Among the Intellectualoids
Lash and Chain Morality
The last refuge of a self-regarding socialist — and the only argument left to the Obamacare crowd.
David Ignatius writes in the Washington Post that President Obama should try to shift the health care argument to what Ignatius calls the high ground: morality. He says that what is lacking is the sense that Congress must act because health care for all is a matter of social justice, “required by our moral conscience.”
Ignatius cites the debate over “don’t ask, don’t tell” as an example of a policy debate that was finally decided on a moral basis. “By treating the issue as a matter of conscience,” he writes, “the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff altered the national conversation.”
First: he has misread the “don’t ask, don’t tell” debate. The point of militaries is to win wars, not to promote social justice. If homosexuals mess up military moral and effectiveness by forming sexual (eros) relationships instead of comradely (philia) relationships, they shouldn’t be allowed to serve. Whether homosexuals do in fact mess up military effectiveness is a factual question, not a moral one.
What actually happened in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” debate was that a number of military brass said that there were, in fact, no functional reasons not to allow openly homosexual personnel to serve in the armed forces. Whether that’s what they really believed is difficult to know. In this administration it is almost certain, but at least likely, that any military person objecting to having homosexuals serve in the armed forces would be more likely to get a dead fish from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel than see another star on his shoulder. Political correctness isn’t something that afflicts only campuses.
Once the brass could no longer safely articulate a military reason for not having homosexuals serve, then — but only then — could they and the politician start grandstanding on the morality question.
Second: Ignatius says providing basic health insurance coverage to all Americans is the right thing to do. Of course, by “providing,” he doesn’t mean just making it available; he means requiring (on penalty of fine or jail) people to have health insurance — because that’s the way of socialism. Oh, and also, it’s part of Obama’s plan.
Implicit in Ignatius’s position is that a significant portion of Americans is unable to get health insurance today. That is simply not true.
The number of people without health insurance is said to be 45.7 million. But a little fact-checking of the kind we know Ignatius to be capable of reveals that many of those uninsured have chosen not to be insured. Ten million of those 45.7 million have incomes of $75,000 or more. Eight million have incomes between $50,000 and $75,000.
Suddenly, Ignatius’s concerns seem less altruistic. Now we begin to understand why penalties are necessary to achieve full coverage. Those 18 million people tend to be young and healthy and least in need of medical care, which is why Ignatius would have them follow orders to buy health insurance. His morality hath taken on a strange hue.
The Census Bureau also reports that about ten million of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens. Raising the question, how far must our morality extend? Must we cover everyone… including the bankrupt Greeks?
Fourteen million of the 45.7 million uninsured are poor and low-income people who are eligible for already existing government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP), but fail to enroll in them.
So who’s left? About eight million people, who can’t get health insurance (the arithmetic is a bit fuzzy because there’s overlap in the categories.)
So: in order to provide health insurance to less than 3 percent of the population we must mount a moral crusade to change the entire American health system?
That’s not morality. That’s madness. But madness is a medical term.
The political term is socialism. And if the 20th century taught us anything, it was that there is nothing moral about socialism.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (105) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Daniel Oliver
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/10/lash-and-chain-morality
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Great Train Robbery
- Boys and Girls
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 3.10.10 @ 6:50AM
So just what is so moral when one straps anothers hard earned wealth to the debate. Morality, no I call this theft through gubmint decree. Some of us chose to serve in the best interest of the People by means of the armed forces for the sake of the Nations security prosperity, and a sense of duty with honor, sacrifice and the dedication borne of a free individual. Served is the key word here. No one demanded we do this, it was a choice, our choice.
What does morality have to do when one points a gun to anothers head, ( get insurance or be fined, inprisoned, etc.) and demands your money or your freedom, this is called tyranny, collective or greater good my ass.
The little o, and those who would praise his effort for the greater good of society, are not your friends, they are your would be enslavers, like it or not. This is called morality in the eyes of Ignatius? No, the way I look at his opinion, and that's just what it is, if he wishes to be part of the collective, then he is free to choose a part of the world who relish their choices over morality and live like a slave. It would be better to leave me alone or I might get the impression he's a target for my commie hating black tool. He is entitled to his opinion, and like wise I am entitled to mine. Where we willl have a aquare-off is when him and his type reach into my pocket and declare what's mine is his, and what's his is his. I am a first generation American through German heritage ( with 32-1/2 years of active service to my Country) and my clan fought with the nazi party, and in fact killed some of them because they understood the difference between a slave and a free man, I am no different in this regard, don't make me break my foot up your arse and then call me immoral. I call it being a free man who will do whatever it takes to remain as such. Don't tread on me, I bite in a very deadly manner and I suspect I'm not the only one either, morality has nothing to do with healthcare, personal responsibility for one's family does.
