Can someone explain?

[Jamie123]

You've mentioned this a couple times on this thread so I thought I'd respond to it. I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if I get discordant with what the discussion is about.

There is a big difference with law enforcement/crime prevention and healthcare.

This country is not a pure democracy - as in, "majority rule". It is run by "rule of law". This law got defined in the Constitution with leeway to improve on. The Bill of Rights (extension of the declaration of independence) guarantee every individual in the United States of America the right to their lives, their liberty, their property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Law enforcement is a REQUIRED element of a society "ruled by law". Without enforcement, you can kiss the law good-bye. That is, you will forfeit your rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, because the law has no teeth.

But, just because the Bill of Rights guarantee our right to life, that doesn't mean that we have the right to take away from somebody so that we can prolong our own lives. It means that we have the right to protect ourselves from people who would threaten our lives.

The pursuit of happiness does not mean that we are guaranteed happiness. What it means is that the law protects your choices in trying to pursue what makes you happy. Now, if what makes you happy is something that will cause somebody else to be unhappy, then that right is questionable - because, as my father likes to say, your rights end where somebody's nose begins...

Healthcare as it stands now, is in this boat. Because, for somebody to get free healthcare, somebody else would have to pay through the nose for it.

I can sort-of see where you're coming from anatess, though you obviously see things differently from Applepansy. (The phrase as I've always heard it is: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".)

However, I don't see that the distinction is as big as you suppose.

Law enforcement aims to protect property from criminals. Medicine aims to protect the body from illness. Both are necessary for the "pursuit of happiness" but neither guarantee it. (Healthcare doesn't even necessarily guarantee health, let alone happiness.) Both have to be paid for by someone. So why are they so different?

Also there is no question of forcing others to "pay through the nose". I (like every other wage earner in the UK) pay a contribution towards the National Health Service. My taxes and NI payments have contributed towards the healthcare that I and my family - and millions of other people - have received. It's true that richer people than me have paid more (just as poorer people have paid less) but I pay as much as anyone in proportion to the income I have (*).

P.S. I'm also by no means sure that law enforcement (in our modern sense of the term) is a "required element of society". The modern idea of a "police force" to "protect and serve" the people is a relatively new concept. In older societies the state's interests were protected by guards, soldiers etc. (again paid for by taxes) but little or no protection was given to the ordinary citizen. In ancient Rome for example no one of importance ever went out in the streets without some retinue to protect them from criminals. They had to provide that for themselves and at their own expense. I daresay life in these societies was unpleasant for all but the most well-off, but the societies themselves did still exist and prosper.

(*) OK, so that's not exactly true. Richer people pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than poorer people, but I'm sure that's the case in most other countries. Plus it applies to all taxes, not just those destined for medical services.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Jamie123

[gabelpa]

It is not so simple. That is the problem with this reform, and most things of this magnitude. They are too complex to be distilled into a few analogies or comparisons. There is no adequate sound bite to explain it all. Both sides would oversimplify it to get the public on their side while leaving out the important, complex "political" and "pork barrel" stuff out.

America needs some kind of guranteed health care. America also needs for logic and critical thinking to be required skills before the age of 18.

[Jamie123]

It is not so simple. That is the problem with this reform, and most things of this magnitude. They are too complex to be distilled into a few analogies or comparisons. There is no adequate sound bite to explain it all. Both sides would oversimplify it to get the public on their side while leaving out the important, complex "political" and "pork barrel" stuff out.

America needs some kind of guranteed health care. America also needs for logic and critical thinking to be required skills before the age of 18.

I totally agree introducing national healthcare in any country is a complex issue. What I'm talking about is the Orwellian attitude of "Private healthcare good, state healthcare bad!" and the use of ad hoc arguments to support this.

Applepansy's argument is coherent (assuming that preserving free agency is more important than ensuring care for the sick) but it's full implications undermine social institutions such as the police. Anatess attempts to contain those implications by suggesting healthcare belongs to a different class from other public services. But I fail to see any real distinction.

I'm tempted to think that a lot of the real objections are visceral rather than logic-based - a throwback to McCarthyism - the looming communist threat - "reds under the beds" etc., and that arguments have been constructed aposteriori to justify this attitude. Law enforcement existed in the western world before there was any "red threat", and so is not connected with it. State healthcare arrived later, introduced by a socialist government in Britain, and is therefore subconsciously connected with communism. But I'm not historian enough to argue this point - it's just a thought.

P.S. I mean no disrespect to anyone I've disagreed with in this thread. I have every respect for America and the LDS Church. (My wife is an American, and my sister-in-law is a Mormon.)

