Do you have a right to health care?
If so, where does this right come from – where does it originate? 

From God?  If so, that will be problematic (see questions below).  Besides, "you" likely don't believe in God anyway.

From man?  True rights are timeless and universal.  If a right derives from man, then the right is, by definition, fickle, and can be granted or revoked at the whim of said man and therefore can't be a right at all.

If you have a right to health care, how much health care do you have a right to? 

• Are there limits on the amount of health care you can demand?  If so, it doesn't really seem like a right at all.
• Do you have a right to so much health care that your rights infringe on the rights of others?  Say you require treatment costing millions of dollars, which due to limited resources, curtails the medical resources available to others?  Or suppose there is not enough of a medication for everyone?  How are rights allocated?
• Suppose there is a disaster and you are in an emergency room triage center and there are so many people that need immediate attention (or else they will die) that there is not enough staff to treat everyone?  Do you have a right to health care (to be treated first) over everyone else there?  If so, what happened to their right to health care?  If not, what happened to your right to health care?

The ephemeral nature of a right to health care:

• If you are alone on a deserted island and need health care, do you still have a right to health care?  If so, from whom, and how is it to be delivered? 
• If not, does that mean your rights are contextual – sometimes you have them and sometimes you don’t?  That doesn't sound like a right at all.
• If you are on the island with a doctor, is he obligated to treat you?  If so, isn't he then your slave?
• Are you entitled to care for free?  If not, with what will you pay for your services?
• If the doctor refuses to treat you, do you have the right to force him to?  What (if any) limits exist in your attempt to force him to provide treatment?
• Similarly, where was this right throughout history?  Before there were any real health care services available?  Or is it a recent right that has been acquired?

Other troubling questions:

• Who is charged with enforcing this right?  Who gave them that mandate?  What are the requirements and limits of this enforcement?  What are the penalties for failing their duty?
• If there are not enough health care providers, can people be forced to join the profession?
• Must all health care be provided to all equally, universally?  Across cities counties, states, countries?  If so, and this is not done, who is to be held accountable, and who is charged with holding them accountable?  What will their punishment be?
• Is it just humans that have a right to health care, or do all earthly creatures?  Now there's a real can of worms!

​
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Compare true rights to the myth of a right to health care.  In the historical context, one can pursue life, liberty, and happiness to the ends of the earth, limited only by one's capacity or when one reaches the point where pursuing one's rights infringes on the rights of others.

How far can you get pursuing (free) health care before you infringe on the rights of others (either directly or indirectly)?  Sadly, not very far...

Conclusion
Clearly, by any rational meaning of the word, there is no right to health care (free or otherwise).  You have the right to pursue whatever health care that may be available to you.  You have the right to buy whatever health care you can afford, to ask for charity in the form of health care, or to take advantage of any health care services that others choose to provide for free.  But you have no right to make demands of the health care talents and services of others, either directly or indirectly.

We all know the sadness of events that result in flying the flag at half staff.  But have you ever wondered how the decision to fly the flag at half staff is made?

Fun fact:  flags are said to be half-mast if flown from ships and half-staff if on land.
Note: For more information and current flag lowering orders, click <here>
Note: To receive notifications when Wisconsin half-staff orders are issued <Click here> 

In the US, the President can order the flag be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States government (and others) to  respect their memory as follows: 

• For thirty days after the death of a current or former president or president-elect.
• For ten days after the death of a current vice president, current or retired chief justice, or current Speaker of the House of Representatives.
• From the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a secretary of an executive or military department, a former vice president, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, or the governor of a state, territory, or possession.
• On the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress.
• On Memorial Day until noon.
• Every September 11 in remembrance of the September 11 attacks.
• Upon presidential proclamation, usually after the death of other notable figures or tragic events.

When ordered, all government buildings, offices, public schools, and military bases are to fly their flags at half-staff. Because the flags of states, cities, and localities are  never to be placed above the flag of the United States all other flags also fly at half-staff when the U.S. flag has been ordered to fly at half-staff.