Deadlift| 3.10.10 @ 8:52AM
Amen!
I am not military, but I salute you Ret. Marine. I echo your thoughts, your passion, and your determination to retain your freedom. Consider me a brother in arms (literally).
Darin| 3.10.10 @ 7:25AM
It's not and never has been about "health care," and those pushing it need to be called on it. It's about control. It's about the belief by the left that the American people are too stupid to be responsible for their own health care. It's about a small group of elitist scum believing they are superior to the "unwashed masses" and thus only they can make decisions "in our best interest."
FTM| 3.11.10 @ 4:33AM
Actually is the progressive, "clinging" to the Keynsian ecconomic model.
John Maynard Keyne'ss basic idea was that the average individual was (is) too uneducated, uninformed and inattentive to manage their own affairs and therefore need a strong central government to manage their affairs for them.
In my humble opinion, Professor Keynes was almost rigght, applying Pareto's observation, the 80/20 prrincipal, I'd say that eighty percent of the people out there are too uneducated, uninformed and inattentive to manage their own affairs.
The rub comes when you start messing with the twenty percent remaining that can and do manage their own affairs. These people resent the interference and rightly so.
I advise observing Heinleins rule in regards to strong drink: "Beware strong drink, it will make you shoot at tax collectors, and miss."
PsychoDad| 3.11.10 @ 12:41PM
" I'd say that eighty percent of the people out there are too uneducated, uninformed and inattentive to manage their own affairs."
I think that's waaay too pessimistic, but even if true -- EVEN IF TRUE -- it is no-one else's business if they are , unless they are asking for help, unless a neighbor or group of neighbors voluntarily offers help, or such an individual is literally and legally incompetent. There is zero government mandate to strut in, announce that such people are being taken under the protective wing of Big Brother, and require the rest of us to subsidize their charity.
Pingback| 3.10.10 @ 7:56AM
Lash and Chain Morality | Republican Party of Door County links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Copyleft| 3.10.10 @ 8:42AM
I see a lot of desperate ducking and denial going on, which indicates how powerful the morality argument is.
The fact is that America is one of the most wealthy and advanced countries on earth. The fact that ANY of our people don't have access to basic healthcare is, as Ignatius points out, simply unconscionable.
It IS a matter of morality. And, as we all know, Republicans have none.
deadlift| 3.10.10 @ 8:56AM
Please point out the "desperate ducking and denial" that you see going on in Ret. Marine's post. It is very clear, very direct, very forceful and totally destroys the morality argument.
You, Copyleft, are a coward. You do not have the guts to try and take our money direct, so you hide behind the skirts of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc and wrap yourself in the collective.
Tread carefully.
Dan Hirsch| 3.10.10 @ 9:56AM
Big shout out to "copyleft"
The point that he (she), i.e. copyleft, misses is that although 'America is a wealthy nation' now, the socialist healthcare nationalization will change that into 'America WAS a wealthy nation.' Look at the civilized, Europeans.
As to questions of morality, why is it that the Democrats are the home of the proabortion coalition. At the end of the day, as even the not-very-smart Sarah Palin says "It's still a baby." How can anyone claim moral high ground while promoting abortion?
To Ret. Marine;
Thank you for your service, thank you. I hope that you find some wry humor in how little the copylefts of our country are appreciate that freedom which you and your brothers in arms bought for us.
As a non-Marine, I call to you Semper Fidelis!
Dan H.
PS I threw the Sarah Palin reference in so we could watch copyleft foam some more. They do so hate being confronted with her plain-spoken, truly moral behavior. No crash and swim Senator Kennedy is she.
They reacted to President Reagan the exact same way. They said he wasn't smart enough...D
Melvin| 3.10.10 @ 9:13AM
Horse squeeze, I have had the opportunity to have been afforded to travel around the world over twice and we are not the most wealthy there may have been a time that we once were but unfortunately not anymore.
Traveling in Asia about two years ago, the most meager hovel had broadband computer access.
