Health Care Debate Morality Question

[Maxel]

Reading this was just too much for me.

Okay, here is a perfect example of a SPIN...

Because, only an Expert Spin-ster can come up with a statement like this in answer to the original statement. And expert spin-sters are very very good at confusing the issue!

No compassion with your tax dollars, eh? I like to see good works happen from multiple sources, especially the source designated to promote all our general welfare.

I don't know if Moksha misses the irony or is trying to be funny by spinning the post that painstakingly cut through the spin, but I had to laugh.

One thing that is not so funny: the pharisees and wicked lawyers of the scriptures were all expert "spin-sters", as anatess called them. They cloud the doctrine and the issues and lead the weak and blind away from the plain truths of the Gospel.

Spin is a bad thing.

[Maxel]

Reading this was just too much for me.

Okay, here is a perfect example of a SPIN...

Because, only an Expert Spin-ster can come up with a statement like this in answer to the original statement. And expert spin-sters are very very good at confusing the issue!

No compassion with your tax dollars, eh? I like to see good works happen from multiple sources, especially the source designated to promote all our general welfare.

I don't know if Moksha misses the irony or is trying to be funny by spinning the post that painstakingly cut through the spin, but I had to laugh.

One thing that is not so funny: the pharisees and wicked lawyers of the scriptures were all expert "spin-sters", as anatess called them. They cloud the doctrine and the issues and lead the weak and blind away from the plain truths of the Gospel.

Spin is a bad thing.

By the way, Moksha, I'd love to see you explain how your views mesh (or don't mesh) with Talmage's exegesis of the scriptures in Luke- scripture that is repeated in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Moksha]

True spin are all the sham arguments used to sully a good idea like a health care system that covers everyone. You know where the idea of caring for the poor and sick comes from, even if you deny it thrice or more, because it inconveniences your pocket book. The US stands alone in its neglect of its citizen's health care. Even if you pull out all the stops and accuse me of being a spinner or a Pharisee, remember who it is who is ultimately blowing (non-tobacco) smoke up the collective back side.

[john doe]

Inconvenience the pocketbook? Maybe you don't understand. Even the government's accountants have said the proposed plans will bankrupt us. $100 Billion in losses every year. Losses. On top of the premiums that they will be requiring us to pay to get on it. It's a losing proposition. It needs to go away. Bankrupting the country is never a good plan.

Edited August 20, 2009 by john doe

[Gatorman]

Okay, let me be very clear.

I am against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT health insurance program, as proposed. I am against any REQUIREMENT that people cover health insurance. I am against any FORCED service of individuals.

Why? Because they are contrary to Heavenly Father's plan. Because I am taught that things that are contrary to Heavenly Father's plan are 'evil' and to be avoided.

Please note, I did NOT say I was against helping people in need. Nor did I say I was against businesses choosing to serve those in need. bhcs is an example of those who the system should work for, but don't. However, for every story like that, we also have stories of people who abuse the system, who are able to get the aid, and who don't need it and are capable of working/supporting themselves if they would just get 'un'lazy. So, why would I want to see a system grow that is more adept at making people dependent on it who don't need it, yet leaves those who do need it out in the perverbial cold.

Again, I am not against compassion. I am against the Government's enforced version of it. It removes agency. Can any LDS person here honestly suggest that removing my agency is ever a good thing?

[bytor2112]

No compassion with your tax dollars, eh? I like to see good works happen from multiple sources, especially the source designated to promote all our general welfare.

The source designated to promote our general welfare is often wasted by greedy politicians and spent on causes that most Americans if given the opportunity would vote against. And right now.....we will never be able to pay the debt off through taxation.....Trillions Moksha, trillions and they just keep on printing....for your general welfare of course. I would prefer to create my own general welfare.

[Guest]

We are not even touching on the TRUE REASON why the government is pushing healthcare for all. Think about it... Do you REALLY think the government is hurrying this up so they can BE COMPASSIONATE? NO! Trust me on this. I spent half of my life in politics.

Everything the government does - AND I MEAN EVERYTHING - is all about re-election. It is very naive not to understand that. Of course, there is NOTHING WRONG with working towards re-election. Just like there is nothing wrong with me trying to do the best at my job to get my contract renewed year after year.

So when you have something like Stimulus Package, Cash for Clunkers, Healthcare Reform... or even the not-so-publicized HR 669 (Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention)... you have to stop and think, why is this on the table? What does the elected official gain from it?

