Is there an alternative to more federal intrusion into our lives, our employment, our wallets, and insurance? Yes, yes there is. And this alternative doesn't violate the Constitution, unlike the bills Congress has thrown together.

(Yes, this is essentially a repost, but I think it is warranted.)

Here is My National Health Care Plan. Spread the word!

1. The federal government stays out of health care as much as possible. See Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. The federal government can get involved in breaking up monopolies, and prosecuting interstate crime such as fraud.

2. The state government stays out of health care as much as possible.

3. No government medical facilities for anyone other than military personnel (including veterans) and perhaps prisoners.

4. Every person is free to pursue a career in medicine, subject to the same laws as anyone else.

5. Property owners have broad freedom to host medical facilities on their property.

6. People are free to develop medical procedures, medicines, and medical equipment.

7. People are allowed to support #3-6 with donations and investments of time, money, their body, etc.

8. Every person is free to seek medical care (or not) from anyone anywhere in the world. They can demand to see licensing, such a medical license or nursing license, or certification of medical treatments from any number of organizations and watchdogs.

9. Every person is free to treat (or not) another person, and what to accept, if anything, as compensation, and when it will be due. Granted, anyone who wants a government license needs to stick to the government rules.  Any medical professional who wants to keep an association with an employer or insurance company will have to abide by their rules as well.

10. Each individual is free to either negotiate how he will compensate those who treat him or to make arrangements to that effect. They can negotiate directly with their doctor or the doctor's representative, or delegate negotiations to an insurance company, charity, their union, their employer, their religious congregation, or some other voluntary association. Their friends, family, and strangers who believe they have a right to subsidized health care are free to pay for it, too.

All of this involves personal liberty and voluntary associations. Strictly speaking, nobody is forced to do anything - and that includes paying for anything. People who are afraid of a system like this 1) believe too little in the abilities of others; 2) want to force someone else to pay their way through life; 3) want to overstep their authority to spend the money of other people, gained by force, they way they see fit; 4) are more than one or all of the above.

I frequently read or hear Health Control supporters responding to opposition, especially opposition that cites fiscal concerns, by citing how much money we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, this "defense" of Health Control ignores the simple fact that the federal government is assigned military responsibility in the Constitution. The Constitution does not assign health care or health insurance to the federal government.

Enacting federal Health Control should only be allowed through a Constitutional Amendment.

This reminds me of a poll I heard about where people said they'd rather neither economy grew than to have the Japanese economy grow at a slightly faster rate than the U.S. economy. David Eggenschwiler of Los Angeles wrote in to the Los Angeles Times:

GOP congressmen have insisted that allowing people to buy across state lines should take care of the high cost of insurance: People could "shop around."

It wouldn’t necessarily "take care" of the "high cost" of insurance, as there are many factors contributing to that. It would provide more competition, which could lower prices.

These congressmen never point out that it's the insurance industry that would benefit most from this change.

Assuming that’s true - so what? Is that a problem, as long as it increases your options? Or do you hate the employees and investors in the insurance companies so much, you would opt to keep artificial limits on your options just to keep them from getting something they want?

Delaware became the credit card corporate center of the U.S. because it allowed high interest rate charges.

So don't use credit cards if it bothers you so much, and boycott Delaware. I don't even know what my credit card interest rates are, because I pay my credit cards off.

What is it with people who apply to use the services of a company, and then decry the terms and conditions of the services?

Let the buyer -- and voter -- beware. The GOP does not put your interests first any more than corporations do.

Let's grant this. This is why having as small of a federal government as possible is a good idea. It is much easier for one party (or two parties) and corporations to limit your options the more power is centralized in D.C. The fact is, the Democrat Party and the GOP both exist to get their members elected and appointed to office. That's their main purpose. That's not good or bad in an of itself. But we, the people, need to hold any elected official accountable.

See My National Health Care Plan.

Despite alternatives being offered, those clamoring for ObamaCare Health Control claim that nobody else is offering alternative plans. Well here's my National Health Care Plan. Never ever say again that an alternative hasn't been offered.

1. The federal government stays out of health care as much as possible. See Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. The federal government can get involved in breaking up monopolies, and prosecuting interstate crime such as fraud.

2. The state government stays out of health care as much as possible.

3. No government medical facilities for anyone other than military (including veterans) and perhaps prisoners.

4. Every person is free to pursue a career in medicine, subject to the same laws as anyone else.

5. Property owners have broad freedom to host medical facilities on their property.

6. People are free to develop medical procedures, medicines, and medical equipment.

7. People are allowed to support #3-6 with donations and investments of time, money, their body, etc.

8. Every person is free to seek medical care (or not) from anyone anywhere in the world. They can demand to see licensing, such a medical license or nursing license, or certification of medical treatments from any number of organizations and watchdogs.

