Some Perspective On Universal Health Care and the Founding Fathers

How many times have you heard a Democratic politician or pundit say something like this?

Among the OECD's 30 members -- which include Australia, Austria, Belgium,Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom -- there are only three lacking universal health coverage. The other two happen to be Mexico and Turkey, which have the excuse of being poorer than the rest (and until the onset of the world economic crisis, Mexico was on the way to providing healthcare to all of its citizens). The third, of course, is us."

(Here is the actual report from the OECD web site)

"The story gets worse as the details emerge. Although the public share of health expenditure in the United States is much lower than any other OECD country except Mexico, the public expenditure on healthcare is much higher per capita than in most OECD countries. So we pay a lot more in taxes devoted to medical care -- not including insurance premiums, co-payments, fees, and other health costs -- than taxpayers in those 27 countries that have universal coverage. Our public expenditure provides coverage only for the elderly and some of the poor (through Medicaid and the SCHIP program for children) while other countries provide universal coverage while spending less."

Let's think about this for a minute. The U.S. doesn't have universal health insurance coverage and many pundits and Democratic politicians think this is bad. Isn't having health insurance a choice? If it's a choice what does it say about all those nations that have universal coverage. It means that there is no choice.

This country was founded on liberty. It was founded on the principle that the government would leave the citizenry alone and only performing the basic functions of protecting the citizens. Now, we bemoan the fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have universal coverage. Of course, universal coverage means forced coverage.

What would the founding fathers think of someone proclaiming that the lack of "universal health care" in the U.S. is a bad thing? Health insurance wasn't even a creation when the Revolutionary War was fought. Now, some politician thinks that it should not only be a right but a demand of the citizens. In fact, anyone that views our nation as the only industrialized without universal coverage as a bad thing knows very little about the principles that this nation was founded on.

This nation was founded on the principle of liberty. Health insurance should be as available and cheap as possible. It should not be mandated. It should NOT be paid for by the taxes of someone else. That infringes on the liberty of those being taxed. Anyone that looks at our place in the world, as the only industrialized nation without universal health care, and thinks that's a bad thing simply has no idea what this country was founded on.

The Tea Parties: The Libertarian Awakening

As I have said, the race is on to define the movement. Unfortunately, our media environment is far to simplistic and lazy to try and understand what was driving it. It has been labeled as Republican, conservative, extremist, etc. All of this really misses the point. It should come as no surprise that Ron Paul. Paul is a hero to the libertarian movement. It should also come as no surprise that H.R. 1207 was a mainstay cause at many of the rallies. I also wasn't surprised to find in my pocket a flyer for another rally and fundraiser for the Libertarian Party of Chicago on April 29th.


Conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians often cause paths in their belief systems, and so to opponents, and lazy media, they can be one and the same. They are not, and the crowd at all the tea parties was one that believes in libertarianism. This is a crowd that pays deference to the founding fathers and to the Constitution. It is also a crowd that is virulently afraid of government power. It is a dicey proposition to label the founding fathers, but they were above all else libertarians. In fact, the entire Revolution was fought on this principle. They fought against a tyrannical government.

Those in the crowd in all fifty states see something like the forming. Between bailouts, stimuli, and a massive increase in the budget, they see a government that is growing size, scope, and power. Here is the other dirty little secret. If the movement is defined as libertarian, it will also be clear that its opponents, including the President, are decidedly against liberty. How else can you describe someone that will punish you if you use the wrong sort of energy source? How else can you describe someone that will demand you have to have health insurance? How else can you describe someone that demands that an auto CEO be fired?

Anyone that understands the movement would not have been surprised by by the proliferation of supporters of H.R. 1207. This is a bill that will make the Federal Reserve more transparent. The supporters want to open up their books to much more public scrutiny. Libertarians recognize a powerful force, and they recognize how that force can squash personal liberty. There is no more powerful force than the Federal Reserve. Libertarians see any force that manipulates the money supply by fiat as one that infringes on their own personal liberty. Of course, that is something that is likely not to be explored by much of the media.

The people at these tea parties are just as likely to be against NCLB, the prescription drug benefit, and TARP I, as they are against most of Obama's policies. The Republicans are trying to piggy back onto the movement, but most in the movement are disgusted with the party. For eight years they spent wildly and grew the government exponentially.

