Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
Alright, The argument was made that government should have a national plan to provide healthcare to all, Especially those who cannot afford it. They assert that somehow, the Federal Government is the final arbiter of how everyone’s healthcare plan should work (despite the fact that government can’t manage jack-anything). ‘They further assert that money should be taken from some to pay for a “service” to others. When confronted with the concept that you can’t really punish people for NOT buying a product from a private entity, THEY (yes, “they”) say that this is a Federal Government Issue because it can bring down healthcare prices for ALL. To bypass all those who would ask where the government gets the right to decide every American must buy a product merely as a condition of being a “free” individual, THEY cited Interstate Commerce. When that proved sketchy, the argument was made — and propaganda conditioned people to believe — that Health care is… a Right! Of course those more socialist inclined, didn’t require much convincing.
In the second Presidential debate with John McCain in 2008, Candidate Obama said: “Well, I think it should be a right for every American.” And soon after, he would sign the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (nicknamed Obamacare). It proposes to force all Americans to buy Healthcare… or, to pay a penalty to the government for not having healthcare. It also limits “free” healthcare companies from choosing whom they do business with by imposing that private, non-governmental business’ cannot turn down customers that have pre-existing conditions. Obviously, when people buy healthcare after they get diagnosed with something, the Healthcare company they sign up with, will lose money and eventually go out of business. Walter E. Williams stated what we all KNOW to be true in our souls; and that is that, “True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another”.
Individual Protection and Rights Defense Act (IPRDA)
Now, I propose a new law. The Individual Protection and Rights Defense Act. Obviously, it is named in such a way that doesn’t exactly tell you what it is or what it does, while simultaneously sounding safe, helpful, and patriotic (Washington-ese) . It proposes to help those who can’t afford a rifle to get one. I recognize that only about 40% of the people can’t afford a modern, safe, and effective rifle. I base this on the fact they don’t currently have one (which was a government justification for Obamacare). It also serves to lower the price of rifles for all Americans; which will in turn, help the economy (which was a government justification for Obamacare). I further propose that if people can’t prove that they have a rifle… they should be subject to an additional penalty tax (which is what Obamacare does).
The IPRDA makes sense! After-all, the Second Amendment is an ACTUAL, Constitutional Right as laid out in the Bill Of Rights. Obviously, Americans have a right to own a gun if they so choose (as they did with healthcare), but currently, the government does NOT pay for Rifles. If government is getting into the business of providing the means of rights, as opposed to protecting rights, it should provide all Americans; perhaps even those that are in the country illegally or undocumented, a rifle.
Some will suggest that healthcare benefits society as a whole. That it helps the poor, and protects their (newly created) rights. The IPRDA, would give poor people the ability to protect themselves based upon a right that stems back to our Constitution. Many citizens who would like to exercise their right to self-defense may not be able to afford a rifle. But if government is suggesting (by Obamacare) that government’s role is NO LONGER to protect individual rights, but instead, to provide the means to rights, then it must provide the tools for people to defend themselves as well.
I acknowledge that some Americans won’t want to pay for Firearms for other Americans because they, (1) may not believe it appropriate to have money taken from them (in the form of taxation) to pay for the “products” of others, or (2) they don’t believe in the Second Amendment and don’t want to support that right for others. Well, that’s unfortunate, but as with healthcare, logical arguments seem to be inconsequential.
Government should provide Rifles (including Ammo and Training) just as it provides Healthcare… After-all, both are “Rights”. The truth, however, in a realistic way, is that government should NOT provide the means for ANY rights. Government’s job is not to provide products and services to its citizens, but to protect the rights of all of its citizens.