9. Every person is free to treat (or not) another person, and what to accept, if anything, as compensation, and when it will be due. Granted, anyone who wants a government license needs to stick the government rules.  Any medical professional who wants to keep an association with an employer or insurance company will have to abide by their rules as well.

10. Each individual is free to either negotiate how he will compensate those who treat him or to make arrangements to that effect. They can negotiate directly with their doctor or the doctor's representative, or delegate negotiations to an insurance company, charity, their union, their employer, their religious congregation, or some other voluntary association. Their friends, family, and strangers who believe they have a right to subsidized health care are free to pay for it, too.

All of this involves personal liberty and voluntary associations. Strictly speaking, nobody is forced to do anything - and that includes paying for anything.

1. Having the moral authority to tell more people I don't know how to live, and backing it up with law enforcement. After all, if I am paying for their health care under the threat of my own prosecution, I damn well have the moral authority - even obligation - to cajole them into leading healthy lives to reduce costs. Hey, the Constitution doesn't really matter – that's what I've heard from Obamacare supporters. All that matters is political might. Leftists imagine this will give them the power to go after meat eating and tobacco, and force those "fundies" to vaccinate their 12-year-old girls against STDs, ...but won't crimp their own pot smoking or unhealthy sexual practices like sleeping around, for example. But hey, they're all for equality of outcomes, right? And if a Leftist in power can impose his own will on everyone with government force, then equality demands that so can a Right-winger when he is in power – that’s equality of election outcomes. I'll be watching to see who is drinking too many appletinis. They'll be going to the end of the line for liver transplants.

2. Being able to force insurance agencies to cover me with pre-existing conditions. This means I can crash my car and burn down my house and subsequently get insurance on those things! And I can take out life insurances policy on my dead relatives, then send in death notices.

3. Quitting my jobs. Hey, if on top of free-to-me entertainment, recreation, education, housing, food, transportation, I can also get government-mandated free-to-me routine and emergency medical care on the level anyone else gets, why should I work? I should be spending time with my family, letting all of the working suckers pay our way through life.

This is going to be great!

In response to an Obamacare supporter I know cheering the House passage of the bill, I wrote that nothing is stopping anybody from voluntarily donating their time and money to provide health care to other people right now. I pointed out that she was cheering on the use of government force to make one person pay someone else's way, whether or not they even know each other.

You can imagine some of the responses from her friends.

Guy #1 wrote:

You're forced to provide police and fire protection against people you don't know. Do you have a problem with that? How about the military? You're forced to pay for them as well. Problem with that?

Ah, yes. The brilliant line of reasoning that because the government is involved in these things, it means the government needs to be involved in other things, too. I responded by pointing out that military and some law enforcement responsibilities are assigned to the federal government by the Constitution, while health care isn't – and I mentioned that the general welfare clause doesn't justify federal government involvement in health care.

Guy #2 wrote:

This is for your benefit… You lose your job, you have no health insurance. Oh, and if you have it now? And you're sick and I'm not?  Why do I have to pay for you to go to the hospital, when I am OK?

Your arguments are pretty ridiculous.

This guy likes to add in lines like that last one. His method of argumentation online involves constantly asserting that any argument contrary to his is ridiculous, then trying to belittle the person making them, then trying to get the person fired, as well as calling the police and claiming to have been threatened. He's a real secure type, you see - taking the terrorist approach by trying to scare anyone away from offending him.

Anyway, on to the actual argument.

Let's assume that Obamacare is to my benefit, because it makes other people give me things for less money on my part than they would have otherwise. So would me going to their house and stealing their possessions. It doesn't make it right.

Regarding losing the job - yes, I know this has happened to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean never having health insurance again. It's more of a problem with tying health insurance to employment. I'd rather my employer give me the money they spend on me as salary, and allow me to pool with other people (perhaps through a professional association) and buy my insurance that way. But say, wasn't it Leftists who have tried to get employers to provide these sorts of benefits in the first place? And now they are upset that losing the job means losing the benefits too. Go figure.

Finally, he criticizes the very concept of insurance. Well, I agree that he should not be forced to buy any insurance if he doesn't want to. Which is yet another reason to oppose Obamacare, actually.