Edited February 18, 2010 by Jamie123

[john doe]

America needs some kind of guranteed health care. America also needs for logic and critical thinking to be required skills before the age of 18.

Yeah, because everyone knows Americans are all too dumb to think for themselves. In fact, they're so stupid they should just let the government do all the thinking and administering of their lives for them. Maybe they should turn into another nanny state. Hmmmm, I wonder where they could come up with a pattern for something like that. If only there were snooty neighbors in a nanny state across an ocean they could be like...............

[applepansy]

I'm not familiar with the City of Enoch (I'll read up on it when I've got more time). But that's a very interesting opinion. Is it true therefore that the Church doesn't approve of law enforcement, and any church members employed as police officers should resign? Or should they stand around while crimes are committed, and only rush in and arrest the perpetrators after the event?

(P.S. I'm not trying to have a go at you Apple. I like you a lot. I'm just a little whacked-out by this line of thinking.)

No Jamie, We have need of law enforcement. We do not live in a righteous society. But that doesn't mean that laws should be passed to force people to be righteous or do the right thing.... No one has successfully legislated morality.

[applepansy]

anatess makes an excellent point. The USA is not a democracy. Its a Republic. The rule of law is important and so is the agency of its citizens. There has to be balance for there to be true Freedom.

[applepansy]

I can sort-of see where you're coming from anatess, though you obviously see things differently from Applepansy. (The phrase as I've always heard it is: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".)

No Anatess and I are in agreement.

[applepansy]

Jamie, I think where you're not connecting the dots here is that "we are not a righteous people" so while it is very important to not infringe on Agency it is also important to have things like law enforcement to protect our basic rights. Living in a true Republic is a priviledge I would not like to give up.

The health care bill is legislating "morality." In my view it is forcing us all to take care of those who are sick and cannot afford healthcare. Should we take care of those less fortunate around us? YES! Should everyone have health care? yes!!! Can everyone afford it? No Should the rich or well-to-do be forced by law to pay for someone else's healthcare? I think not.

Again, its wrong to legislate morality. And it never works. The oringinal post wanted to know why LDS people are generally against this new bill. The answer is because most of us understand and value Agency. That doesn't mean we believe that "rule of law" should go away...we do not live in a totaly righteous society. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

:)

[Moksha]

No Should the rich or well-to-do be forced by law to pay for someone else's healthcare? I think not.:)

They need that extra dough to build a very big needle, eh?

So easy to turn a blind eye to the message of Jesus when currency is involved.

[ferretrunner]

Jamie, I think where you're not connecting the dots here is that "we are not a righteous people" so while it is very important to not infringe on Agency it is also important to have things like law enforcement to protect our basic rights. Living in a true Republic is a priviledge I would not like to give up.

The health care bill is legislating "morality." In my view it is forcing us all to take care of those who are sick and cannot afford healthcare. Should we take care of those less fortunate around us? YES! Should everyone have health care? yes!!! Can everyone afford it? No Should the rich or well-to-do be forced by law to pay for someone else's healthcare? I think not.

Again, its wrong to legislate morality. And it never works. The oringinal post wanted to know why LDS people are generally against this new bill. The answer is because most of us understand and value Agency. That doesn't mean we believe that "rule of law" should go away...we do not live in a totaly righteous society. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

:)

Ok, given that position... abortion should remain legal. As it is viewed as a morality issue by the majority of the pro-choice group.

I think sometimes we have to legislate morality. There are people with no conscience or weak self-control. Is murder a moral issue? Theft? Drug use? Where do we draw the line between morality and the safety and well-being of the public? Why should the United States have some of the worst health care availability in the developed world? We have great resources, only people can't pay for them. Is it ok to let someone die of cancer or go bankrupt because they don't have health care?

What are our responsiblities?

[john doe]

They need that extra dough to build a very big needle, eh?

So easy to turn a blind eye to the message of Jesus when currency is involved.

So, how's that class warfare working out for you?

[Jamie123]

Should the rich or well-to-do be forced by law to pay for someone else's healthcare? I think not.

That is one kind of spin you could put on it. Another is that rich and poor alike should pay in proportion to their respective abilities.

I think you and I are going to have to agree to differ on this.

[Moksha]

So, how's that class warfare working out for you?

The rich seem to still be gaining ground and the poor still are slipping.