Now where I live one of my co-worker's is still on dial-up because there isn't any broadband to be had.
There is so many things that the United States is sucking hind tit on. I love this Country, I assisted in defending this Country for twenty years, but dammit there is so many, many things, that we used to be a leader on and we in many respects are mirroring a third world country.
If a person doesn't have the chance to leave this Country and visit others it is hard to see a the comparison that many do.
I'm sorry we are no longer the big dog on the block, and there is many allegedly poorer countries out there that are leaving us in the dust.
JS| 3.10.10 @ 10:39AM
Melvin,
The reason we do not lead anymore is because of "progressive" policies. All of our innovative producers have moved overseas because of unions, high taxation, draconian environmental regulation and the demonization of entrepreneurship in the media, academia and the ruling class.
We should be the leader of the world because we are the greatest country in the history of the world. We need to throw off the chains of mediocrity and get about the business of continuing to be the best country in the world. The way to do so is unelect the morons on both sides of the isle, reduce the size of government, return education to the local level and let the American individual do what he does best - Innovate, create and make money.
Skip| 3.13.10 @ 6:42PM
I refer you to your meager hovel comment. Americans tend not to live in them because we don't have to. Our wealth is in more than internet access, it is in our inherent liberty to move from the hovel to the condo by means of our hard work. I am always intrigued by Americans who find every other nation preferable to and more enlightened than their own. I suggest the border test: open all the borders between all the nations and see which way the traffic flows. Suddenly the evidence clarifies the truth: All roads lead to our home...and our wealth.
Bram| 3.10.10 @ 9:33AM
If you want to feel moral, give time and money to a charity.
Using force to sieze my wealth so the government can spend it on other people isn't moral - it's armed robbery.
Larry in Iowa| 3.11.10 @ 12:56AM
I too am sick of leftists who would use government to rob me and my neighbors to fund a huge bureaucracy and provide people with third rate medical care at our expense. Moral obligation? Aren't they the same people who cry "You can't legislate morality" whenever someone criticizes their peccadillos?
Charity is not enforced or collected by government coercion.
Doorgunner| 3.10.10 @ 9:48AM
"...how powerful the morality argument is...
fact that ANY of our people don't have access to basic healthcare..."
Copyleft, the "morality argument" is neither an argument or actually "powerful". It is a lie and a smear.
The "fact" is that no one, not even an illegal alien, may be denied basic health care in the United States. Are emergency room services adequate for every health concern a person may have? Certainly not, but the argument is about how to provide, and fund, expanded services to the citizenry; not about the morality of one's opolitical opponent.
And the use of the word "morality" is curious coming from the mouths of those notably opposed to all things religous... Oh right, you think it a clever way to hoist the 'religous right' by their own petard and it satisfies your perpetually adolescent need for'irony'.
Copyleft| 3.10.10 @ 12:19PM
"And the use of the word "morality" is curious coming from the mouths of those notably opposed to all things religous"
Now there's an odd comment... Are you suggesting that morality has something to do with religion?
danfromatlanta| 3.10.10 @ 12:52PM
Absolutely! The lack of religion is what allows idiotic liberals such as yourself to defend lies (anything that comes out of the obamanation's mouth), stealing (wealth redistribution), and killing (forcing me to pay for abortions). If you had any religious restraint, you would have a moral basis to object to these things. So yes, you cannot have morality without religious underpinnings.
Tom| 3.10.10 @ 1:28PM
Dan,
Frankly as an atheist against lying, stealing, and killing I find your contention that one cannot have morality without religious underpinnings offensive. Perhaps there are people who believe, such as I do, that those things are deeply immoral and we do so despite the fact we have no fear of punishment in some hypothetical afterlife.
Tom
Margie| 3.10.10 @ 8:18PM
Dear Tom,
I'm glad you want to be good and value right from wrong. Truly that desire comes from your Creator. He made you that way. So, consider giving thanks. For "Apart from Me you can do nothing." Jn. 15:5. We're all sinners, but "by Grace we are saved, through faith, and it is not our own doing; it is the gift of God." Eph.2:8.
Margie| 3.11.10 @ 5:50AM
Thank you for your comment. It made me smile. And not in a sarcastic way; I accept that many religious people are good people. There are many in my life I admire greatly. Your post reminded me of a good friend of mine.