I pointed out that I make plans for my life - saving, investing, buying insurance, networking - as well as my personal habits to reduce the likelihood of some health crisis, and increasing my changes of having resources should the unavoidable happen.

So Guy #1 comes back with…

Do you realize how stupid you sound? "I plan my life." Do you plan on losing your job? Do you plan for a catastrophic illness? Are you really such a cold, unfeeling person that you have no sympathy for people who work as hard as they can, and then get f---ed by the insurance industry? What about someone whose child gets a horrible illness and they learn that their insurance won't pay for the treatment?

What a sad, bitter, empty person you must be.

So, he pretty much ignored everything I said from the beginning, instead pretending that my position was that not only should the federal government not be involved, but that everyone involved in health care, insurance, and charity should refuse to help anyone who gets sick.

Guy #2 also had something to say...

Those arguments are ridiculous. And, yes, the combination of "general welfare" and the necessary and proper clause gives them the right to do it.

And let us assume you are 100% correct, in that the people who wrote the document did not state the general welfare clause was for a national health care system (which I find rather hard to believe). It does not matter, because they created a document that was meant to change and be interpreted. That is what it is. Trying to suggest we should only go by what they thought it was and not applying it in any way to current events is impossible, and is not done.

To suggest that it is somehow the way we should do things betrays a lack of understanding of how our government and legal system works.

I never claimed that the system doesn't already violate the Constitution. I expressed that the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to provide health care to civilians, or control the health care insurance industry.

His dismissal of Constitutional government is laughable, because he is one of those guys that will invoke the Constitution when he thinks it supports his opinion.

But it was quite amusing to realize that he apparently thinks that the Founding Fathers were actually sitting around and thinking that the Constitution would provide for a national health care system. Of course, if I took the time to show him that this could not possibly be true, he'd probably retreat to "Well, they were all slaveowners and wifebeaters anyway."

Guy #3 chimed in:

My parents are now on Medicare and they have far better benefits and lower costs than I have.

Yes, because taxpayers are picking up the rest!

I told Guy #2 that Amendments are how to change the Constitution. I also pointed out that there are many reasons costs are going up, including lifestyle choices such as what people are eating, people living longer, and the costs of construction – especially of medical facilities.

Amendments are one way the meaning changes. However, what also changes the meaning is interpretation based on current circumstances.

Unfortunately, this is all too true, but it shouldn’t be.

You may think you have insurance, but it runs out. Then you go on the public dole, and i end up paying for you, even with all your planning.

See, it goes back to earlier forced wealth distribution. Did I ask for a public dole? No, I speak out against it.

62% of ALL BANKRUPTCIES occur because of medical debt, and 75% of those people HAD INSURANCE.

Yes, there are hard cases, but they don't justify Obamacare. Not without an Amendment. But I do have to wonder how many of these people were living high on the hog, not saving enough to begin with? Again, I'm not talking about the good planner who gets hit with a nasty, persistent cancer case. I'm talking about people who buy houses and cars and vacations they can't afford, as if they'll never have a rainy day.

Guy #1 came back:

What does what you eat or how long people live have to do with the insurance industry raping people? What does the cost of building things have to do with an insurance company taking someone's hard earned money, and then denying them coverage?

Charging more for a service is not raping people. Denying people a service paid for already in a good faith agreement is fraud, and should be prosecuted. But to these people, the very same people that support unionization and "living wages”"for everyone building and operating hospitals, assembling medical equipment, etc., and big lawsuit payouts - they can't see how these things contribute to health care costs. People eating food that's bad for them, or too much food, also tends to make caring for them more expensive. That these people refuse to make that connections is revealing.

So there you go. This is the level of debate we're dealing with. These people either think that Obamacare will magically create new hospitals, doctors, and medical cures, or they think they are entitled to use government force to make other people subsidize their lives more and/or medical and insurance professionals and shareholders do with less money for their services. If they sincerely expect to personally pay more but not directly benefit, they can donate their money already.

These people are so deluded that if Obamacare were to pass and things got worse, they would insist that the reason is that we're not spending enough on it, and that we need to raise federal taxes even more. This is precisely the kind of thinking that elects Leftists. They promise to spend more, and enough people think that is the solution.

Coupled with how they think of the Constitution, it is clear that to them it is purely a power struggle. This is why they don't mind if their side lies, cheats, and steals to gain or retain power. Controlling the centralized government is absolutely critical to people who have championed the usurping of personal liberty.

...how can states opt out of providing it?

Answer: It isn't a right.

