Property vs. Health Insurance

Today, our general government controls our lives to an extent that would have frightened our founding generation. And soon that stranglehold will tighten with the passage of health care reform.

Make no mistake. "Universal health care" is not even a peripheral purpose of health care reform. Even the most optimistic appraisal of the proposal assumes that approximately 10% of the population will remain uninsured.

Instead, this plan will be used to control the behavior of "the people." What other purpose can there be for requiring people to buy insurance?

Unlike health insurance, auto insurance was created to protect the public at large, rather than individuals. Furthermore, STATES created auto insurance mandates. The general government did not.

In 1787 accumulation of property was considered a fundamental right. Requiring the people to give up property for insurance is a violation of that principle.

This health care mandate is a violation of rights of the people and is unconstitutional. Congress has no power to force the people to give up property. The health care bill should be abandoned.

If it is passed, the people should "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Should the general government refuse to respond, the people must revolt, and juries must not convict a person who defies a government mandate to give up his property.