Governors of U.S. states and territories are authorized by federal law to order all U.S. and state flags in their jurisdiction flown at half-staff as a mark of respect for a former or current state official who has died, or for a member of the armed forces who has died in active duty. 

The governor may proclaim that the flag be flown at half-staff upon the death of a present or former state government official or a member of the armed forces. When the order concerns a military death, flags at federal facilities within the state “shall be flown at half staff consistent with that proclamation.

Municipal and county governments, public and private schools, private businesses and individuals should also lower their flags to half-staff by order of the governor, but that is a guideline, not a matter of law for private individuals and organizations.

The governor's authority to issue the order is more restricted than the president's, and does not include discretion to issue the order for state residents who do not meet the criteria stated.  Since a governor's executive order affects only his or her state, not the entire country, these orders are distinguished from presidential proclamations.​

Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase that literally means "something for something." The phrase usually indicates an exchange of goods or services of roughly equivalent value.

From a legal perspective, quid pro quo indicates that a good or service has been traded for something of equal value. In particular, quid pro quo is used explicitly to indicate that there has been "consideration" in a contract, meaning that there are goods or services being delivered and that acceptable payment is made for these goods or services. Without consideration, or quid pro quo, for example, a contract may be determined to be nonbinding and invalid.

In the political world, for example, quid pro quo sometimes refers to giving support, financial or otherwise, to a political candidate in exchange for the expectation of direct support for an activity of the political benefactor. Quid pro quo may appear as bribery in these cases and such support must always be tested for conflicts of interest.

Click here for more information about the proposed Lake Michigan sanctuary.

Guest commentary by Judith Perlman

The Maritime Museum hired Cathy Green in a key position.  She is the wife of Russ Green, Regional Coordinator for the proposed marine sanctuary.

Mrs. Green accepted permanent employment in Manitowoc before completion of the public due process for deciding the sanctuary. That process is now tainted.  We cannot reasonably believe NOAA conclusions in support of the sanctuary are unbiased.

This hire is bad for the community:

• It has the appearance of quid pro quo.  Support the proposal and give my wife a job.  What did the Museum get in return?  
• Mrs. Green can report any and all dealings directly to NOAA.
• Free discussion and dissent against NOAA are stifled.  Who can speak honestly with the Sanctuary Coordinator’s wife in a key position?  The Museum Board is large.  The community is small.  This restraint on free speech extends far beyond the Museum’s walls.
• Were there better qualified candidates?  
• Does this have impact on employees?  Are employees leaving because of this hire?  
• Is the Governor aware of this?  If he is, what are the implications of his involvement in a local institution?
• Did the Greens donate to the Governor’s campaign, or are they expected to?

This country is founded upon due process.  It is what separates us from fascists and barbarians. This blatant violation of due process is an insult to Wisconsin and to our democracy.    

Many people opposed to the sanctuary have wondered who is in bed with NOAA.  Now we know that the Museum is in bed with NOAA, quite literally.  Will we ever learn what other dirty deals have been done behind closed doors to trade away our fresh water and Great Lake?  Unlikely.  

Governor Walker, please tell the Federal Government to go jump in the Lake it wants to control.  Please do not sign the Sanctuary Designation.

Above: Arlington National Cemetary.  "Home" of over 400,000 individuals who proudly served their country.

From a Nov. 13, 2010, speech by then-Lt. Gen. John Kelly to the Semper Fi Society of St. Louis, describing a 2008 suicide bombing in Iraq that killed two Marines, Cpl. Jonathan Yale, 22, and Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter, 20. Gen. Kelly’s son, Second Lt. Robert Kelly, 29, was killed in action in Afghanistan Nov. 9, 2010:

What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.

You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: “let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.” The two Marines had about five seconds left to live.

It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was halfway through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were—some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.

For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing nonstop, the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers—American and Iraqi—bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have known they were safe, because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber. The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread shoulder width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.

The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God. Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty—into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight—for you.
 