Now Pelosi and others are trying to get us to stop calling the proposed government program the "public option".

Okay, let's choose one of the following...
1. The Unconstitutional New Federal Government Expansion
2. The Welfare Option
3. The Punish Those Who Make Money Option
4. The Fairy Tale Option
5. The Buy More Crackhead Votes Option

...like a fish needs a bicycle.

Deborah Kotz's piece in U.S. News & World Report provides more evidence of what I wrote earlier – that some are trying to use Obamacare to punish men, especially men whose lifestyle keeps them healthy.

Supporting the government's healthcare reform efforts should be a no-brainer if you're a woman.

Specifically, a woman who is looking to punish men for being born male, and use government force to do it.

That's according to Marcia Greenberger, copresident of the National Women's Law Center, who testified at a Senate hearing last week that the health insurance industry is rife with "unfair and discriminatory practices... including gender rating, the exclusion of healthcare services that only women need, and pre-existing-condition denials."

And why do men and women get treated differently? She answers her own question...

Women get charged more, Greenberger tells me, because they see doctors more often than men do--at least before age 55.

So even people who admit the truth about this still want to make things "equal" by pretending there isn’t a difference.

Hey, don't homosexual people have higher health care costs, too? Yeah, so if you oppose Obamacare it must mean you hate the poor, women, people of color, LGBTQQUAIPP* people, substance abusers, and overeaters. You hateful bigot. You should be lining up to shell out more money so that some women you don't know can get an addadictomy.

"While some companies do charge men more from ages 55 to 65, at which point Medicare kicks in, others continue to charge women more or just give very small price breaks," she says.

Woah – where is the outrage over this?

The insurance industry, however, says it also supports fixing this problem.

Of course they do. They'll be glad if they can not only force people to buy their insurance, but force men to pay the higher rates, too.

Reproductive rights groups, like Planned Parenthood, have been launching offensives this week to ignite a little activism.

Planned Parenthood butchers babies. I just thought I would take this opportunity to point that out. Taking health care advice from a mass murderer doesn't strike me as a good idea.


(*Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Q-eer, Questioning, Undecided, Asexual, Incestuous, Polyamorous, Promiscuous)

Are you concerned about the uninsured and people who are struggling with health care costs? Did you know you can help provide medical care to those people RIGHT NOW by donating your money, time, and other resources to medical charities and nonprofits? Are you doing that?

Since you can already voluntarily donate to such health care efforts, than if you support the "public option", that means you want to do one or both of the following:

1. FORCE other people to pay for YOUR health care.
2. FORCE other people to pay for the health care of SOMEONE ELSE.

How is that fair? How is that Constitutional?

Why should I be forced to pay for the health care of someone I'll never meet who lives in a different state, and engages in unhealthy behavior that I have personally avoided?

If you know someone screaming for the public option, feel free to send them here.

Are we really to believe the "public option" in Obamacare won't end up being like the "public option" in education? People who find the public schools unusable still have to pay for them, and then pay all over again to provide their kids a private education or for tutors. In addition to state and federal taxpayer funding, our schools up through high school are constantly appealing for more money from locals, including resorting to annoying fundraiser programs that turn kids into hustlers. Staff and students at community colleges and state universities are constantly complaining about being underfunded. Students behave as though any fee increase is the end of the world.

Most people have health insurance now. But if the public option is implemented, will most certainly mean that their increase taxes or other compulsory costs will preclude them from affording private insurance any longer, and they will be forced to resort to the public option. Even if they are able to maintain their private plan, they will be forced to pay more for those on the public option.

Looks like we should all want Obamacare because it will help women at the expense of men. At least, that is what I picked up from this article by David Lightman of McClatchy.

Women of child-bearing age routinely pay more for health care because they're women.

Guess what? Men and women are different. They have different health needs, and thus different costs.

If they're pregnant, they can be legally denied coverage.

Pregnancy is a choice, right? That’s what the feminist groups and the abortionists have told us. There is abstaining from intercourse, there are numerous forms of contraception, there are different kinds of abortion, there is also tubal ligation and hysterectomies.

Women face other problems in today's insurance market: They tend to need more preventive care and therefore are subject to more co-pays and deductibles,

Like I said, men and women are different.

and single heads of households are often women, meaning they're responsible for the family's health care bills.

Well, yes, Remember pregnancy is a choice. And aside from rape (where there is still the legal options of abortion, safe surrender, and various forms of adoption), women choose who to let into their bodies and when. Being a parent is a choice. Women also tend to be much more likely to file for divorce than men, and more likely to get custody. So, this is largely a self-inflicted situation. Isn't feminism great?