Providing for the good of the citizenry is always the main driver for a politician's election campaign. The noble politician will align his policies with what provides for the greater good. Which is why democracy works. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that. Politicians need money to fund a campaign. Politicians need to insure the results of the next election cycle and all other future election cycles. They need media exposure, they need CONTROL.

Cash for Clunkers was easy - it's a Nod to the environmentalist - a small treat - and a band-aid for the Auto-Industry. Did it help the people who truly needed help? Was this compassionate? This is a $4Billion No. But, it kept the money flowing to Congress' re-election campaign.

Stimulus Package - not so easy to trace where the money went. It was such a loop-de-loop. But - it's not so difficult to see the arms of the Federal government trying to gain control of the private sector - even the States. I cannot see the exact text of the provisions for Florida to receive a cut of the Federal stimulus pie. But, from the little rumblings that I heard from reliable sources, I realize there must be some Federal hog-ties and bungee cords wrapped around it. It is not so difficult to see the "salvation" of the Automakers being a Nod to the Unions. Okay, so you might say... But But But... the stimulus package prevented a great depression... hearsay. There was no indication that the private sector cannot correct itself on its own. But, it was clear to see that weeks before the General Election, something has to be done to keep politicians' election campaigns from tanking. How do I know? Because, I grew up in a politician's household and I worked for a campaign since I was old enough to read and write.

Healthcare Reform - sure sounds like compassion, doesn't it? Read the text of the bill slowly and take it down into its bare bones and you will realize that all it is, is a vote-buying mechanism. The text of the bill is done such that it is a guarantee that a big majority of the population will depend on it - willing or not. So, the next election cycle is going to be... "If you vote for me, I will continue to provide you with FREE HEALTHCARE!" - even if the program is starting to get major problems, the majority who are dependent on it will have to keep voting for it. So then, healthcare goes bankrupt - e.g. SS and Medicare - next election is gonna be, "If you vote for me, I will FIX HEALTHCARE within 4 YEARS!". So, of course, the majority of the population who are dependent on it have not much choice but to vote for the guy who says he is going to fix it. The government is the only organization that has the legal right to put a gun on somebody's head, so they CAN promise anything. But, they have a self-serving purpose, so it is always a bad idea to let them have ownership of a big carrot to dangle over your head. It is a SHACKLE!

My family has this not-so-funny-joke. Every election campaign, we always have this game of pointing out the "vote-buyer" politician. He's the guy that would make this kind of speech: "If you vote for me, I will build you a bridge! The grandest, longest, biggest bridge of all! It will provide access to businesses, it will provide jobs to thousands of people. And if there is no river to put the bridge on, I will build the river too!"

That is National Healthcare Reform in a nut-shell. It is a bridge without a river, so they're building the river too. It is not what is needed to "provide access to healthcare to every American" but it sounds good. Especially to people like Moksha, et. al., who are idealistic (nothing wrong with being idealistic! Try not to spin this!). So, instead of reforming healthcare, the proper way, they're building a bridge and the river too.

You want REAL compassion - go talk to your Stake President, Catholic Bishop, Baptist Minister, Rabbi... or go check out Big Brothers Big Sisters or some such... those who make compassion the center of their organization. Learn how they do it and what kind of a "resume" is inherent in a compassionate organization. You don't hire a carpenter to fix your computer...

Edited August 20, 2009 by anatess

[john doe]

This reminds me of the timeshare presentationsat through recently. They kept talking about how they 'knew' that everybody there could afford their plan, and how we couldn't afford not to buy their vacations. They got everybody all whipped up and excited about it, and then they would divide and conquer- they got each person separate and told us how much it really cost. It was ONLY $598/month, if your credit was good enough to get the best rate. But that's not all!! There are also maintenance fees, which this year will be $1200, (which I have been told have always increased every year). I told them I didn't know what they were smoking, but it must be good stuff to think that someone who makes $50k a year (the minimum income for the presentation) could automatically afford $700/month extra coming out of their current bills and expenditures. I'm sorry, I can't afford it, and won't be buying.

The same goes for the healthcare scam going on now. We simply can't afford it. Healthcare for everyone is a nice goal, but I can't trust the government to bring it in under budget or with efficiency. I read yesterday where a congressman says Social Security will be in a deficit in 2 years, that will start to be a drain on the national budget, taxes will have to go up to pay for that, healthcare is scheduled to lose at least $100 Billion/year. We simply can't afford all these pie-in-the-sky programs that we've been borrowing money to pay for. Eventually our lenders are going to close the door on us and want to be paid back. We don't have the money.

