Well said. Sadly the constitution is deemed irrelevant by the left except where it serves their purpose. Free speech being the best example of this selective reading. I fear the coming class war which is being promoted by the White House and the Occupiers.

Fair to this President means take, take, take!

It's simple, Governments are created when a group of people gather together to protect themselves for the common good. What is often forgotten is that Government cannot be given any rights that the people themselves do not have. Meaning if it is not right for a person to pillage from another person it is not right for the Government to pillage from one person to give to another person.

Liberals since before Woodrow Wilson have consistantly ignored what they took an oath to defend.

It is with great sadness that because of that treason our Country is about to fail.

It is evident that people who espouse these "fundamental changes" truly hate our Country.

Decades of indoctrination has produced this large block of useful idiots. The embrace of marxist statist goals by the left is at complete odds with the Constitution, and is tantamount to treason.

Well, what we've got here is a democracy, even though the Founders went to considerable pains to avoid it. Now that robbing Peter to pay Paul has resulted in so many Paul's, the game is pretty much over. And, short of radical reform (revolution), there is no way to go back. Sad.

"Suppose John refuses to allow what he earns to be taken and given to another. My guess is that Krugman and, sadly, most other Americans would sanction government punishment, imprisonment or initiation of violence against John." Unless he's a big supporter of B.Obama, then they would make him Secretary of the Treasury.

Slowly, slowly we allow our freedom to be eroded in the name of “compassion,” “the environment,” or “doing what’s right.” Once the government has all power to “do what’s right,” we are at the mercy of politicians who may think of “what’s right” in the same terms the Nazis did. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog as a “must read.”

Robert A. Hall

Des Plaines IL

Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic

(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)

For a free PDF of my book, write tartanmarine(at)gmail.com

Well said Dr. Williams. (As usual)

Sadly, it's not just Democrats and liberals who do this sort of thing. Republicans have been right there with them for decades.

I can discern no fundamental difference between a leftist who wants to take my money and give it to a welfare queen or "too-big-to-fail" company with 100,000 union workers, and a rightist who wants to take my money to benefit a family farmer or one of those "thousand points of light."

Both major parties have their favored constituencies, and both are perfectly willing to force everyone to support theirs, while at the same time waxing indignant when the other side does it.

(Much like laws and regulations: I want to ban things that are bad - YOU want to infringe on liberty.)

Dr Williams is consistent - he recognizes that slavery is slavery no matter whether the beneficiaries are members of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street.

The left is somewhat more prone to income distribution than the right: but slavery is more "Yes/No" than "How much?"

Using the moral/charity model, a person in need would have to ask, persuade, cajole, beg, plead, or cry for help from others with the means to provide assistance.

Using the government "compassion" model, a person in need would simply exercise his or her "right" to their "entitled" assistance, paid for with funds forcibly absconded from other with means.

In the first case, the person in need is incentivized to do everything they can for themselves before lowering themselves to asking or begging for charity. And those who provide the assistance have the option to say "NO" to the obvious free loaders.

In the second case, a person in need is incentivized to consume a product that he or she believes is their "right". And there is no incentive for the government to weed out the free loaders. Often times they are incentivized to increase the number of people using their service.

You tell me which case helps more people in need, and which case produces more free loaders.

Another essay worth reading is "Not yours to give" by Davy Crockett.

Ok I'm John and I say no more taking from me to pay for two wars that I do not support or to pay veterans any money or heck there families for that matter. No money to pay for new weopens that we do not need. I get it none of us want to throw money away so how do we change....

Army Officer (Ret)

I just wanted to say thank you for what you said and I think you hit the nail on the head.... Who's welfare is better?

The person without health insurance, and his family, are free to spend the rest of their lives paying for the medical care. If they were faced with that, they might have incentive to buy the insurance before they need it. But with a government that feels it should bail people out, why should anybody think ahead?

Compassion is not in the Constitution. That is not to say that it should not exist. Even the big "O" has indigent family members. But it has never been the place of government to provide something for nothing. Thank you again Dr. Williams. I too, am in bondage courtesy of the "compassionate" people.

