only if it does not infringe upon my rights or place a burden upon myself against my volition.
So for the aforementioned group, I have a few questions.
Given that artificial limitations on insurance company profits will diminish the supply of coverage, should the government require these existing companies to stay in business and maintain offering coverage?
If you believe the government should be a health insurer, would you say that the way of reducing monetary costs should be through price ceilings on procedures and visits?
If you do believe in the price ceilings, given the reduction in the supply of health care that will ensue, would you be willing to advocate that the government force providers to continue the status quo of supply?
For those who stop working, and subsequently subsidizing a government health program, should the government raid their bank accounts or stashes of currency?
What do you think should be done if individuals, insurance companies and medical providers pulled a John Galt? Be careful on how you answer.
Answering no to any of the above questions effectively means that socialized health care and health coverage will not work. It’s elementary economics.
On the other hand, by answering yes to any of the above questions, you are condoning what amounts to the slavery of producers. At this point, any claims of “rights” that you make amount to nothing but utterances bankrupt of any meaning or value.
Although people may have good intentions when they say such things as the U.S. Constitution is a “living document” and that health care is a right, they need to further analyze of what such statements really entail.
