Health insurance: we don’t have it, we don’t need it, and we don’t want it

In recent years, “alternative medicine” practitioners have seen a marked increase in clientele. Even as America has devolved into the most obese and unhealthy of all industrialized nations, a growing number of its citizens have been taking it upon themselves to ensure their own good health and well being through proper diet, nutrient supplementation, exercise, sun exposure and a myriad of other disease prevention protocols. This segment of society will be hurt most by Obama’s healthcare plan.

With the passage of healthcare reform, our Congress has moved, unwittingly perhaps, to oppress this burgeoning movement of health conscious individuals and has overstepped its Constitutional bounds by compelling them to pay a tax for a service they object to using.

This diverse group rejects the now conventional, Western medical model of symptom suppression, by way of chemical drugs and surgeries, because they have found something that works better for themselves. They abide by the most ancient and sage of all medical wisdom, that of Hippocrates when he said, “Let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food.” In so doing, they seek to avoid supporting what they perceive as a “sickcare” industry.

For them, sickcare does not treat the cause of a disease but only masks the indications of a physiological ailment with toxic treatments. Ultimately, sickcare isn’t interested in a cure; some would even say that it seeks repeat business and the diagnosis of new diseases. These very same people who have chosen to shun health insurance altogether, generally have their vibrant health and vitality to show for it. 

Perhaps the most ominous aspect of the healthcare bill is the notion of compulsory healthcare coverage. I would like to conclude by posing a few, thought-provoking questions regarding the relationship between those who refuse health insurance for their own personal reasons and the newly structured United States Code.

 
If disease finds its way into your life, don’t you retain the right to choose how to best allocate your own resources to treat this disease?

Don’t you retain the right to choose whichever method of treatment that you feel most comfortable with?

Does requiring the aforementioned segment of society to pay into a system that, practically speaking, does not suit their needs and is at odds with their own moral sensibilities, accord with our Constitutional tradition of protecting individual liberty and freedom of personal lifestyle choice?

Are the proposed coercive tactics being prepared by the IRS for this law’s enforcement reconcilable with the principles of a free society?

Using the most irreducible understanding of Natural Rights, can the federal government lawfully force someone to buy a product that they truly don’t want?