Re Uralstupid. You are overlooking, on purpose perhaps, that providing for the National Defense is a Constitutional duty of the Federal Government. While you may not understand or agree with the reasons for such things at least admit that it is a legitimate role of the Government.

@ Cap28 - You are spot on with your retort to Uralstupid.

Our Constitution makes numerous references to defence, the Army, Navy, and Militia, war, etc., but I am challenged to find even a vague reference to things like providing a job, home, healthcare, and retirement benefits.

If UralStupid doesn't like it that we go to war, then he needs to talk to his congressmen. The Constitution gives congress the power to declare war (albeit, the executive branch has usurped that authority on a regular basis since the Korean War, and the congress needs to "grow a pair" and re-claim their constitutional authority and power from the president).

If UralStupid doesn't like paying federal income taxes, which are used to pay for our military and their wars, then he should work to have the 16th amendment repealed. It was the progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, who bequeathed us in 1913 with that albatross that hangs around our necks every April 15th. It is now used by the federal govenment as their crowbar into our wallets.

This article is laughable. The author suggests that: One way is for people to make voluntary contributions or for medical practitioners to simply treat medically indigent patients at no charge. I find both methods praiseworthy, laudable and, above all, moral.

If that was the case, NOBODY would bother with insurance. We would all just get it done for free! Silly and laughable notion. A better way would be to do what all other non-third world Countries have:

NATIONAL HEALTHCARE

I.E. MEDICARE FOR ALL, WHICH MEANS NOT FOR PROFIT. NO NEED TO HAVE HEALTHCARE FOR PROFIT. PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO HAVE A DOLLAR VALUE PUT ON THEM.

POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMETN, AND HEALTHCARE SHOULD ALL BE IN THE SAME CATEGORY.

THANKS

Mr. Smith,

National Healthcare would perform as well as our puplic schools.

We already punish the poor with bad education, do you wish bad medicine upon them too?

Mr. Smith,

National Healthcare would perform as well as our puplic schools.

We already punish the poor with bad education, do you wish bad medicine upon them too?

@ Bill

You forgot to add the Post Office, Amtrack, the IRS, the Department of ______ (fill in the blank), etc.

Mr. Smith has apparenty never lived in a socialist or communist country. When you eliminate profit, you eliminate incentive. When you eliminate incentive, you eliminate progress. When you eliminate progress, you ensure misery.

Perhaps Mr. Smith would prefer to live without all the medical miracles that we have today, which came courtesy of profit-driven progress.

Many years ago my company sent me to a country that had nationalized medical care.

They also had a big problem with 'home grown' terrorists, or 'bandidos,' as they called them.

In each neighborhood was at least one police kiosk and one medical facility. The medical facility was no more than a band-aid station, but it was staffed by medical students and interns who had the ability to fix minor injuries that needed only cleaning and suturing.

In our own country, everybody with an ear ache, an eye lash in their eye, a splinter under the skin, or any other minor problem runs off to the nearest emergency room and ties up a whole staff of doctors, nurses, and aids - and our taxes pay for it.

Our taxes would still pay for neighborhood storefront medical services, but they would be manned by less expensive employees fully capable of triage and minor care.

The next step to improving our system would be to eliminate about 90% of the paper work required by government, insurance companies, and duplicated record keeping. Most hospitals have billing departments on site, yet still ship everything to outside agencies, usually 500 or more miles away, for processing. How difficult is it for a patient to walk or be wheeled over to accounting when they are released?

We need jobs that create, not jobs that move papers in one door, across a half dozen desks, and out another door. That may keep a lot of people occupied, but it produces nothing but more dead trees.

While you are debating the wisdom and morality of providing necessary medical care to someone who has contributed nothing, let me give you all something to chew on.

The courts have determined, and require, prison systems provide drugs and surgery, with the attendant grossly expensive medical care to convicted felons who wish to change gender. There are few prison systems that have not been impacted by this stupidity.

