Read the following citizen on why he opposes health care reform: Health-care reform: Why I’m suing to get back my freedom – CSMonitor.com.

Here is the deal. This guy claims that “To defend individual freedom, they tried to limit the size of the federal government and what it could do. They could not have conceived of the federal entanglement in people’s personal, private choices that “Obamacare” represents.”

Both parts of that statement are hogwash, patent falsehoods. First, the “founders” were a diverse lot who argued constantly over the limits of federal power. Some argued for expanding federal power (hence, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution or take the creation of the Hamiltonian National Bank.)  Others argued against the expansion of federal power (Jefferson arguing against to Hamilton). And, all of them decided to give the federal government broad powers and responsibilities to protect rights and freedoms from a tyranny of the majority. In other words, the states was empowered to protect individuals from mobs of neighbors seeking to usurp their rights.  All of which leads to a short recommendation: don’t believe anyone who tells you that the “founders” envisioned this sort of government or that.

The founders envisioned a government where the boundaries of govt. would be debated. And, they have been, again and again, leading us to our current situation–where we have determined that the state has a responsibility to protect the health of its citizens in regard to health–we have begun to think of it as a right.  Over the course of American history, rights have expanded greatly. Now, whether or not the founders imagined the expansion of rights is hard to say, although there are clear indications that they believed such an expansion might occur. In fact, they feared the expansion of rights. (For example, the constitution was against the popular election of Senators, a practice to which the tea party movement would have us return, but I digress.)  Fearful as the founders were about the expansion of rights, they nonetheless created the structures whereby rights could be expanded (think here Amendments and the process of lawmaking–i.e. the process of governance itself.)

And, think of how rights have expanded. Think of the people who now have the right of citizenship. Think of the degree to which the state guarantees a host of environmental and legal protections for all Americans. If they founders could not imagine that health care would become a right, surely they (or at least some of them) could not imagine that women or slaves or non-property-holding men would have the right to vote. Does it then follow that we should nullify the expansion of those other rights? Of course not. Nullifying rights ’cause the “founders” did not endorse them is goofy. This sort of logic not only is fallacious but it  misunderstands the very fundamentals of our democratic society.

The writer makes a big deal about not needing coverage as a young and healthy male. Good for him. He does not need coverage, he says, so he should not be required to purchase it. Great idea. If you don’t want a government service or “need” it, then you should not support it (until of course you need it.) Imagine all the folks who would opt out of services they consider extraneous.  This thinking is the exact opposite of the very principles of the democratic union that is the United States. In unity, in community, in bonds, there is strength. Through our system, we all bring something to the table, but it is built on a simple notion the able prop up the less able, the wealthy help the poor, and the old help the young. That is what community is about–what the social contract is about. We either opt in or opt out, but we can’t have it both ways. We have an obligation to our neighbors and they to us. To imagine that our lack of need means that we should opt out misses the point. Our lack of need, our strength, is precisely why we opt in. This is especially true with systems of health care–whether it be insurance, medicare, or national health care.  Those in excellent health subsidize those in poor health, but have some measure of security against catastrophic events. This is what happens now; it is what happens in the new system of health care. The benefit of the new health care system is that it promises to be cheaper and more efficient than the poorly managed private system that leaves too many Americans, especially children, without access. (Incidentally, the current system leaves us paying for the emergency room care of those without insurance, as well as a series of social costs, including an expensive, and less globally-competitive industrial manufacturing sector.)  Maybe the writer does not want this right. Ok, but oppose it for logically valid arguments. His claims run counter to the basic structure of all insurance, i.e. the argument that he is healthy and thus should not be part of the system; they run counter to the social contract at the core of our polity and our communities.  Finally, I think it is irresponsible and disingenuous for the author to claim that he does not need health care, ’cause he gets catastrophic coverage (the most expensive sort) without paying a dime, and my guess is that he also has Veteran’s benefits. He should refuse both.

Finally, the writer draws on his own military experience to declare how much he has sacrificed for the good of his nation, voluntarily. The military industrial complex, as Eisenhower called it, surely would NOT have been imagined by the “founders.” Indeed, they universally rejected such a military imbalance and all that came with it–one of the few things on which there was wide agreement. Moreover, this military industrial beast consumes 23% of the federal budget, more than either social security or medicare, and more than the new health care system ever could.  So, why not spend our time rejecting that mode of operating and all the ridiculous social welfare (college, health care, low interest loans, etc., etc.) that comes with it? That is the question that the writer should take up. But, then again, he has spent some portion of his life, sucking from that teet of government. Like all the old folks who take Medicare and decry a “government takeover,” he wants the benefits for himself, and nobody else.

Why is the fat of the government ok in one context but not in another? I have the answer. He benefits in one context and does not immediately benefit in the other. That my friends is the sort of selfishness that erodes our polity and ruins our society. I will support this guy once he pays back, directly, all those benefits. If he wants to fight for America, he can do so without the perks. Give back those educational funds, the extra income that goes with the education, those medical benefits, that GI-backed mortgage. But, of course, he’d never go for that, would he?