Legislation now being considered by Congress to overhaul America's health care system would dramatically change the rules, and there's general agreement that this is a problem that needs fixing.

Huh? General agreement? Maybe in certain socialist (especially female) circles. This sounds like yet another way to force men to pay for the decisions of women.

Bills moving through Congress would end the longstanding practice of basing rates on gender, which is allowed in most states.

Well, hey, why not? If we're going to prevent taking other preexisting conditions into account, why would we pay attention to the differences between the sexes?

Legislation also would eliminate co-pays and deductibles for preventive care, require maternity coverage to be offered at reasonable rates and provide financial help for those who couldn't afford coverage.

Who determines what is "reasonable"?

Younger women are usually charged more for coverage because they tend to use more health services than men. The National Women's Law Center found that women ages 15 to 44 spent 68 percent more on health care than men during those years.

Oh, but who cares? Let men pay! It makes sense to charge a man who has intentionally remained unmarried and childless more to cover for a woman he doesn't even know and her kids, right?

More women are in lower income brackets, making it hard for them to get coverage.

It isn’t because a lack of opportunity. Women outnumber men in higher education, especially in higher degree programs, and businesses have had outreaches to recruit women to higher paying careers.

"Women are in double jeopardy," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky , D- Ill. "They earn less than men, so even if we were charged the same premiums they would pay a bigger percentage of their income, and women are usually charged more."

Oh, so why don't we reverse the situation and make men pay MORE than women, since "men earn more", and thus can pay more? C’mon – you know you want to, "equality" not withstanding. It's "fairness", right?

This smacks of another instance of "Women don’t need men, except it comes time to pay bills."

My wife worked hard to get through school and get a career that would provide health insurance. She didn't get knocked up. She married me - someone else who had taken the steps to have a career with health insurnace - and only after we married did we go ahead and have kids and she joined my health insurance. Does my wife have some magical power? Well, she is not your average gal, that's for sure. But any women could do what she did if she just puts her mind to it.

This kind of Obamacare will punish responsible men and women - especially men.

Guess what? Some "religious leaders" want the law written to guarantee that your taxes will pay for the health "insurance" of illegal aliens. They recently had a press conference in Los Angeles calling for this, as reported by Teresa Watanabe in the Los Angeles Times. I won’t hold my breath waiting for those fixated on strict and total "separation of church and state" from denouncing this religious meddling in the legislative process.

Calling access to healthcare a moral and spiritual imperative, Los Angeles religious leaders and their flocks are urging congressional leaders to include illegal [aliens] in any healthcare reform plan.

I can’t speak for other religions, but any religion that follows/reveres Jesus should note that Jesus commanded the church (His followers) to care for the needy, not government. So these "leaders" as calling on government to act like a church and do their job for them. How about conducting a press conference by elected officials calling on religious groups to care for the needy?

The Roman Catholic Church, the nation's largest religious denomination, with 67 million members, considers healthcare a basic human right, a position articulated in a 1963 papal encyclical by Pope John XXIII. As a result, the church believes that illegal immigrants should be included in any health reform plan, according to Kathy Saile, director of domestic social development with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"If healthcare is a basic right, you can't start cutting people out," she said.

Yeah, well, it isn't a basic human right. Nothing that requires someone else to do something, unless a crime has been committed, is a basic human right. My right to free speech does not compel you to listen to me, or give me a billboard. And notice the subtle shift from "insurance" to "care". Illegal aliens already get health care.

But some religious conservatives disagree. Richard Land, who heads the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, said that biblical exhortations to care for the poor apply to people of faith, not to governments, and should inspire private charitable efforts but not taxpayer-funded plans for illegal [aliens].

"It's noble and commendable to be charitable with your own money, but it's something different to be charitable with other people's money," he said.

Exactly.

For Josephina Dedoy, a 58-year-old Mexico native and legal U.S. resident, the debate is intensely personal. She and her husband, a naturalized U.S. citizen, have a daughter who has epilepsy and is undocumented, having been born in Mexico before her parents earned legal status.

Say, isn’t Mexico a Catholic nation? What about Mexico taking care of this?

Church membership (and financially contributing to the church) is voluntary in this country. Taxes are not. It is immoral to force care of illegal aliens on other people.

You can find comments on a related blog posting at LATimes.com.

Almost a week ago, the Los Angeles Times ran letters reacting to Obama's special plea for expanding government under the guise of reforming health insurance. I wanted to look at a few of them.