Tom
Doorgunner| 3.10.10 @ 2:56PM
There is a dynamic correlation between religion and morality: overlaps, extensions of prescribed behavior, imagery as example. What is most notable, and germane to the issue at hand, is that, detached from religion, morality is fluid; it is only what a society, a sub-group or even an individual says it is. It becomes only an arbitrary code. Any decent (e.g. Stanford, Oxford) dictionary of philosophy will cover this.
Witness, for example, your 'argument'. Obviously your personal -or is it the Liberal- moral code permits any deception (e.g. your claim that this about denying indiduals health care) in furtherance of a goal. Okay; I can actually accept that. As a soldier, my moral code allows for more than that.
Sorry to deflate your silly notion of intellectually spanking a Rethug.
Tom| 3.11.10 @ 5:54AM
Doorgunner,
And some religious morality allows for a lot more than deception. As a soldier you must be well aware of that.
The 'providing health care' to individuals is a moral act is used by more than justth non-religious. See the U.S. Catholic bishops stance for a good example of a religious argument for universal healthcare. The fact they are making that argument from a religious perspective does not make them any less wrong.
Tom
PsychoDad| 3.11.10 @ 12:45PM
Sadly, the US Catholic Bishops have been little more, or little else, than a mouthpiece for every leftist fad to come along in the last 50 years, with their unwavering stance against prenatal infanticide the only exception. Other than that - - ~~go about your business ~~ these aren't the bishops you're looking for ~~
Pete| 3.10.10 @ 10:05AM
Ah yes, secular morality...powerful, that.
John Navratil| 3.10.10 @ 10:06AM
This post has contains the following assertions:
(1) "desperate ducking and denial going on"
(2) "morality argument is powerful"
(3) "America is one of the most wealthy and advanced countries"
(4) "[some Americans] don't have access to basic healthcare"
(5) "[lack of access to healthcare] is unconsionable"
(6) "Republicans have no [morality]"
All except (3) and (4) are opinions. (4) is simply false. All you have to do is show up at an emergency room and you have access to health care. I assume (perhaps erroneously) that (4) should have been written:
(4) "[some Americans] don't have health insurance"
Could it be that in one of the wealthiest and most advanced countries on earth that ANY don't have health insurance is simply unconscionable?
We all know the facts of the debate and they center around cost. Not access, not availability... cost!
What is rarely discussed in the takeover of 1/6 of the economy is who will control? Once you work for a nationalized industry where the government controls the regulations and the rewards, for whom will you vote? Will you vote for the conservative who vows to stream-line, control costs or reduce government expenses or will you vote for the moral giver of things unconscionably denied by immoral Republicans?
Bilwick1| 3.10.10 @ 11:18AM
Uising the Argument by Assertion, Copy-the-Party-Line Left declares ex cathedra: "It IS a matter of morality. " (But it IS Blanche--it is!")
Care to prove that, CL? I mean, with logic? Or is it just dogma you want to force the rest of us to obey? Maybe you should change your pseudoym to "Savanarola" or better yet (with a nod to Dostoevsky) "Grand Inquisitor."
Margie| 3.10.10 @ 12:11PM
"Morality" to CopyLeft/LiberalReader means stealing your money to pay for another's health Ins.
Why, those ugly cold-hearted Republicans don't see it that way!
Thank God!
Ray| 3.10.10 @ 12:25PM
Who doesn't have access to basic medical care in America? You may be unaware of this (and I doubt that) but no one can be turned down for medical care due to lack of insurance or inability to pay. There is a federal law that prevents hospitals and clinics from refusing to give medical treatment to people due to their financial situations. Now, add that to the federal programs of Medicare and Medicaid and tell us, just WHO is being denied basic health care in America?
Margie| 3.10.10 @ 1:22PM
You are exactly right!
Of course, CopyLeft/LiberalReader knows this. His sole purpose in life is to obfuscate the hours away posting the opposite of the truth. The definition of insanity. As if just by repeating a lie over & over it will somehow become true!
