Wonderfully written and speaks what a lot of us are thinking.

The following is the personal opinion of the author, who reserves the
right to republish this piece for profit, which you may read at your
own risk, without any legal liabilities to the author or anyone who
may publish or share this article (which must include this disclaimer)
for which you here by waive the ability to sue for any reason in whole
or in part in or outside of a court of law, if you do not agree, the
entire article is to be considered a work of fiction, since you
apparently want to live in an imaginary world.

In my view, health care is not a right and never will be, it is only a
luxury afforded by a prosperous economy that is willing to provide
charity for the indigent, if not out of guilt of conscience for its
lack of decent paying minimum wages, then out of the principals of
helping the poor and the old by the younger and the stronger as
required by a higher power who delegates such responsibilities to
ourselves. Insurance is not the problem when the prevailing wage does
not make such coverage as easy to obtain as food, and when such
coverage is more expensive than food, I question its usefulness,
validity, and demand that the best economists in the land redefine our
goals and articulate them to prevent such nonsense.

Otherwise we find that given power and strength, we should not be
hurting the weak, but protecting them, and the natural human condition
is one of strength, not of weakness, when we consider the design of
such matters. For I say health care is not a right, but perhaps the
consequences of your choices in life, for which the public may or may
not have control over, and not left up to the political hacks of the
day that foment and garner the votes of throngs of high school drop
outs as standard campaign strategies, and yet if we remove the
personal responsibility from the equation, we also remove personal
responsibility from government? Hence the following partial argument
that mandatory "health care credit" program is far superior to any
"health care insurance" program, since credit is based on
responsibility and participation, and the other is based on the luck
of the draw? Which is more civilized pray tell, would you treat an
angel with a credit program or a lottery program (since the public
adores stories of alien worlds)?

For the crux of the legal and Constitutional argument is this, by
making health care a "right", then who is to stop the community from
calling you in the middle of the night to provide free taxi service to
a hooker or a pimp down the street as a "right"? Does health care
involve paying a doctor or the use of private medical equipment and
facilities? Is that not covered under the 5th amendment, the
government shall not seize private property without compensation? If
your personal car is your property, who are you to demand that a
syringe, a bed, or the time of a doctor is yours upon demand?

The 5th Amendment prohibits the Government from providing free taxi
service to hookers or pimps, or from buying health care insurance,
light bulbs, or white paint, or any other edict by any "title of
nobility", or public official, at your individual expense, that is
what has made America the greatest country on Earth. Frankly I see
the problem as this, local and state taxes already provide enormous
funds to provide for expensive health care as a matter of charity, and
it is not a free ride. If they do discover that you can pay for the
services rendered, they will place liens on your property to get the
funds, so the media creating the illusion that there is some sort of
crisis is disingenuous and down right deceptive in my opinion.

And the "problems" should be solved by those who administer solutions,
not political activists in power who cater to the whims of high school
drop outs who are paying scant attention not because they are too busy
administrating public opinion, but recreational drugs without abandon,
each according to his ability, and to each his need. CPA's, and
medical professionals the private market should be providing
solutions, and without a blank check mentality, the costs should be
well articulated, including the expected inflationary costs and
reviewed on a quarterly basis in light of all the unemployed people
with accounting and other clerical experience in our country.

Instead of using a health "lottery" insurance financial model, by
going to a health "credit" model where you are guaranteed credit to
pay for your treatment and recovery (healing) process, there is much
more incentive for industry to price services so that you can pay them
back without seizing your assets, because you will have an active
interest, and the incentive to not only prevent injury through poor
personal decisions or negligence, but provide real care that keeps you
alive long enough to pay them back is also part of the process,
instead of treating you like a number, or a sausage in a food factory
where no one will miss you being tossed in the garbage if a careless
employee drops you on the floor.

Providing unlimited tax deductions to the wealthy is another avenue
that seems to be refused to be considered or allowed by the power
hungry political machine and gullible public community, for which we
only have ourselves to blame. This is not a comprehensive
identification of all problems, but a highlight of those that come to
the writers mind, for which I have articulated weeks ago, and yet the
media continues to ignore, for which I say "no" means "yes" when I
only have to write this another way, like a fisherman casting his line
in a different spot in the pond?

Would Senator Baucus even understand this article, and if not, should
he be re-elected?

End of article and comment, which includes an introductory legal
disclaimer,
written by talent, on loan, from God, with thanks giving, with a
special thank you to the Rush Limbaugh Advanced Institute for
Conservative Studies for helping to articulate this message.