Health care is an important issue for all of us. In fact, health care is such an important issue that Hillary Clinton is using it in an attempt to propel herself right into the Oval Office. She is appealing to our compassionate nature, and framing her Universal Health Care plan as a moral imperative. We all want every American citizen to have the medical care he/she needs, and the Universal Health Care package appears to be the answer. Therein lies the rub. Question: what masquerades as the light, but is truly evil? Answer: that which does good, but eventually enslaves.
Universal Health Care - has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? That is, until you hear this:
The New York senator said her plan would require every American to purchase insurance, either through their jobs or through a program modeled on Medicare or the federal employee health plan. Businesses would be required to offer insurance or contribute to a pool that would expand coverage. Individuals and small businesses would be offered tax credits to make insurance more affordable. (Beth Fouhy, AP)
The alarming portion of this quote is the require part. Everyone would be required to purchase Universal Health Care coverage. This would be a mandate.
The centerpiece of Clinton's latest effort is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Such a mandate has detractors at both ends of the political spectrum, and questions abound over how it would be enforced.
Clinton adviser Laurie Rubiner said the mandate could be enforced in a number of ways, such as denying certain tax deduction to those who refused to buy insurance. But she stressed that a specific mechanism would be worked out once the plan was passed. (Beth Fouhy, AP)
Mandates require enforcement. Non-compliance with a mandate results in punishment. Punishment normally takes the form of a financial burden such as a fine, and/or assault on personal freedom such as jail time. Just how will we be forced to submit to this mandatory health coverage as required by law? What is the penalty for non-compliance? Where are the safeguards to personal freedom in this plan? If you think you can trust the government to do the right thing and safeguard these freedoms after the plan is passed, read on...
On September 12, 2007, Thomas Cowles II, Media Director for the Natural Solutions Foundation wrote about a woman who is facing the possibility of having her son undergo unnecessary invasive surgery for cancer that he no longer has. Her traditional health insurance would not cover the holistic treatment that cured her son and instead, endorsed the established treatment methods that included invasive surgery and chemotherapy.
The Department of Child Services was called and her son was taken away from her and put in foster care. The DCS claimed she failed to properly care for her child. Note here: the advanced methods which worked are being defined as "child abuse" while the doctor's assault (which is what we call touching someone against their will) is supported by the power of the state. Is this Health Freedom? Next, the mother was put in jail for 5 days in maximum security and suffered injuries in the neck and arm from jailers. Her child is still in foster care, where he was forcibly vaccinated. (Thomas Cowles II, Natural Solutions Foundation)
This family had traditional health care coverage. The mother and her son chose the alternative, and it worked. However, since the alternative care was not on the list of approved treatment methods, the family was torn apart and criminalized for not following the traditional doctor's instructions.
As we can see from the excerpt above, "trust me" when it comes to government regulation just doesn't cut it. If we do not agree with the traditional health care methods that this program will no doubt endorse and prefer to go elsewhere, will practicing alternative health care unless it is covered under the mandatory health care program be punishable? Is this one of the areas covered under those "specific mechanisms" that are to be worked out after the plan is passed?
Thomas Jefferson had this to say: "If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny."
Benjamin Franklin said: "those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Most people simply do not feel safe if they do not have health insurance. This is a legitimate concern, but this concern is being exploited. The Universal Health Care plan would give health coverage to everyone in America, but at what cost? By endorsing this plan, aren't we giving away our essential liberties for temporary safety in the guise of health care for all? I reserve the right to choose what plan I want to use. I do not need government-mandated health care shoved down my throat, like it or not. Health care for everyone is a good idea. Mandating that everyone is required to have it is another. A government-mandated health care program is just another way to restrict our essential freedoms and bring us one step closer to total fascism.
Hillary Clinton's proposed Universal Health Care program masquerades as a beacon of light, but despite lofty ideals that tout health care salvation, binds with the chains of enslavement. If only George Orwell could see us now. Pink Floyd said it well when he sang "all in all its just another brick in the wall." Can you feel the prison walls go up as our freedoms come crashing down? I can.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