Bilwick| 3.10.10 @ 3:49PM
You people are being too rough on CopyLeft (although he probably likes it rough). The title of the article, "Lash and Chain Morality," probably got him so excited that the blood rushed from his head to . . . elsewhere . . . leaving a shortage in his brain. Statists have a strong sadomasochistic streak, and mention of lashes and chains make them react the way I did to PLAYBOY when I was thirteen.
danfromatlanta| 3.10.10 @ 12:42PM
What a crock! Just what is so moral about the government picking my pocket to pay for someone else's medical costs? There are already enough social programs, both public and private, to take care of catastrophic medical costs without destroying the American health care system for the overwhwhelming majority of Americans that take care of their own healthcare costs. I would rather use my own financial resources to charitably help the less fortunate access health care than have the obamanation steal it from me. When the government forces me to pay for someone else's health care, they are making me a slave to the beneficiaries of the money stolen from me. What is so moral about that? I know, you can't understand the concept of private property, that's a foreign concept the moronic socialists. Idiots like you think wealth redistribution is moral. I disrespectfully disagree.
Harry| 3.10.10 @ 1:22PM
Wrong.
The moral question is "When is it right to take money from one person, to spend on another."
The simple fact is, that no one has a right to another person's earnings and the inability of "Progressives" to understand this is eventually going to destroy this country.
Grzmlyk| 3.10.10 @ 3:41PM
Bingo, Harry. Very well said.
Great comments, Margie. I agree that Liberal Reader and CopyLeft bear striking similarities - both have a fifth-grader's view of the world.
Which is why they'd get along so nicely with our "president."
Margie| 3.10.10 @ 4:16PM
Hey Grz!! Thanks. ;^)
The Lefties are oh so arrogant in their thinking and yet are all of the things they accuse conservatives of being.
Selfish
Cold hearted
Hateful
Tyrannical
Fanatical
What else am I missing? Because that is exactly what Socialism is. All of the above.
BA Cyclone| 3.10.10 @ 2:34PM
"Don't have access to medical care" is pure, progressive fiction.
Inconvenient facts, indeed.
What *is* immoral is foisting upon us another poorly run, federal system that cannot control costs (only price), and instead must decrease quality to "manage cost".
Unintended consequences, yeah right.
JoshInHB| 3.10.10 @ 10:03AM
Copyleft-"The fact is that America is one of the most wealthy and advanced countries on earth. The fact that ANY of our people don't have access to basic healthcare is, as Ignatius points out, simply unconscionable. It IS a matter of morality. "
Why stop there copyleft?
In a country as rich as ours
It's outrageous that everyone doesn't have access to steak or prime rib dinners every night.
It's outrageous that people have to drive old cars.
It's outrageous that everyone doesn't live in a 3,000+ sq foot house.
It's outrageous that anyone in a country as rich as ours has to wear clothes that are out of fashion.
All of these things are restricted by greedy "free" markets companies that ration these essential elements of life - just like insurance companies do.
Expect people to pay for stuff they want.
WTF????
Louis Jenkins| 3.10.10 @ 5:26PM
JoshInHB
As a matter of fact the belief that everyone has a right to those thing you named has gotten this nation into the predictament that its in. Only Japan and China have been picking up the tab.
Let's see- Fanny Mac and Freddie Mae, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus Package to create jobs, Government Run Health Care, Public Schools including free Breakfasts and Lunches, Educational Grants available for certain strata of society...
Local Observer| 3.10.10 @ 11:05AM
The "moral" argument is totally bogus. Those who advocate this are looking to be seen as benefactors by using the force of government to confiscate resources by force from one group to be bestowed on another group. The difference between charity and entitlement is that with charity there is a free-will gift to those less fortunate; entitlement demands resources not as a gift, but as a right. The one has the expectation of relationship and gratitude for the gift; the other has no relationship, no accountability, no gratitude, and no reason to move from a position of dependency. Where's the morality in that?
Jeff Perren | 3.10.10 @ 11:10AM
What could be more immoral than to rob one man to provide for another?
This: to rob a man and force him to pay for his own care. You commit a double evil; you take an innocent man formerly self-responsible, leave him with less than he had, and make him dependent on a bureaucrat. There are few things more evil than that.
Bilwick| 3.10.10 @ 11:13AM
Wanna bet Ignatius also hates the Religious Right? You know, because they want to use the coercive force of the State to impose their values on the rest of us. Not like "liberals" at all.
PsychoDad| 3.11.10 @ 1:18PM
Ha, yeah, isn't it ironic* that they make this kind of 'morality' argument on their own behalf, but get all ginned up at the religious types and start howling their other mantra "You can't legislate morality!!1!"
*No, not ironic I guess. Just evidence of dementia praecox.
