A matter of rights

In the Sept. 26 paper, there was a letter from a gentlemen who obviously supports the idea of a governmentally controlled universal health care system and his right (entitlement) to government funds to pay for his health care.

It is my firm belief that any health reform plan that requires universal participation would be unconstitutional for the very simple reason that it would compel me to sign up or become a criminal.

It would also violate the constitutional rights of every business owner who does not now have health insurance for employees by requiring him to either furnish that insurance or be penalized by having to pay a certain percentage of the payroll into a government fund to provide uninsured people with insurance.

If I am forced into buying health insurance that I do not want, then I have been deprived of my liberty to control my own life.

However, being a prudent man, I choose to provide myself with health insurance.

In the same vein, the small businessman has the right not to provide health insurance for his employees. Being a prudent businessman, he realizes that a health insurance plan goes a long way to securing and keeping good employees, so, if possible, he provides such coverage. 

If I choose not to enroll in a health care program, whether government or private, then I must assume the responsibility for paying for any medical care I receive.

I have no right to ask the local, state or federal government to use money collected from others to pay my medical bills.

However, beginning with the Roosevelt administration, and greatly accelerated during the Lyndon Baines Johnson administration, the government has begun to take away more of my and your individual rights using the excuse of the common good.

We are now in our fourth generation of welfare families and these people have been taught that they are entitled to food stamps, housing assistance, a raise in assistance for each new child and free care at our county-owned and tax-supported health care facilities.

In the meantime, the poverty level has increased, and in some instances people having income twice the announced poverty level are still able to receive assistance.

As a child of God, I do have a responsibility toward other people, but that does not include those who will not work. In fact, there is a scripture in the Bible which states that “he who will not work should not eat.”

If we call ourselves children of God, then we are obligated to help those who, through no fault of their own, are in need, but we are not obligated to support a mother of three children with three different fathers who believes she is entitled to medical care, housing, etc.

Yes, we have a moral obligation to assist the helpless, but that obligation does not mean we allow the government to deprive us of our individual liberties.