The triumph of emotion over intellect.

First, before I get to the header, I found out today that the New York Times Best seller list is governed by some curious rules. Your ascension on to or within that prestigious list depends on ONLY those sales at "official" books stores be they big chains (Barnes, Borders, Amazon et al) or independents. The sales at Wal Mart, Target, Sam's Club, Costco, etc are not recorded towards your ranking on that list. Perhaps you already knew this, I did not. What this means, among other things, is that "red staters" are not deciding that list. An illegitimate list in my opinion, given this revelation.

****
So Jambo and I had an interesting bout of speed texting last night over the ONE interesting question asked during last night's debate. And by the way, in this not so "town hall" meeting (Brokaw pre-screened and pre-selected the questions) the issues of abortion, illegal immigration, guns, and judges were never brought up. I think it's no coincidence that these topical, hot button issues were not on the agenda - Mac has a much more mainstream view then Obama on each of these and it would have been hard to hide the left wing aspects of his positions. But I digress ...

The question by Brokaw was: "In America, is health care a privilege, responsibility, or a right? He might of more accurately asked "health insurance" but I accept that in today's political lexicon they are one in the same.

Mac answered "responsibility." Obama of course answered a "right." I forwarded that bit along to Jambo and was shocked at his response. "You don't think it's a right?"

*Sigh ...*

NO! Let's start basic. The last I checked "health care" (nor health insurance) was spelled out in the Bill of Rights. My right to PURSUE it is guaranteed under "life liberty and happiness", but guaranteeing the health care is tantamount to guaranteeing the result. Nor is it in any other founding document, nor any state constitutions that I am aware of.

I told him this and he replied, "So, when your kids were on the dole in MS, I was paying the taxes. Nothing for me?" Again I was shocked (and more then a little offended at the term, "on the dole" I might add), for this was far too juvenile an argument for his intellect. Yet, there the text was, staring me in the face. The "dole" he so callously referred to (kidding), was a quasi-federal program ran and administered by the individual participating states, whose acronym was CHIP. Children Health Insurance Program. It was devised to cover those uninsured minors whose parents earned too much income to qualify for medicare/medicaid; weren't covered by an employer; and weren't "well off" enough to comfortably afford it out of pocket. Roughly stated if a family of four's income was above 29k but below 44k (in MS) your children qualified (other states are more generous, like PA whose income cap is much higher). This program was a privilege, for whom applicants must qualify - just like a state issued driver's license. I don't have a "right" to drive. I have a "right" to pursue a license, but if I don't qualify the state can deny me. The state can NOT deny a "right." Thus anything short of a right is a privilege or the responsibility of the individual.

Speech. I don't have to qualify for the right to free speech. As a citizen it is guaranteed to me. It is a right. The outcome, however, is not guaranteed. I am not guaranteed an audience for I have no right to be heard. I can't sue to be on TV or radio as part of the 1sr amendment for example. The 2nd amendment is another fine example. Even though this is a specific right, spelled out in the Constitution: "to keep and bare arms", Comrade Obama is not suggesting the government provide every American a gun, is he? No. It is incumbent upon me to avail myself of that right, and the government guarantees to protect that right should I choose to exercise it. Now certain municipalities may cause me to jump through hoops in order to exercise that right (assuming I haven't forfeited them altogether via a felony), but that right, via my pursuit, is what's guaranteed.

Now some may invoke the deceptively clever argument that health care is to be interpreted under the "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" wording in the Constitution. Wrong again. let me ask anyone out there - is food necessary for life? Should the government guarantee that? How about a dwelling? And don't get confused, public housing is a privilege that one must qualify for (thus it CAN be denied) as well. Oil? Is that not an essential part of life and liberty in America? Transportation? Water? Sex? I mean, we MUST procreate to propagate life, right? Should the government federalize each of these necessities, each one arguably MORE important then health care? I think not. The every idea is nonsensical.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the status quo or zero reform. Surely we can do better then $14 aspirin in the hospital and $300 a month premium for private insurance (the going rate for a family of 4). But just whom are we talking about that doesn't have insurance? Those that earn too much to qualify for the privilege of medicare/medicaid, do not get it through their employer, and can't afford it privately. I feel for these people, I am among them. All though even that isn't entirely true - we could lessen our car notes to the point of freeing up $300 a mo, but choose not to. We have made the calculated decision that until my significant other gets full time (no chance at my employer) we can afford the $79 (when you pay cash) general doctor visit, and certainly the $4 (for 15,000 generic prescriptions) that Wal Mart charges. There again the market is responding to the needs of a consumer like myself. The point is that there has to be a better solution for those 40 million or so Americans other then socializing medicine as a whole (or blanket federal health insurance provided). Doesn't incentivizing the tax code and national tort reform make more sense? I tell you - I don't fancy the idea of my last DMV experience being combined with kidney dialysis.

I could argue how this move would be a economic disaster (it already is in the UK), but for this far more fundamental discussion we must first state categorically that health care is NOT a right. Yes, emergency care is mandated by law, but it's not free. And we had all better be on top of our individual responsibility to pursue health care, for if you are unfortunate enough to need emergency care let me assure you, come bill time, the hospital will have NO problem allowing intellect to triumph over emotion ...