Saturday, September 19, 2009


Where Did Fundamental Rights Come From?

North Star National - The last time I reviewed the Declaration of Independence’s list of fundamental rights, it still only contained the following: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in this document, nor in the United States Constitution itself, is there an inclusion of fundamental rights to medical insurance coverage.

So when did medical insurance become a fundamental right? Was there a law enacted by Congress announcing such a right? Was there a presidential executive order dictating such a right?

Alas, a review of congressional laws and presidential executive orders failed to disclose any new fundamental rights.

Since the Supreme Court periodically discovers fundamental rights between the lines of constitutional words, perhaps the only nine Americans not subject to appeals discovered this fundamental right in recent rulings. A thorough review of Supreme Court decisions since 1950 didn’t reveal any such declaration.

Since none of the three branches of government have found or passed a law creating a new fundamental right where in the world has it come from?

Wouldn’t it be logical to identify where a new fundamental right comes from before authorizing the behemoth federal government to spend trillions of taxpayers dollars to provide it?

President James Madison knew whether any right to the federal spigot existed when he wrote, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Of course, he’s a dead old white guy and his words can no longer be taken seriously.

This new fundamental right has as much constitutional legitimacy as the fundamental right to abortion had in Roe v. Wade. Supporters of Roe v. Wade proclaim that there is an unwritten, though understood, right to privacy embodied between the lines of the U S Constitution as though privacy was important to them.

Privacy is important? Please. Current health legislation being discussed in Congress strips all pretense of privacy away with its mandatory requirement that medical information of Americans be compiled in a national database.

Power of the federal government is immense already but the President and his cult-like followers are in a frenzy to increase the government’s involvement in people’s daily lives.

Isn’t it interesting that Obama and his minions want the federal government stronger in relation to citizens and businesses of this country while working hard to make the country weaker in relation with other countries?

Since declaring medical insurance an American right, I have waited for someone in the state-run media to ask some fundamentally simple questions of the President and his minions such as:

With the vast majority of employees already covered by medical insurance, existing law providing senior citizens guaranteed access to catastrophic care and prohibitions against denying medical care to anyone presenting himself at emergency hospitals, doesn’t it seem like there really is no crisis in medical care, rather there is really only a minor crisis in medical insurance? Why the rush to change a system so dramatically when modifying existing laws could accomplish such a reform?

Obama rails on behalf of the poor and those with pre-existing conditions being denied insurance coverage in justifying this wholesale change in the medical system. Empirical evidence, rather than disingenuous vignettes, that these folks are denied medical treatment would be nice.

Denial of medical insurance pales in comparison with a denial of medical care.

Obama Care supporters repeat their mantra that Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting the country as a rationale for having the government impose medical insurance on all of its citizens.

Remember that Medicare and Medicaid were pushed on an unwilling country through promises these programs would save tax dollars in the future.

How have those promises been working out?

When Medicaid was first enacted Democrats assured the country the program would cost less than $10 billion over a ten year period. Today several states, including California and Texas, shell out more than this original national wide 10 year cost estimate in a single year.

Shortly after World War II ended, arguments justifying universal medical care in Britain centered around the need for fundamental fairness and humanity. Since national health care was implemented, all of Britain’s financial expectations have been inundated by a tidal wave of tax pounds.

Today in Canada and Britain waiting times to see providers are measured in months and weeks. In this country, waiting times are measured in minutes.

Which do you prefer?