This brings me to the main criticism of the movement. Where were they for the last eight years? In fact, liberty has been dwindling since the 1930's. The tenth amendment is now a shell of its former self. Is anyone surprised that Governor Rick Perry received wild applause when he stood up for the tenth amendment? The tenth amendment, the power of the state to decide for itself anything not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, is a bedrock of libertarianism. What has happened is about three generations of the government slowly eating away at personal liberty. Between sales tax, property tax, income tax, county tax, city tax, and even a death tax, the government takes and takes. It feeds a never ending bureaucracy. So, why weren't these folks demonstrating in the last eight years? It's because the straw that broke the camels back was a president that tripled the deficit, fired a car CEO, and demanded that folks that overbought woudl be rewarded with better mortgages. This movement was simmering for several generations and it spilled out when the most anti liberty president and agenda since FDR began to try and impose their will on the population.

What the First 50 Days Say About President Obama

They say he is enamored with power. Now, let's make sure everyone understands what I mean. I certainly don't mean that he is consumed by power the way that Vladimir Putin is. I don't know if he loves power because he is driven by it (I am no psychiatrist and I don't know the man). He may simply see power as his means of getting things done. Ultimately, his rational and belief system on the issue of power are largely beside the point. Whatever his motivations, the end result is merely more moderate stages of dangerous.

So far, almost everything has resulted in a greater consolidation of power in himself and those close to him. I wrote recently about President Obama's consolidation through the use of czars that go outside of the traditional Secretary system. Yet, that is only the beginning of his consolidation of power. The stimulus was in many ways nothing more than a massive consolidation of federal power. It doubled the yearly budget of the Department of Education for instance. It made a massive increase in the budget of the Department of Energy.

Look at the intrusion into the mortgage market by his $75 billion mortgage bailout. The president first officially took over Fannie/Freddie and then directed them to modify mortgages based on his guidelines. That is in fact a shocking power grab.

All three of his signature issues: health care, energy, and education, are also not coincidentally a power grab. With education reform, comes two other things: more federal funds for education and more federal power. The issue of energy independence will be lead by the federal government. President Obama has no free market ideas for energy independence. Instead, the federal government will spend, research and tax our way to energy independence. The issue of health care means the creation of a massive new government bureaucracy.

He has formed a commission that will essentially decide the fate of Chrysler and GM. How often does a president decide the fate of two private companies? On top of this, he will expand such programs as food stamps, unemployment insurance, and Head Start. His tax scheme means that for the first time ever more people will rely on the government than pay into the government by virtue of more than half the nation not paying any federal income taxes. Whatever other results, this means that the federal government will greatly expand its power. Even the states are now more reliant on the federal government as most of them will get federal funding to make up for budget shortfalls.

On most of these issues, the president has the same response. He says that inherited all of this. He purports that he isn't the one that first gave money to the banks. He also points out that it is the financial crisis that is forcing him to use the government as much as he is.

This is all nonsense. First, President Obama has reversed a lot more Bush policies than he has continued. There is absolutely nothing that says he must continue them and for the most part he has not. Second, the idea that the magnitude of the crisis forces him to unleash the power of the government reveals his obsession with the power of the government. Ronald Reagan came into office facing no less of financial crisis. In fact, he walked in facing high unemployment and high inflation, stagflation. Instead of unleashing the power of the government, he committed to making the government smaller. He cut taxes and he deregulated and our country "somehow" thrived anyway.

The idea that he must unleash the power of the government because the crisis is of unmatched magnitude is one he purports because he believes in the power of the government. Now, I personally believe he has no nefarious intentions. I believe that President Obama believes that the government is a force for good. I believe that he believes that bigger government can and will create more wealth and it will spread that wealth around to more people. Whatever President Obama's motivation though, one thing is certain. It is exactly this sort of consolidation of power that the founding fathers feared. Whatever his intentions, he is right now attempting to realize every nightmare of every person that created this nation.

Is the Constitution a Living, Breathing Document

One of the biggest shames of most Presidential campaigns is the total lack of attention that the Supreme Court and judges in general receive. The Supreme Court is the most lasting legacy of any President. Earl Warren became one of the most liberal jurists in history and yet he was chosen by the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.

In this election, we have two very different philosophies. Senator Barack Obama believes that the Constitution is a living breathing document to be updated and refined by the Justices on the Supreme Court. John McCain believes that the Constitution is a static document to be strictly constructed and interpreted by the Justices.

I firmly believe that the Constitution is NOT a living breathing document, and that Justices should construct the Constitution strictly. My biggest problem with those that believe the Constitution is living and breathing is that it is position that comes from hubris. After all, you aren't going to find one person that wrote the Constitution itself that believed that this document would update and change unless amendments were added. Worse than that, those that believe that the Constitution should be living and breathing then also believe that their judgment is better than that of the folks that wrote the Constitution. After all, how else can you explain that these folks want the Constitution to live and breathe and thus be updated as they see fit? It's only because they don't believe the Founding Fathers were wise enough to construct a document that could stand the test of time. Instead, they believe that it is their duty to update it and make it better. This, to me, is hubris of the highest order. Finally, the founding fathers created the amendment system for all those that believed in a living, breathing Constitution. In order to change it, one must go through the amendment process. Those that believe in a living, breathing Constitution also think that unelected judges should usurp the role of everyone involved in amending the Constitution.

