How will it be paid for, we ask. Can the government run this, or will they mess it up like everything else they touch? Can we cover everybody without government involvement? Won't cost reduction lead to rationing? Could we make smaller reforms for less money? Will the Public Option shove out private insurance, employer health benefits, and the "health plan you like"?

All good questions. But that the debate is focused on them shows our media and politicians have missed the major point, in health care and today's other government expansion proposals.

Fortunately, the people haven't missed the point. Americans don't turn out in such numbers and challenge their representatives so passionately over funding calculations, management approaches, or euphemisms like "single payer"--knowing we've had one in Medicare since they were kids.

A much deeper principle is under negotiation here, one the people cherish much more than our journalists and lawyer leaders appreciate.

Of the three "unalienable rights" Mr. Jefferson listed in the Declaration of Independence, the one that stirs our hearts most is Liberty. Life is vital, but we don't worry, as the Founders did, about government taking it from law-abiding citizens. The Pursuit of Happiness is important to us all, but it's a natural result of Liberty. At least since Aristotle, we've known that all people pursue happiness naturally, unless some power prevents it.

Liberty is different. It's not a consequence of the other two, or of anything else. Liberty is an intrinsic value, truly "unalienable."  The most radical idea in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights was that the individual's liberty supersedes the necessary authority of rulers, judges, and parliaments. And with a few exceptions, that idea still sets America apart from other nations. It is truly the foundation of "American exceptionalism."

Webster says an intrinsic value is "good in itself...desired for its own sake without regard to anything else."  In society and governmental systems, liberty is a prime intrinsic value. It doesn't have to be justified by its results, nor be subjected to cost-benefit analysis--as in this health care debate. It's more important than better health care, or diversity, or suspected climate protection, good social programs, or any other "solution."

I, for one, am not prepared to give it up for someone's theoretically better healthcare system--even if it were better. That's the test. Do we value liberty above other benefits, or not? Our founders would be shocked that we're actually debating whether to give up fundamental liberties to generate health care financing for another--what?--5% of the population. We're behaving like Esau, wondering whether a bowl of stew is worth his birthright.

What liberties might we trade for better health care finance? Here's a short list:  Freedom to create groups to share health care risks, thereby paying for treatment, and making a profit doing so--freedom for care providers to offer services in a free market, forming groups if they choose--for employer/employee contracts to include health coverage or not, as the parties see fit--for a person to choose not to have coverage--for employers and individuals to choose from competitive offerings in a free market. (Part of our cost problem is that governments have constrained insurers' freedom to form risk pools that cross state lines.)  And Town Hall speakers are clearly worried about their freedom to choose doctors, clinics, and hospitals for themselves--even to have expensive treatment when others think their longevity or quality of life doesn't justify it.

A few years in the UK (I had six) will show anyone what it means to trade liberty for a benefit imagined by idealists in government. Only the wealthy can escape the National Health Service there, which has taken the liberty but delivered a drastically inferior benefit.

We must not make this fool's bargain. The liberty our Founders gave us has proved its value in results: the most prosperous, just, benevolent, secure, and yes, happy society the world has ever known. But even if our idealists could create a better health care system or other benefit, we must turn the deal down. We have to love our liberty more than any improvement to our lives we're offered in exchange for it. The twentieth century was littered with the ruins of societies who took the other course. America is dangerously close to following their lead. The millions of us who see the danger have to rise up now with a resounding no!