Independence Day: Why do we celebrate it?

As citizens of these United States of America, we should all know the literal meaning to this question.  On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was unanimously voted upon and signed by members of Congress.  We were declaring our independence from Great Britain, which was at that time the largest and most powerful empire in the world.   The simple fact that we beat the British, when we shouldn't have, and were able to become an independent nation is reason enough to celebrate this all important day.  Independence Day was (and still should be) the most important day in the history of this country.  In all likelihood this nation would not have been formed had it not been for the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

That is the literal reason for celebrating Independence Day but why do each of us celebrate this day.  This can vary greatly from one person to the next.  For me, Independence Day reminds me of how blessed I am to be a citizen of this country.  I thank God everyday for the opportunities that we have here.  There are many things that Americans take for granted that are just not available in any other country.  For example, the ability to go to a grocery store and pick up any food item that we need for our family is something that isn't available in every country.  The amazing thing about this country is the technological advancements have been far quicker than any other country, especially considering this is one of the youngest nations in the world.

This is a great nation and I believe it has been prepared by God to be an example to the world of how democracy should work.  It is certainly not perfect but as long as we continue as a giving, religious society based upon self government and capitalist principles this nation will continue to grow and flourish the likes of which has never been seen in the history of this world.

Socialized Medicine & Universal Healthcare: Is it the same?

From my limited understanding, I am under the impression that these two terms are basically the same.  Let's start with the definitions:

Socialized Medicine -

any of various systems to provide the entire population with complete medical care through government subsidization and regularization of medical and health services. [1]

A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation. [2]

A system for providing medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation. [3]

 Universal Healthcare -

health care coverage which is extended to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region. Universal health care programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded. Typically, most health care costs are met by the population via compulsory health insurance or taxation, or a combination of both.

Universal health care systems require government involvement, typically in the forms of enacting legislation, mandates and regulation. In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.[4][5][6]

It still sounds very similar to me.  According to Wikipedia, "definitions [of socialized medicine] vary, and usage is inconsistent. The term can refer to any system of medical care that is publicly financed, government administered, or both." [7]

From what I can see, whether it is called 'Socialized Medicine' or 'Universal Healthcare' there is still some amount of government involvement, which is never a good idea.  Including healthcare in the 'inalienable rights" of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"[8] is not what the founder of this great nation intended.   They knew that adding more power to the nation's government would lead this country towards the type of government they just liberated themselves from.  It would also mean the start of this country down the road to becoming a 'Welfare State'.  What is a 'Welfare State'?

a state in which the welfare of the people in such matters as social security, health and education, housing, and working conditions is the responsibility of the government.[9]

'Social security, health and education, housing, and working conditions'[9] are NOT 'unalienable Rights' that are 'endowed by [our] Creator'.[8]  If all these things were given to us without any work on our part, we would become dependent on the government for everything.  I can see two problems with this:

• we would, over time, loose our ability and desire to work for what we want (look at Guam)
• the government would have the power over the people to govern how they see fit, not the other way around.

'Socialized Medicine' or 'Universal Healthcare', whatever you want to call it, may not seem like a big deal to some.  It may even seem like a good idea in the short term.  In the long term, it is a step towards government control of everything and the removing of taking personal responsibility over our own actions.

[1] socialized medicine. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved July 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialized medicine
[2] socialized medicine. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved July 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialized medicine
[3] socialized medicine. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved July 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialized medicine
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
[5] Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science, 2004-01-14, accessed 2007-10-22
[6] The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
[9] welfare state. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved July 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare state

The "Fairness Doctrine"

Lately, we have been hearing about this concept called the "Fairness Doctrine".  What is it?  The term is very misleading if you don't know what it is.  Wouldn't it be good if everything in life was fair and all opinions were, as Fox News says about their programming, "Fair and Balanced"?  As I have told my children many times, life isn't always fair.  Sometimes we have to do things that we don't want or like to do.  Sometimes the information that we read or see on the news we have to take with a 'grain of salt'.  That is why we have a brain.  We have to think about what everything we see on a daily basis and see if it makes sense to us.  We don't need the government to step there big foot in the ring and decide what we should and should not hear or see or read.  That is where the 'Fairness Doctrine' comes in to play. 

The 'Fairness Doctrine' is just this, plain and simple:

a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. [1] [2]

To me, this sounds too much like the government trying to restrict the freedom of speech (aka the First Amendment) on the airwaves.  The liberals and democrats in congress are all for it.  In a resent article on HumanEvents.com the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), was asked the question, "Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?" by John Gizzi and her response was "Yes."  The other event that occurred was when Pelosi denied a vote on the floor for the 'Broadcaster's Freedom Act' which would make the 'Fairness Doctrine' dead.

According the same article...

Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force.  Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time. [3]

The issue I have with liberals, democrats and even some so-called conservatives is that they want the government to control more of the American people's civil liberties and freedoms.  As we turn over more control of our lives to a centralized government, we lose more and more control of the country until we no longer have the power to change the course of this country.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
[2] http://www.slate.com/id/2108443/
[3] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185