The following letter to the editor was printed in the Winchester Star on October 2, 2010
ObamaCare — and rights
Measure’s supposed ‘strong points’ may prove ‘fatal flaws’
Dr. MARK J. BERG
Passage of ObamaCare continues to stir heated debate. Proponents praise the law for
dictating costs, providing accessible health care for all, and covering free preventative health
services. But are these strong points, or fatal flaws?
That answer depends upon one’s answer to the broader question: Do you believe an
individual has inherent rights which no government may abridge; or, that an elite minority of
“rulers” should decide who possesses what rights? If you believe the latter, then you prefer a
centralized, authoritarian system. If you believe the former, then you embrace our republican
form of government with individual liberty, free markets, and limited government — and thus
our Constitution and our Founding Fathers’ vision.
Our Constitution was established to protect against government abuse of our God- given
rights. Our Declaration of Independence asserts “all men . . . are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights . . . Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” What do these
rights entail?
The right to liberty incorporates freedom from servitude — that is, the right to the fruits of
one’s labor. If one must toil for the benefit of others, then he is certainly not free.
The pursuit of happiness actually refers to the pursuit of property, including money. This right
to property neither guarantees an individual a specific quantity, nor an amount of property
equal to his neighbors. It does, however, encompass the right to keep the property he has
earned.
Consider the free preventative health services in ObamaCare. They are by no means “free.”
No services ( or products) are free.
Someone must always pay for them, either voluntarily or by coercion from some authoritarian
entity. In a volunteer-based free health clinic, for example, physicians and nurses freely
donate the value of services through their time and expertise. In a government- funded health
clinic, money is taken from the taxpayers under threat of fine and/or imprisonment to pay the
staff.
In light of this, one readily understands that health care is inherently not a right. Were it a
right, any individual would be able to demand health services and they could not be denied. If
the individual chose not to pay, government would mandate that someone else do so. By
compelling payment from one person to another, the government would clearly be denying
the payer his God-given rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness.
As Michael Badnarik states in his book “Good to be King: The Foundation of Our
Constitutional Freedom,” “You do not have a right to other people’s property, not even when
the government takes it away from them and gives it to you. That is the basis for socialism,
and that is exactly what the Constitution is intended to prevent.”
Too often, individuals avoid the difficult philosophical questions underlying a debate. They
may follow an authoritarian agenda through their erroneous reinterpretation of rights. As with
ObamaCare proponents, their message is clear: We want this outcome, we will declare it a
right, and we will decide who wins and who loses.
Dr. Mark J. Berg is a resident of Frederick County.