Saturday, January 8, 2011

Don't turn back the clock on health care

"As a new Congress takes office today in Washington, Republican leaders have made it clear that their first priority is to repeal the new health care law. I can't think of a worse idea for American families.

The law is giving Americans more freedom in their health care choices. It's freeing families from the worry that they'll lose their benefits when insurers unfairly cancel or cap their coverage. It's freeing children with disabilities and pregnant women from being discriminated against by insurers because of their health status. It's freeing seniors to get the care they need, whether it's a prescription medication or a preventive screening like a mammogram. It frees all of us to look for a new job or start our own business without worrying about losing health coverage.


from "Don't repeal health care law" by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. You completely misuse the word "freedom". "Freedom to steal" is not a freedom, it is a crime!

    Since when is opposition to institutionalized theft "turning the clock back"? The very trend of history is toward ever-greater individual Rights, from the abolition of slavery and feudalism, to the collapse of communist regimes, to the current gradual trend of economic liberalization all over the world.

    And the only Rights that can logically exist are negative Rights - taboos on murder, theft, abduction, rape, etc. All claims to "positive rights" -- "free" (stolen) bread, slave doctors, and unicorns for all -- are contradictions that violate actual (negative) Rights, empower demagogues to become tyrants, and have historically been the foundation of every form of slavery that ever existed! No tyranny can exist without a claim to good intentions, and benevolence is cheap when it is paid for by somebody else.

  3. Again, Alex, you completely missed that this was a quote. That's how Mrs. Sebelius used the word freedom. However, I only mention that to point out that your posts exhibit a serious lack of attention to detail. I find her usage of the word freedom entirely reasonable. It seems you, Alex, are in the minority opinion with regard to your extremist views. To most of us, there is no theft involved in a being free from discrimination.

    Further, very few people accept your idea that all positive rights are contradictions. For instance, there are the entire class of inalienable rights. There is debate as to what all falls into that classification, but only the most extreme fail to recognize them as non-contradictory positive rights. Though some of the laws designed to enforce those rights might take the form of taboos against actions that would infringe upon the rights, they are none the less positive rights.

    You've asserted institutionalized theft. However, you've failed to back up that claim. You've just tossed it out there as if it were obvious. It is not. Indeed, Alex, I find not only your conclusion but also your premise to be in error.