[FunkyTown]

Inconvenience the pocketbook? Maybe you don't understand. Even the government's accountants have said the proposed plans will bankrupt us. $100 Billion in losses every year. Losses. On top of the premiums that they will be requiring us to pay to get on it. It's a losing proposition. It needs to go away. Bankrupting the country is never a good plan.

For those who read my defenses of a public health care system, they might be surprised for me to say that John Doe is right.

The American populace is aging, with fewer young people taking up the burden. The health care system will be straining in the next ten years and we aren't seeing a health care system that will handle that. This is something every health care system in the world will be struggling with: How do you provide health care to an aging populace that doesn't break the bank? Do you either allow the old to perish, saying 'It's nature's way' or do you force governmental limitations on costs to help the aged?

Neither solution is particularly palatable. I'd like to hear some good ideas on that.

[Traveler]

What right do we or anyone have to force an entire society to do for anyone (or a segment of that society) what they are not engaged in for themselves?

I submit that it is morally wrong to force a person to participate in taking care of themselves. I am not saying that we do not help at all but if someone has chosen not to engage themselves in that which is good (be it religion, family relationships or taking care of their health) why should they be forced into compliance to what some segment of that society thinks they ought to have involved themselves?

One problem with the force of law is that it is blind and cannot have any reason or understanding of individual preference. Some life choices are difficult; I can understand helping anyone – but I do not understand doing for anyone what they chose not to do for themselves.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

[Comment retracted for being overly snarky, with my apologies.]

Edited August 20, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[mightynancy]

Whoa.

[Just_A_Guy]

Good point, Nancy. Comment retracted.

[Maxel]

True spin are all the sham arguments used to sully a good idea like a health care system that covers everyone. You know where the idea of caring for the poor and sick comes from, even if you deny it thrice or more, because it inconveniences your pocket book. The US stands alone in its neglect of its citizen's health care. Even if you pull out all the stops and accuse me of being a spinner or a Pharisee, remember who it is who is ultimately blowing (non-tobacco) smoke up the collective back side.

Moksha, I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I have no pocketbook to be inconveienced! My family's dirt poor! I'm dirt poor! I have clinical depression and it's insanely hard for me to hold down a 9-5 job! I'm someone who would benefit greatly from nationalized healthcare!

Why am I against it? Because it goes against the principles of proper government outlined in the Constitution, and because the American government has proven that it can't be trusted with our tax dollars! It's priniple I'm concerned with- not personal convenience.

And I'll deny the kind of "caring" of the sick and the poor that governments do 70*7 times unless I receive revelation telling me I should accept it. The government is regulatory in nature, not nurturing. Can a pear tree bring forth apples? No. Neither would one call a carpenter to fix a computer (kudos for the analogy, anatess). Governments are given to man to ensure everyone of his basic, God-given rights- healthcare insurance isn't one of them, despite what some well-meaning individuals might otherwise preach.

[Maxel]

Good point, Nancy. Comment retracted.

I always miss the good stuff.

[/attempted-levity-afer-getting-angry]

[Maxel]

Moksha-

I apologize for calling you a Pharisee. It was rude and uncalled for. Please forgive me.

Sorry.

[bytor2112]

Moksha-

I apologize for calling you a Pharisee. It was rude and uncalled for. Please forgive me.

Sorry.

Perhaps you meant Sadducee????

[Gatorman]

Regardless of your position on morality, etc, can any of you who believe that US Federal Government healthcare is appropriate please answer the following, non religious question?

Without using the General Welfare clause, can you identify what authority in the Constitution we the people gave the Congress to oversee and establish any Healthcare Authority? If so, please post which authority. If not, please explain why you believe our government should be able to exceed the authority we the people gave them.

[lost87]

if we the people ban together to support health care reform then aren't we giving them the authority now? I really don't have time to search our constitution at the moment in response to your request, but I just watched the online forum with the President and am in complete support of reform. Maybe its silly of me to think that "we the people" can mean the modern day voting body in addition to a bunch of dead guys who originally drafted the principles of our nation...oops.

[Maxel]

if we the people ban together to support health care reform then aren't we giving them the authority now? I really don't have time to search our constitution at the moment in response to your request, but I just watched the online forum with the President and am in complete support of reform. Maybe its silly of me to think that "we the people" can mean the modern day voting body in addition to a bunch of dead guys who originally drafted the principles of our nation...oops.

And this is the problem with modern American citizenry.