This was a very well written article. I, like most that post here, believe that we should adhere to the Constitution; more importantly I believe we should adhere to the Principles that our Nation is founded upon.

I read many posts that claim there is no constitutional authority granted to tax and then force charity. While not wise to do so, a simple amendment would solve that problem. Make no mistake, that is precisely what some are after. To argue that wealth redistribution is unconstitutional when the power to tax, and then spend, is express, has become a tired argument.

I would suggest that rather than debating over constitutionality, it would be wiser to debate the Principles. It is NOT wise to force men to become charitable. It could be debated that forcing charity is in express contradiction to many individuals' freedom of religion...that we are being forced to give alms.

However, while we debate over these issues, we tend to overlook those issues which DO need to be solved. While it is not good to force others to be charitable by forcing government controlled healthcare, it is also not wise to neglect the poor (however they are placed in those circumstances...whether by personal neglect or forces outside their control: Who are we to judge?)

The root problem lies entirely with a Nation consumed with its own feeling of self-importance, and individuals refusing to humble themselves from all spectrums of classes. We should be able to expect from each other aid in time of need, and we should equally should be able to expect that those in need of aid would be wiling to contribute up to their ability: as in, I need food, there are streets than need to be cleaned (poor example, just a general idea.) We should have absolutely zero qualms about helping someone, especially if they are disabled.

That being said, we should also have instilled in us a desire to be self-sufficient, to not live on the dole. Our primary desire should be to be this so that we are in a better position to help those that cannot take care of themselves. If we are individually striving to do these things, it would only track that we would have leadership that would not allow our government to burden future generations with debt, and that would treat funds collected from the people as a sacred trust to not be violated.

We would then have no problems setting up a government controlled voluntarily contributed fund designed for the express purpose of tending to our poor and sick, having perfect faith and trust in each other that it would not be abused. either by those entrusted to safeguard the funds, or by those that need to access it.

Vices on both sides of the aisle have clouded what could be a rather simple solution. However to do so would require choosing virtues above vices, on an individual basis.

We have no problem mandating that people have auto insurance or flood insurance, yet we shy away from mandating health insurance. As a result, the uninsured are insured by the taxpayers. What a deal. That's real socialism. One for all and all for one.

Uralstupid, I know you were being facetious when you said,

"...I say no more taking from me to pay for two wars that I do not support or to pay veterans any money or heck there families for that matter. No money to pay for new weapons that we do not need. I get it none of us want to throw money away so how do we change...."

But I think you are right on. No changes to the amount of taxes taken, but allow each citizen to choose where THEIR portion of the taxes are spent. Do you like The Department of ______? Then earmark your taxes for them. I have a sneaking suspicion its the military that would never be short of funding again if this strategy was implemented. Voting with your wallet will always be the surest way to see where people's allegiance lies.

Terry Lee, "mandating that people have auto insurance or flood insurance, yet we shy away from mandating health insurance."

You can avoid buying auto insurance by choosing to not buy a car. You can avoid buying flood insurance by choosing to not buy a home in a flood zone. The only way to avoid buying mandated health insurance would be to choose to cease being alive.

My family doctor, Max Stierstorfer (deceased), proposed that medical doctors in the US perform 10 percent of their practice pro bono. His calculations showed that such this would eliminate the need for medicaid. He told of an indigent patient that drove many miles to his office to receive treatment for a knife wound. Dr. "Max" drove his route and found 21 doctors offices along the route that did not treate him. Dr. "Max"He was removed as editor (a volunteer position)of the local county medical newsletter for arguing this position in that paper.

RyDaddy writes: "The only way to avoid buying mandated health insurance would be to choose to cease being alive."

Except in a few states, we cannot choose to cease being alive." Our medical system will spend as much as it takes to try to keep a person alive regardless of the ability to pay or the future quality of life. Of course, they will bill the government (you and me) for the cost.

Why doesn't that make me all warm and fuzzy?

The other option is to take a capitalistic, free enterprise stance and allow people with no insurance or money to fail just as we allow small businesses to fail.