Petronius| 3.10.10 @ 11:14AM
In days of yore (1961) before the founding of The American Spectator, NBC News produced a special on street crime. They interviewed an alleged armed robber emerging from the holdover after making bail. They questioned not only his professed indolence and refusal to EARN his way in the world, but the pain he inflicted upon his victims. The reply of this predatory lowlife was, "It's what I do. When I rob you, I'm not taking YOUR money. I'm taking MY money that you have."
It's the same sandbox mindset of Copyleft and every other miscreant who believes that the productive citizens of this country owe him a living because he refuses to compete.
Bilwick| 3.10.10 @ 12:06PM
"They [NBC news] questioned not only his [the career mugger's] professed indolence and refusal to EARN his way in the world, but the pain he inflicted upon his victims. The reply of this predatory lowlife was, 'It's what I do. When I rob you, I'm not taking YOUR money. I'm taking MY money that you have.'"
CopyLeft read this and thought: "So? What's the problem with that?"
james| 3.10.10 @ 11:19AM
The entire history of the world, with the brief, bright exception of what used to be the United States, is that of slaves begging for slavery from those more than wiling to provide it. Like all Useful Idiots before him, David Ignatius thinks he will be spared because he fancies himself 'one of them' and superior to you.
He will be the first in the tumbrils, and when he asks you for help, or to borrow one of your guns, just avert your gaze.
Curtis Rasmussen| 3.10.10 @ 12:45PM
Copyleft reminds me of a roomate I once had.
As far as I was concerned my roomate and I were equals, splitting expenses 50-50. Unkown to me at the time, he believed that I should help him to expand his network of friends and contacts and when I refused to cooperate with his demands, he felt I was not holding up my end. He used this mindset to justify stealing from me as compensation.
Sounds just like socialized medicine. Somehow, the slackers that post here feel that I am not holding up my end, and want the government to steal from me as compensation.
MikeBee| 3.10.10 @ 1:29PM
There is NO issue of a lack of healthcare in this country. I worked as Controller of six hospitals in my past. All of the hospitals did only two things: provide bariatric surgeries for morbidly obese people, and reconstructive surgery about two years later, to remove excess skin once weight was lost. Our Michigan hospital was in a very bad neighborhood. If someone came in the doors with knife wounds, bullet wounds, etc., we were required by Michigan state law to stabilize him/her, and transport him/her to a full-service hospital, at our expense. No hospital in Michigan may turn anyone down for care.
In the state of Michigan, and in most states, EVERYONE must receive care at a hospital, regardless of ability to pay. It is a well-known fact that many poor folks without healthcare coverage simply go to hospital emergency rooms for their healthcare. This is paid for either by the federal S-CHIP program, by state Medicaid programs, or by federal Medicare.
The issue is NOT about healthcare coverage; there are very few folks in the U.S. truly without healthcare. The issue is twofold: 1) it's about control: the Federal Government under Obama wishes to control this segment of the economy and to control our lives, and 2) it's about who will be required to PAY for healthcare in the U.S. Obama wants to pass the healthcare bill to corporations (you know, those EVIL corporations), all of whom will be required to pay much more than they presently do for healthcare for their employees, as they will also be paying for healthcare for folks who are not their employees. Their payments will replace state Medicaid programs and federal Medicare programs. Obama is lying when he says that federal healthcare in this bill will reduce costs for employers. TO ALL CORPORATIONS (who think you're going to get a break under Obamacare): the only time liberal lawmakers praise corporations is when they have received $$$$ from them. Liberal lawmakers have spent the past 100 years demonizing corporations, and attempting to tax and punish them excessively.
Cuffs| 3.10.10 @ 1:31PM
Obamacare has never been, it not, and will never
be about health care; it is about control--what you eat, where you live, what job you do, what
hobbies you pursue. Think about it, folks.
What better way is there to have all marching in lock step.
JP| 3.10.10 @ 1:38PM
The morality arguement is one huge strawman -this bill is all about control. What Ignatius and Copyleft fail to point out is that the "universal component" of ObamaCare doesn't begin to kick in until after 2014, and will be gradually implemented over a 5 year period. However, the up fron costs (increased premiums, Medicare cuts, etc...) kick in immediately. Basically, this bill is about the federal government controlling a $2 trillion market. More importantly, the federal government will for the first time be in control whether a person gets cured or not. For the 1st time, citizens of this nation will be nothing but corvees of the state.