Those that believe that the Constitution is a living and breathing document also fail to appreciate the nuance and sophistication of the Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers were plenty wise enough to construct a document, in its original format, that could itself adapt to the future. That's because the Constitution was to be precise where the Founding Fathers believed that a principle needed to stand the test of time. On the other hand, it was vague in other areas where the Founding Fathers couldn't predict the future.

Let's look at an example of each. First, let's look at a place in the Constitution where it was precise. Let's take a look at the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Now, this particular part of the constitution is extremely specific. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that Congress, and Congress only, is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't prohibit the states from doing as much. In fact, the tenth amendment gives all powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states. By both of these portions, the Constitution allows for the states to do as they please regarding the Constitution.

A great example of a jurist that believed the Constitution was a living and breathing document, as it relates to the first amendment, was Everson V Board of Education

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

Neither a state northe Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.

Now, it's interesting that Justice Hugo Black, who wrote this opinion, referenced Thomas Jefferson. That's because Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. Furthermore, Black used Jefferson's interpretation of the establishment clause rather than simply interpreting it himself. There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. It was put in there by someone that believed that the Constitution was "living and breathing". As such, a matter of state's rights turned into a matter of the separation of church and state even though the founding fathers never meant it as such.

Now, let's look at another portion of the Constitution. Let's look at the Commerce Clause.

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

This portion is precise in that it enumerates the powers of regulations of Commerce to Congress and Congress alone. Just as the Constitution forbids the Congress, and the Congress alone, from making any law establishing religion, it also gives the Congress, and the Congress alone, the power to regulate commerce. The regulation of commerce though is a vague and nebulous concept that can change and evolve as time goes on. As such, as the country evolves, so to will the Congress' role in regulating commerce. As such, while the Founding Father could never have imagined a force like the internet, they were smart enough to give the Constitution enough foresight to give the Congress the power to regulate something as vague as Commerce which includes the internet and many other forces the Founding Fathers could never have imagined.

The Constitution doesn't need to be living and breathing as the Constitution is vague enough, in those places where it needs to be, to allow those that follow it to adapt with the changing environment around them. It's full of the nuance and sophistication that you can find in both the first amendment and the commerce clause. If we are faithful to its original intent, we can find that it is an ingenius guide that allows just enough flexibility where it is necessary, and also, it provides strict guidelines where they are necessary.

Sarah Palin Religious Zealot?

Let's do a thought experiment and pretend that the likes of the Daily Kos and the current crop of MSM were around while some of our leaders of yester year were around. Let's just do a thought experiment about how the Kossacks and their MSM allies would have responded to some of these statements.

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose

...

Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes

...

My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell

Can you imagine how the current crop of liberal media acolytes would have responded to a President linking a war to the hand of God the way in which Abraham Lincoln did? He would have been referred to as a religious zealot immediately.

Now, let's look at how some of our founding fathers would have been referred to by the same folks.

John Adams

It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not

Patrick Henry

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here

Samuel Adams

We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought, and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.

So, if the same media forces were around during the Revolutionary War, our founding fathers would also be branded as religious zealots.

What would the current media players call U.S. Grant when he made a holiday celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ a national holiday? So, I think it's clear that if the same media structure were always around most of our most influential would have then been painted as religious zealots. Here is an Associated Press story entitled "Palin: Iraq War is a Task From God"

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

So, let's put this in perspective. Sarah Palin, in the confines of a religious establishment, sees the hand of God during war time, much like Lincoln, Adams, and Patrick Henry, and the media sees this as implying some sort of religious zealotry.

Of course, that is only one story. Here is how the Miami Herald describes it. (H/T to Hot Air)

Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian.

Yet John McCain’s running mate has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world. It’s often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike.

Palin was baptized Roman Catholic as a newborn. She was then baptized in a Pentecostal Assemblies of God church as a teen and attended that church until six years ago, when she and her family adopted a different home church, an independent evangelical church.

The nutroots are no different.

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

So if you are a member of today's media elite, any politician that hopes that God watches over them as they make decision that affect millions, then that makes said politicians religious extremists. In fact, if a person of faith ever hopes that the hand of God guides any of their decisions, then to the media elite that makes that person a religious zealot. Well, frankly, Sarah Palin should wear the tag of extremist and zealot as a badge of honor because based on the current guidelines for entry into zealotry, the list would also include such folks as Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Samuel and John Adams, and Patrick Henry. Frankly, that is a fraternity I would like to be a part of as well.