If we seek the right to exercise our free will for our lives then we dare not allow government to deny anyone from that right. And when government makes an attempt to stifle free will to anyone we the people must unite against those in government. It is only when we are divided on an issue that government will be able to take that freedom of choice away from us.
Since the only way for government to control the costs of medical care is through price controls then we must acknowledge that free will is being stifled. We will be stifling the free will of those in the medical profession for they will no longer have the right to determine the value of their services and charge a price accordingly and of their own free will.
We began as a nation where a portion of society had no right to exercise their free will and we saw the consequences that resulted from that. It took a civil war to correct that and give a people the right to live in accordance to his or her own free will. Let us learn a lesson from this history. Let us not make the same error over again no matter how emotional of an argument may be in an issue.
I remember a time back in the early sixties when I met and made friends with a black doctor. And as we were walking down the street one-day we stopped in front of a restaurant where we both stared at a sign clearly posted, “No coloreds allowed.” As we continued down the street this doctor asked, what I thought at the time, the strangest question. He asked,
“ You know, I can either go back to Haiti and end up being treated like a hero by the people or I can stay here and become rich. What should I do?”
At the time, I had no answer for him but that question has always remained in my mind even until today. I will also say that it took me a few years to really understand the significance of the question. That sign said it all. It wasn’t what he said that hit me so hard but what he did not say that did.
What he was really contemplating was that, yes, he could go back to Haiti and be treated as a hero but in doing so he would remain poor because the people who he would serve would be too poor to pay him. Or he could remain here and serve those who could pay him and become rich but treated no better than dirt on the bottom of everyone’s shoes.
I have often wondered to this day what decision that doctor made and if he ever regretted his decision. I have a feeling he did feel regret regardless of the decision because it was a decision partially determined by which consequence did he not want to experience rather than what benefits there was. Here was a man who had to make a decision, a choice in life, but regardless of what decision he made, it couldn’t have been made as willingly or as freely as we’d like to think it should be if we are expressing our free will.
As I look back, as I often do, we were two men walking down that street, one whose life would always be determined for him while the other could live a life whose choices was his to make. To me, that experience will always be the telling point between the concepts of determinism and free will. I guess that experience influenced my way of thinking in a manner that has never left me.
It made me realize just how important it is to be given the freedom to exercise my free will and that it isn’t just the ability to make choices that determines it but how freely and willingly we make them. Can we, as a nation, afford to take that freedom from any man? Are health care costs that high that we are willing to take the ability to exercise free will from another?
- Should not all men make decisions based upon principles rather than the size of their wallet?
- Is that man who has money in his pocket but was deprived of his free will better off than that man with a mountain of debt but still able to exercise his free will?
14 comments:
While people may have different views still good things should always be appreciated. Yours is a nice blog. Liked it!!!
Free will and the exercise thereof is a right all men should have.
Health care, and access to it, is something everyone in civil society should strive to determine the best means for those least able to afford it be covered by it.
Tough question and elusive solutions will continue to evade us unless and until such time true and meaningful dialog is had in the halls of congress.
As to the thoughts of a founding father on this issue, try reading the works of Thomas Paine.
RN,
"Free will and the exercise thereof is a right all men should have."
to be consistent in this then rules out any mandate of governmental socialistic form of medical care. for it denies some of that right to exercise their free will as i pointed out in the post.
access and affordability are two separate things, my friend.
access only allows you in the door. whether or not you are treated after you are in is up to that doctor. that is why medical care is a privilege not a right.
if medical care was a right then that doctor would have to treat that person even if it took force or the threat of it to induce that doctor to treat him.
Griper,
The thugs will be voted out of office!
I agree with you and they are attempting political suicide!
You get what you pay for and one should not have to pay for every other person out there!
Can't afford a child? Then don't have one! But I am not about to pay for abortions either!
How freaking selfish of them to think they can take my share for someone else!!!
Social security is bad enough!
Griper - When congress puts together a healthcare plan that has market based competition, allows for true tort reform, oh what the hell.
No point in belaboring the issue any longer.
You you have money, you get seriously sick, you live.
You have no money by no fault of your own, you get seriously sick, you die.
Answer to Attila the Huns logic thread.
Answer #2 - Do nothing, people who cannot afford insurance taxpayers pay for anyway do to acceptance of the Hippocratic oath.
As a principled conservative one should seek to find solutions that work. THE PROBLEM WILL NOT GO AWAY.
I agree the current form of healthcare/insurance reform is nothing more than a bag of warm pig dung. But we will be stuck with it partially because those professing to act in a responsible manner (fiscally and economically) chose to do nothing.
I shall return to the reading of an oft Quoted Patriot, Thomas Paine, who would agree with my arguments. And he lived over 250 years ago.
RN,
you keep bringing up Paine but you never allow a person to rebut your claim he'd be on your side by quoting him. i know Paine also but know of nothing that would declare de3finatively that he'd be on your side in this issue. besides, Paine is but one of the founding fathers and may not be representative of the ideas of the rest of the founding fathers.
RN,
and stop being so melodramatic in your arguments. it gets you no where with me. that's a socialists form of argument and one without reason.
Perhaps RN is thinking of:
"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine
ahhh tis good to hear from you again BB. have missed your voice around here.
BB,
if that quote is to be used as justification for the socialistic method of medical care then they must declare that the end justifies the means. and in this case the means is the "use of force" if we are to apply Washington's definition of government.
that may justify war but are we willing to use that principle in the case of how people should think in regards to their rights?
so,,i can't see that quote as applicable to the issue.
Payne speaks for himself, your argument is with old Tom. As for
Washington's view of "use of force", you recall him leading
(as president) 12,000 militia against his American brethren to
put down the "Whiskey Rebellion",
a reaction to taxation (thought up by Alexander Hamilton). Nuttin new under the sun..Ecclesiastes
1:0-14. As for healthcare, I was talking to a local guy who got sick over in England. He was amazed that they saw him right away and he was charged -0- for the doc, -0- for the hospital and
-0- for the drugs. He asked why and was informed, "We take care of our own". I don't find that horrible or criminal..in fact it
reminds me of the 'band of brothers' back in the days in uniform. Just sayin, Griper.
"Payne speaks for himself, your argument is with old Tom"
a very valuable truth there, my dear friend. everyone speaks for themselves only and they should remember that. too many think they can do the thinking for others as well.
as for ol' GW. he probably knew and understood the meaning of the use of force better than most, being the leader of men whose only purpose was the use of force in the military. he also knew its meaning in private life also being the owner of slaves.
so, when he defines government as "force" i have to think he has a better idea of it than i may have. and then when i consider the two primary functions of government,war and law enforcement, i have to agree with his definition of government.
my problem comes when those in government thinks that they can just waltz in and take over as the head of my family and make decisions for their well being.
Unfortunately you're probably right. Get ready for your taxes and your premiums to go up.
hey,,the Mayo Clinic is dropping medicare too
Post a Comment