"No... I don't know what the Constitution has to say about issue A... But our charismatic president thinks it's a good idea so... yeah, why not?"

Those "dead guys" laid the foundation of the government of the nation that rose to be the most powerful in the world. I think you would do well to respect them and the Constitution they drafted- especially if you're Mormon, since it's LDS doctrine that the Constitution is inspired of God.

------------------

As for your quesiton, Gatorman-

I've seen it argued that the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" can be construed to mean health care (because of the word "Life"). I think this is a pretty weak argument, though, so I won't press it here. It would be interesting for someone to make a case, using the original Constitution, for nationalized healthcare.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Maxel

[lost87]

Im sorry Maxel but I really don't appreciate the personal attack....I'm sorry if my day's schedule does not permit me to drop everything and break out the constitution to prove you wrong...TERRIBLY SORRY for the inconvenience that must cause you...perhaps the problem with American society is people like you who are so swift to attack anyone with an opposing view...

[lost87]

Just for you Maxel....

Constitution of the United States Article 1, section 8

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ... and provide for the common Defence and general welfare (this was also mentioned in the Preamble, so it must be important) ... (and) to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”

I suppose it may be silly and naive and such a problem in our modern American Citizenry to think that health care is included in the "general welfare" of an individual. Sarcasm aside...The fact that the constitution so clearly outlines the power of congress to make laws concerning the general welfare, and even levy taxes to support those laws as defined by this section of Article 1 comes to me as a very good argument for the constitutionality of this reform.

Not only does the above listed section of the Constitution grant congress the powers to do what it is doing now, but the very framework of our nations constitution is meant to be flexible and breathable, not a "dead" document. There was no way for the men of the 18th century to forsee the changes that would sweep the nation with time and knowing such they established a government where checks and balances would be created by the living people, not by a document signed only by themselves. Just because the Constitution does not clearly state "congress may pass health care reform laws" does not mean it is a power forbidden them. Many state that the constitution creates limits on the government when in reality only Article 1, section 9 places restrictions on the governement. The rest of the document enumerates what our government MUST do for the people.

If we as a people were to use the US Constitution as you are suggesting, where if the certain subject isn't specifically listed within, then many of our programs today would not exist...in fact, if we were to live point by point as you suggest it is very likely that our society would still be making its way with horse drawn buggies. The mere prospect of progression and development of a society is dependent on the abilities of that society to make decision for the here and now using the principles that the nation was developed on. You are suggesting that we make decision based on the semantics that men chose to use in a document that is a few centuries old. That wouldn't work. The founding fathers wrote that document knowing this and expecting future generations to have the guts and brains to make a difference rather than look for someone to hold their hand as they crossed the streets of life...they are dead now, but gave us the tools to keep our nation living, the TOOLS, not the exact parameters.

Edited August 20, 2009 by lost87

[Maxel]

Im sorry Maxel but I really don't appreciate the personal attack....

My apologies for the personalization of the attack. I wasn't thinking too much of the effect it would have on you- it was a venting of the frustration I feel with those whose general actions follow the vein you described: not knowing what the Constitution says about an issue, but liking the idea... because. 'Because' can be anything from thinking the idea is based in valid eternal principles to liking an idea because the president can make a compelling surface-level argument for the idea.

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.

I'm sorry if my day's schedule does not permit me to drop everything and break out the constitution to prove you wrong...TERRIBLY SORRY for the inconvenience that must cause you...

I forgive you. When you have time, I would be interested in how you could use the Constitution to defend the idea of nationalized healthcare.

EDIT: I only saw your posting of the general welfare clause after I posted this.

perhaps the problem with American society is people like you who are so swift to attack anyone with an opposing view...

No doubt that plays a part in the equation. Again, my apologies for the personalized nature of my remarks. Edited August 20, 2009 by Maxel

[Vort]

Constitution of the United States Article 1, section 8

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ... and provide for the common Defence and general welfare (this was also mentioned in the Preamble, so it must be important) ... (and) to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”

I suppose it may be silly and naive and such a problem in our modern American Citizenry to think that health care is included in the "general welfare" of an individual.

Yes, of course it is silly and naive to think so. No sarcasm.

If you believe health care to be a right guaranteed by the Constitution, then you must also believe food to be a guaranteed right. And housing. Those are even more necessary for the general welfare than health care.

In other words, you believe the welfare state to be Constitutionally mandated.

You are mistaken.

[lost87]

hmmm...vort...that was a good argument. I still support the reform, but I respect your opinion on the issue...thanks for shedding some light on how my argument could be flawed.