PCC| 3.10.10 @ 2:37PM
Do Democrats really believe this is a vote-winner for them?
And another thing: just once I'd like to see or hear directly from one of those uninsured Americans that this whole ruckus is supposed to be about.
Radegunda| 3.11.10 @ 2:14AM
Probably many of them realize it isn't a vote-winner in the short run. But they think once they've set up the apparatus that raises our premiums and puts insurers out of business and prompts employers to dump their health benefits, people will think they need to keep voting for those who are the gatekeepers to increasingly scarce health resources.
And does anybody believe the rationing bureaucracies might not occasionally look into political party registration before they say yes or no to your medical care?
Also, the Dems plan to start collecting a big new pile of taxes immediately, thus giving them another big slush fund to buy off various interest groups. That's leftist morality for you.
David| 3.10.10 @ 3:41PM
To CopyLeft and other leftists, I thought one of the favorite mantras of the left for decades has been " YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY"?
That is nonsense of course, but that is what the left believes.
Joe| 3.10.10 @ 3:48PM
COPYTHEFT, since you can understand. It is stealing to forcefully take someone elses money without permission (even for the government).
Pingback| 3.10.10 @ 4:38PM
Turkey Travel Tips | Delirium Propaganda | Turkey Traveling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.10.10 @ 5:16PM
Is Nationalized Health Care Moral? | www.statehousecall.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tu Pac| 3.10.10 @ 5:24PM
COPYTHEFT, I want my free shit now, whitey owes it to me.
Tone Def| 3.10.10 @ 5:35PM
Right on, Right on, Right on. Al de dancing wimen in my vids are white working hos. De sisters ur too busy down in de hood playin' wid the free Gubmint blings. Gotta git Whitey to part wid de cash to buy de vids, man, so I can git sum mo grill man.
Pingback| 3.10.10 @ 9:24PM
The American Spectator : Lash and Chain Morality Drugs on Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Debbie| 3.10.10 @ 10:02PM
I really enjoyed the comments on this thread. I would just like to say I think Dr. Rogers intelligently told us the truth:
You Can't Multiply Wealth by Dividing It "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
Marc Jeric| 3.11.10 @ 12:28AM
So the health insurance companies will not accept new subscribers with previous conditions. Well, I will not accept them either. A fellow whom I know started work at 18 and is now 53; he is proud for not having "wasted" $600/month for health insurance; over 35 years he actually "saved" about two million dollars (place his $600/month in municipal bonds @ 5% and run it for 35 years). And now he develops cancer and wants to join - hell, no! I do not want to see my premiums increase to cover up his irresponsibility!
Larry in Iowa| 3.11.10 @ 1:07AM
Do you think I could get the same exemption for "pre-existing conditions" for my auto and homeowners insurance? I love to stop sending money off to the insurance company every few months and just wait until my house burned down or my car is wrecked or stolen.
How about life insurance? My Mom died a decade ago with no life insurance and I could use a few hundred grand. Using the logic of Obama, Metlife owes me that money!
Radegunda| 3.11.10 @ 2:25AM
Where is the morality in voting against applying the same medical regulations to oneself that one is determined to impose on everyone else ("for their own good")? Oh, I forgot, there will be special provisions for unions and ACORN too. There's the new egalitarianism.
Where is the morality in giving government bureaucracies absolute power to say you MAY NOT have certain medical procedures that are necessary to save your life? Insurance companies might decline to pay for a treatment, but cannot forbid you to have it. The government can and WILL.
Where is the morality in severe cutbacks in health care for seniors--who have been paying their taxes and being good citizens for decades--so that priority can be given to illegal aliens, many more of whom will be imported and probably turned into instant citizens whose votes will be bought at the expense of real citizens?
Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 5:39AM
The American Spectator : Lash and Chain Morality American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tenn Slilm| 3.11.10 @ 7:49AM
Opine
Morality schmorality, Control is the issue. Control, by and for , the minons of the OBNA Guvmnt & the Civil Service folks hired to implement the coming Socialistic Nation.
If the OBNA fails here, and the odds are that he will, the next push will be more blatant, more open Lefist, and w/o any conscience whatsoever.
