Thursday, August 27, 2009

What she said

Over at Cassandra’s we were talking about whether there is a moral obligation to provide universal health care. I struggled to explain myself and did a pretty poor job, getting lost in a tangle of morality, obligation, wealth, affordability, and generosity.

Luckily Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana is more articulate than I - and far pithier:

“I’d like to cover everyone — that would be the moral thing to do — but it would be immoral to bankrupt the country while doing so,” Landrieu said.

(Via NRO)


WLindsayWheeler said...

There is NO moral obligation to provide health care. First off, it is NOT government responsibility.

Health care is a commodity where one purchases the expertise.

While in military service onboard an aircraft carrier, we pulled several times into the Philipines. I had the chance to wander the backwoods of the port. Thru an old ex-pat American veteran there, we visited a negrito village. In the middle of the village was a hut, open on all sides, off the ground, and they had an ederly man there, waiting to die. He had no health care. Stuff leaked from his every orfice, and driddled onto the ground. The villagers fed him but that is all they could do.

Health care? That is what happened for 5000 years of human existence. It is a fact of life.

There was a saying on the back of hippie vans in the Sixties: "Gas, ass, or grass, no one rides for free". There is not enough money in the world to give out free health care. And the American people are going to have to learn that there is no free lunch, and no free lunch on back of businesses either.

WLindsayWheeler said...

The Catholic Church has the principle of subsidarity. The principle of subsidarity is that things should be handled at the lowest possible level. Health care is not a "federal concern". The Left have for the past fifty years or more have been trying to concentrate all sorts of things under federal care where they control it.

Health care for the indigent should be done at the County poor house. That is what was done in the twenties and thirties. Every county should have one. Next, Catholic hospitals. Health care, like food stamps, education, should not and be not Federal concerns.

You see the Left are trying to take away everything from State and county responsibility. The Left's idea is that everything is done at the Federal level. That is not how this country was set up.

This is nothing but a power grab by the Left in order to garner votes to keep them in power and grease their consciences.

WLindsayWheeler said...

Furthermore, this Teddycare is Obama's way of making permanent and forever reparations to his kinsmen. It is about giving healthcare to minorities, especially the African-Americans on the backs of European Americans. It is almost a big switch-a-roo, with Africans on SSI, welfare and now medical health care largese---while the big bad Europeans are out there slaving away in the fields to support the Plantation's new owners--The Africans.

Glenn Beck ran story on that and he is right.

Elise said...

The issue of whether there is a moral obligation to provide health care is not an objective one: it is subjective. As for your example of health care in a Philippine village my position is that as a society becomes more wealthy it is better able to help the less fortunate in its midst and should do so as much as is financially feasible.

I would like to see more issues handled at the state level but that ship has sailed. Certainly most of the states themselves do not seem the slightest bit interested in handling their own problems rather than turning to Washington for assistance.

As I point out in my most recent post, KennedyCare is not ObamaCare.

Your last comment walks way too close to a line of racist rhetoric that I'm not prepared to countenance so watch it. People of African descent who are citizens of the United States are not "Africans"; they are fellow Americans.

On the substance, none of the government programs you refer to provide benefits to only African-Americans nor are they funded only by non-African-Americans. Even if it is the case that the benefits are received by more African-Americans or paid for by more non-African-Americans all that tells us is that African-Americans are more likely to be poor. I wouldn't exactly say that makes them somehow a privileged class.