 
 

Guest commentary by Ed Perkins:

After attending the Sheboygan NOAA SEAS Facts Forum meeting on Sept. 21st, and after reading Kristyn Halbig Ziehm's report this last Wednesday, I want to share some further information on this meeting and the proposed Sheboygan Sanctuary.
 
First, I have yet to read any news coverage that stated that when the question was asked, "Do you oppose this sanctuary?" that 95% of the 75 or more attendees raised their hands in opposition to this sanctuary.  About the only people who supported it were the NOAA staff, the Sheboygan mayor, and Steve Kroll, who said he was a volunteer from Alpena, MI, and a supporter wanting to see more marine sanctuaries. Mr. Kroll, as a supporter of the Alpena Sanctuary, when informed that Alpena voters voted against the Alpena Sanctuary didn’t even know this. He turned to Russ Green the NOAA Alpena Ass’t Director asking, “Is this true?” and Green said “Yes.”  This fact along with others showed that Kroll lacked basic and important info concerning the Alpena, MI, Sanctuary, yet is a local volunteer supporter of it.  Mr. Kroll is a diver and maybe that explains why he supports the sanctuary while others with other concerns do not.  I would like to know whether Mr. Kroll was paid to appear on the panel.
 
Second, the issue of land owner and business rights and how NOAA has dealt with them in the past has received very little attention in the various forums, even though this is a big concern to many.  At the Alpena, MI, sanctuary some of us have learned that current land owners with shore land have been prevented from even cutting their brush or cutting down any trees on THEIR property.     Also, the NOAA has shown and stated they are not bound by local referendum when it comes to whether NOAA will proceed with a sanctuary.  This was proven in Alpena, MI, when the residents there called for a public referendum vote. The results were 1770 opposed the marine sanctuary and 770 were for it.  NOAA then determined it was in the best interests of the residents and land owners of Alpena and built the sanctuary.
 
Third, one of the arguments being used by NOAA and its supporters over the years has been marine sanctuaries will bring a significant economic benefit to the community.  That has been proven NOT true in Alpena, MI, and elsewhere.  In a study paid for by the NOAA and done by the Univ. of MI on page 85 of that report one will read that after 17 years, "...no significant economic benefit resulted at the Thunder Bay Sanctuary in Alpena."  Further what is  not acknowledged is that the Alpena sanctuary COST Alpena's taxpayers over $300,000 in additional property taxes because NOAA needed a bridge reconstructed for its bigger boats.  Further, the price of fuel at Alpena marinas has increased when it should have gone down like our auto gas has over the past years.
 
Fourth, I find it of interest how so many in the media like, Ziehm's article, never acknowledge any of the above facts, never bring them up and when they are, brush them aside.  I believe that is because there are vested interests that will profit and benefit from the sanctuary.  Those include tourist and other related interests, government leaders who believe there will be economic benefit even though there is clear evidence to the contrary; and bureaucrats whose agencies will receive more federal and state funding. Remember, tourist jobs are mostly seasonal and part-time, not good paying jobs.  These are the primary supporters of the Sheboygan NOAA Marine Sanctuary - not the local residents, businesses and taxpayers.
 
Finally, it is important to point out NOAA, along with the WI Historical Society have been promoting the WI Lake MI Sanctuary for almost 10 years. I and other Wisconsin voters and taxpayers first heard about this less than 6 months ago, long after our governor and several state elected reps signed on with their support.  This is not how one reaches out in a positive way to gain support for a project impacting ALL of Wisconsin, and not the way to disseminate information to the public.  NOAA has spent a large amount of money and staff time over the past 8 years to promote this and many other marine sanctuaries they wish to build.  Like any bureaucracy they have "their" own interests.  Question is whether those are "OUR" interests?

  Hate is real
Love is real
Stupidity is real
Courage is real
 “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” is real
“Beautiful people get more privileges” is real
“Smarter people have more advantages” is real
 “Abortion is murder” is real
“Teacher’s unions destroy education” is real
“Liberals are uniformly hypocrites” is real
"Guns save lives" is real
Criminals are real
“2 + 2 = 4” is real
“Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown (again)” is real

Umm…really…WHAT’S YOUR POINT?