We can expect to be told exactly where to go, when to get there and MOVE IT. As the folks say, enough already.
end
Semper Fi
Alison| 3.11.10 @ 10:53PM
Tenn Slilm - you scare me. I think you and a lot of others above are the control freaks...you want to make sure no government tells YOU what to do, especially that you are NOT your brothers keeper.
Yup...a lot of people on this page longingly wish to return to the pre-civil war South when it was morally okay to own other people and the government had to stay out of personal business.
My point...the concept of morality matures (I'd use the term evolves...but that has a bad connotation on some sites).
Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 9:26AM
Moving From Cards to Digital Kanban System Provides Rapid ROI | You Can be Great If Y links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 10:07AM
affirmations | Sculptor 3 Review » Is A Good Luck Charm Necklace A Good Gift To Give? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
john| 3.11.10 @ 1:04PM
C'mon folks..never heard of Robin Hood..he was a HERO, wasn't he! When you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, you will ALWAYS have the support of Paul!! when we get to the point where over 50% of the voting population in the USA pays NO taxes, take a wild ass guess as to how they are gonna vote ( and we are a LOT closer to that day than you could possibly imagine)
Tony in Central PA| 3.12.10 @ 4:17PM
The article began with lifting of the " Don't ask don't tell " policy for " moral " reasons. The " moral " argument for this can only be based around the well known fact that homosexuals are inherently more virtuous than heterosexuals. Everybody knows this now. It s hard to believe there was a time when everybody didn't accept this. This is why the military will continue to segregate male and female heterosexuals after homosexuals are free to shower and sleep together in the ranks because everybody now knows there won't be any funny business resulting fom it.
Dr.D| 3.12.10 @ 11:38PM
Alison, none of us are our brother's keeper on the orders of the government. Those are the instructions from our Lord, and we will execute them on that basis, but without the heavy hand of the Feds to enforce them as the socialist decree.
cyril| 3.13.10 @ 4:23AM
The church is not moral, never has been. Belief in a sky fairy and bible garbage is dangerous and not helpful in this debate. Leave the immoral teachings of the bible out of my life. I am an American. People in America should be allowed to fail. That is what it all comes down to. Personal responsibility and choice.
just my thoughts
Shyster| 3.15.10 @ 3:36AM
Sorry to disappoint you Copyleft, but all americans have access to healthcare you dimwit.
And the left possesses nothing remotely resembling "morality". Notice how they substitute "righteousness" in the bible with "social justice".
You're far to stupid to make decisions for either I or the majority of americans, Copyleft.
The fact you haven't figured that out yet is a testament to your own immorality,...i.e., you think you should be deciding the fate of others less "enlightened" than yourself. Robbing the populace of freedom is the ultimate example of immorality. You apparently are comfortable with that.
Shyster| 3.15.10 @ 3:46AM
What can I say, Cyril?
Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
You really should reserve your comments about things you're totally ignorant about to your fantasy musings.
Personal responsibility is integral to Christianity.
Doubtless, you're ignorant of that fact because you haven't bothered to critically examine it.
Grow up cyril. While preaching personal responsibility, you obviously don't care to incorporate the concept into your personal life.
Sorry to inform you that personal responsibility involves living a responsible and moral life.
Obviously, you like to pick and choose.
Grow up buddy.
Shyster| 3.15.10 @ 3:54AM
Sorry, Alison. Morality doesn't "mature".
Slavery was always wrong and the founders recognized that.
Morality is a constant and I might remind you that the Republican party was formed specifically to abolish it.
Morality doesn't change. Nut jobs like you just seek to redefine it to allow your own perversions to continue without criticism.
Sorry, Alison. Morality is an absolute, not something to be redefined by degenerates like yourself.
Shyster| 3.15.10 @ 3:58AM
I should amend my comment to say that the Republican Party was specifically founded to end slavery, not morality. Democrats fought the allocation of rights to all americans for a 100 years.
Ever hear of the "black codes" or the "KKK"?
Both were integral parts of the Democrat party.
Pingback| 3.15.10 @ 5:42PM
Lash and Chain Morality links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bennett Callaghan| 5.26.11 @ 8:00PM
Hey everyone,
If you are reading this article, I assume you might be interested in morality and moral dilemmas. We are currently collecting participants for a study being conducted through John Jay College on moral dilemmas and decision-making.
If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey, which should take about an hour of your time, and afterward, you will be given the chance to enter your email address into a $300 lottery drawing.
Here is the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FCZCBD2
Thank you very much.