Reflecting some more on the speech that Obama gave on the 13th, I'd like to focus in on a couple of specific sections:

We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.  And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens.

The former is an enumerated power of the Federal Government in the Constitution.  The latter is not.  The latter, such as it exists, is in State Constitutions. 

This is rather important, because there is no broad agreement on what the public's "burden" is for such a thing.  Bearing children is an individual choice.  Some people choose to have many, some few, some none. 

The common defense of the nation is a benefit that falls on all.  But the education of children is a duty occasioned by individual and consensual adult acts of intercourse.  The two are entirely-disjoint.

Thus the State (not Federal) focus on education.  This provides choice.  Those who believe that the proper allocation of cost should go to the person can choose a state to live in where that is respected.  Those who believe that the proper allocation of cost should be common can choose a state where that is required.  The Federal Government lacks the authority, as a matter of Constitutional Law, to force this issue.  (Not that The Federal Government has given a damn about Constitutional anything for the last hundred years or so.)

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security.  We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us.  “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities.  We are a better country because of these commitments.  I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

Really?

I couldn't disagree more.

Let's make this personal, because in fact it is.  See, Obama would argue that there is this nebulous "whole" that covers such expense.  But he knows this is a lie, because there is nothing "paid in" and "retained" for either Social Security or Medicare.

So let's look at the facts and make it personal, Barack.

Do you, Barack Obama, have the right to demand that your daughters pay for your triple bypass when you are an old man should you be such a pig that you have not provided for such a possibility yourself via personally stashing either money or purchasing insurance against said risk?

I'll ask question personally as well:  Do I, having a daughter, have the right to force her to pay for my triple bypass (or two new hips) should I be so much of a pig that I have failed, for whatever reason, to put aside the necessary provisions to be able to pay for such myself in my old age?

We must make this question personal and turn the debate toward the personal form of this question because in each and every case it is.

This nebulous "society" argument is one that those on both the left and right continually use as a means of intentional deception and fraud upon the public.  There is no such thing.  All taxes are paid by people, and when it comes to social insurance costs, most of them are ladled upon those without the ability to vote.

When my daughter was a young child, barely in grade school, Medicare Part "D" was under debate.  I had a monstrous blow-up with my family over this very issue.  While she was blithely playing in their living room, my father proceeded to tell me that he believed he was entitled to that drug benefit.

This, despite the fact that the cost of such a benefit would fall most-directly on a young girl who had no right to protest or vote for or against it herself.

Medicare Part D, like all such social insurance programs, is an intentional fraud upon our children and grandchildren.  This is particularly true for medical "insurance" for the elderly, as our medical capacity has risen in both ability and cost at several times the direct inflation and thus "contribution" rate.  As a result of this fact all such arguments are in fact a claim that you have the right to hold up, at gunpoint, your children and grandchildren to pay for that which you are unable to personally whether as a result of your decision to spend those funds earlier in your life or through misfortune.

That's the essence of the debate about "social insurance" as it applies to the elderly.  It is not about a nebulous "societal" obligation, it is about your arrogation to yourself as you age of a right to literally steal, using the force of government, from your own children and grandchildren.

The argument is one for pigheadedness of epic proportion.  Through 5,000 years of recorded history intergenerational care has been provided as a matter of honor and choice by both the older and younger generations.  This bond was formed through the love of both groups for one another from the point of birth and largely constrained what could otherwise be unconscionable acts.  As parents we have the ability to be monsters, just as children do as well.  Historically the act of either party being a monster came with a sanction of not only being cast out, but the punishment later in life of being unable to access the love and care of your progeny and parents.  Both consequences were quite serious.

We have made a serious social mistake in our failure to deal with this problem honestly.  Steve Southerland and other so-called "Conservatives" have often bleated about how the degeneration of family lies at the root of many of the problems we have as a nation.  This may well be true, but the provision of these social programs, which provide a substitute that amounts to the forcible financial rape of one's progeny, means that parents no longer have an affirmative obligation to raise their children well and transition from an absolute power relationship at birth to one of mutual respect before adulthood, lest they die alone, hungry and wanting for care.

You want to know what has been largely responsible for the destruction of the American family?  The provision of a viable alternative, enforced at gunpoint against the next generation by government, for the support functions that family used to provide.

I declare as a matter of principle, morals, ethics and fact that I have no right to demand that my daughter provide one dime of funds of any sort for my care as I age, whether my failure to be able to do so myself is a consequence of my hubris, pigheadedness, profligacy and consumerism or simply bad luck.

Any such care, direct or indirect, that she chooses to provide is only mine to enjoy through a fully-free election of choice made by her, without the compulsion of government.

It is also my considered position that if you believe otherwise in any form, under any set of circumstances, you're an inhuman monster.