Rachel Bruhnke of San Pedro wrote:

Regarding your editorial, what I would like to see Obama propose in the debate on how to pay for healthcare is a transfer of money from U.S. warfare to U.S. healthcare.

Awww, isn't that sweet? Here's the problem. Unless it is amended, the Constitution instructs the federal government to engage in national defense, but does not permit it to get involved in health "insurance".

Larry Rennacker of Santa Barbara wrote:

I am having trouble connecting the dots. You have folks who support the right of the state to kill people (death penalty) but are up in arms, literally (according a recent Times article about ammo purchases), when it comes to that same state providing healthcare to its citizens?

Yes, Mr. Rennacker, some people support executing duly convicted murderers but not forcible redistribution of wealth under the guise of health "insurance". People can already get health care by going to the emergency room. Prosecuting criminal cases and carrying our sentences is a basic function of government. Obama isn't talking about a state program – he's talking about federal programs. There is a difference.

Arthur Saginian of Saugus wrote:

The most realistic approach to reforming our current healthcare system would be to attack its biggest problem: cost. Find its components and tear them down. In the meantime, we can simply make it illegal to deny or cancel coverage.

Socialism? Perhaps. But how else can you combat abusive capitalism?

"Abusive capitalism" takes place when there is a monopoly or some sort of fraud. It isn't fraudulent to say, "We don't want to insure you." It is fraudulent to promise services under certain conditions, then take the money and not provide the services even though the conditions were met. So, socialism is not needed. Fraud detection and prosecution is needed.

Kevin McKiernan of Santa Barbara wrote:

The president finally said the words he needed to say: Healthcare for all is a moral issue. It kind of makes you proud to be an American.

So, just to be clear Kevin, it is perfectly okay for force one's morality on other people via the law, correct?

What is moral about forcing someone to pay for services rendered to a stranger?

Some of the letter writers to the Orange County Register continue to do a good job explaining the immorality and unconstitutionality of universal, government-mandated health "insurance".

Steve Dufau of Fountain Valley wrote:

Once again I read in letters to the editor, the statement that "health care is a right." Exactly where in the U.S. Constitution is this "right"? I am unable to find, in the Constitution, where a citizen of the United States is entitled to the labor of a medical professional, on the governments dime. First of all, the only money the government has is what it confiscates from the citizenry as taxes.

While not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution, the document does tell the federal government what it is to do. Health care is not one of those things. Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, it is clearly not for the federal government to offer.

I doubt that Jane Freij [Sept 10]would go to her neighbor and demand that he or she pony up $500 or $600 so she could go to the doctor, yet she has no problem asking the government to do it for her. Taking what belongs to someone else, against their will, money or services, is stealing. It doesn't matter if is by government or an individuals, it is stealing.

Agreed. We should be very cautious what we leave to government to handle, even more so when we're talking the federal government as opposed to a local or state government.

According to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, I have the right to own a fire arm, However I do not have the right or the expectation that the government would pay for that fire arm.

So very true. For some reason, the Leftists don't read the Second Amendment that way, yet they read things into the Constitution that are not there.

Dr. James Baker of Laguna Hills also chimes in:

Suppose you force a physician at gunpoint to provide you with medical care and pay him some amount of money. If one's opposition to this focused on economic compensation rather than the force, one concludes that it is acceptable to force your doctor to do as you want as long as you pay him well. Likewise, if force were acceptable then a doctor could to force you to be his patient as long as his fees were reasonable. In both situations force is immoral.

Keep up the good work, letter writers!

Have you noticed people using the examples of police departments, fires departments, and public schools to explain their support for federal health "insurance" for all?

These are not valid comparisons.

Let's look at public schools first. I think public schools are more problematic than they are worth, and we should have separation of state and school. But let's ignore that for the sake of argument. Schools are run mostly by local school districts, which are usually distinct from city and county governments. They do receive funding from federal programs, but mostly fall under local authority and the laws of the state. Many people would leave the public school system if they could find the means to do so. Those who do must still pay for a system that they do not use.

Police departments are generally city or county based. States do have highway patrols or state troopers in addition to the local authorities. Then there are federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI. But most law enforcement that people encounter is local, and laws differ from state to state, city to city. So again, this is mostly a local matter.

Fire departments are also local, with some state reinforcement for wildfires and some federal involvement. But most fire protection is completely local.

So these things are bad examples for nationally socializing health "insurance".

The Constitution does not give the this task to the federal government. Amend the Constitution or give up on Obamacare.