[Maya]

Luk 16

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham far off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

I believe that if the wealth in this world would be dealt rigiously, there would be no poverity, but there would not be any rich either. Everyone would have what they need. Why should anyone want more than what they need? Why should anyone want a house with 12 rooms if 4 is enough? Why should anyone own a house with 12 rooms if 4 is enough?

Communism tried to do this, but they failed, as it was forced on people. People are greedy they want to own, they want to have what "rigiously" belong to them, what they have earned by hard work while others can not even get a work. People dont care for their neighbour who is in need. Those who donate often do it boasting in order to get a "good image" but WHO has given his/her last coins to help someone... like the poor widow did. She gave her all when paying the titings. Have you ever done that?

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou adeliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28 Take therefore the atalent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Had what? Money? Or could it be generosity, care of other people, dealing with those that dont have? It is amazing how you gain when you give. When you give your talents are atually increasing instead of diminishing.

I have notied that it is harder to give when you are rich. Poor often can deal things between them, but rich keep good eye on what is theirs adn keep the poor away.

On an other hand it is NOT nice to always be on the reieving site never to be able to give back something as valuable. A person who recieves should be able to do somethig of value to pay back. Reieving something without any possibility to pay back is tearing down a personality. A human beeing wants to contribute to the society, pay back what they got. But they also want to do it with dignity and a choise. Some people dont mind cleaning toalets, (after all it is important, that they are clean,) in order to pay back, but some people would rather do somethign else. People hate alms it makes them feel inferior.

People hate not to be able to pay the healthcare them selves, but some people have come in to a situation where they cant afford it many could not do anything for it. These peopel are a thorn in our flesh (not talking about only amerians) we who are well to do people or at least make it from day to day ... obviosly there lies some expetations about us here.

Anyway thanks for helping me to understand the USA politics a bit better. The problems are the same all over the world. The rich are getting richer and poor poorer and the hearts of people will grow cold....

We can make a differnce....

[john doe]

The rich seem to still be gaining ground and the poor still are slipping.

And you honestly think that forcing the rich to give to the poor will help anyone? Other than separating the rich from the rewards of their labors?

[Blackmarch]

Maya, you raise some excellent concerns. I think it was Christ's charge for us to help those in need. Should we not seek to do what is necessary and even more to that end?

Yes but not forcing people to.... I think that was the big stickler, or at least it was at some point. The health care thing hasn't been getting as much attention in the media the last little while so I don't know the current situation is. Edited February 19, 2010 by Blackmarch

[applepansy]

They need that extra dough to build a very big needle, eh?

So easy to turn a blind eye to the message of Jesus when currency is involved.

I agree. And its unfortunate that people in our world today are ignoring what Christ said and commanded.

I BELIEVE that as a people we should do more. I know what some people would consider weathly people who give and give and give. And, some of the stingiest people I've met are "poor". Money itself is not the root of the problem Lack of Righteousness for Righteousness' Sake is the problem.

I just don't believe in giving our Agency away to the government over this issue.

Edited February 19, 2010 by applepansy

[applepansy]

Ok, given that position... abortion should remain legal. As it is viewed as a morality issue by the majority of the pro-choice group.

I think sometimes we have to legislate morality. There are people with no conscience or weak self-control. Is murder a moral issue? Theft? Drug use? Where do we draw the line between morality and the safety and well-being of the public? Why should the United States have some of the worst health care availability in the developed world? We have great resources, only people can't pay for them. Is it ok to let someone die of cancer or go bankrupt because they don't have health care?

What are our responsiblities?

There is a difference between Abortion/Murder and Healthcare.

[applepansy]

And you honestly think that forcing the rich to give to the poor will help anyone? Other than separating the rich from the rewards of their labors?

I would like to add something here John if you don't mind. Its the rich who employ everyone else. They are giving back.

[ferretrunner]

Yes, there is. But, the concept remains the same. It's legislating morality.

What about non-believers? Do they have a responsibility for others in the community as well?

[Blackmarch]

Yes, there is. But, the concept remains the same. It's legislating morality.

What about non-believers? Do they have a responsibility for others in the community as well?

sooner or later for almost every law.. that's what it all boils down to eventually-

Is this or that right or wrong, should it be right or wrong, is it right under certain cricumstances but wrong under others?

Whether it's driving on one side of the road or murder.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Maya]

I just don't believe in giving our Agency away to the government over this issue.

How would one arrange healthcare for those not poos but in between? I dont believe in foring the Taxes to anyone is good ether, nothin forsed is good... not even beeing poor or unemplayed.

[Guest]

Ok, given that position... abortion should remain legal. As it is viewed as a morality issue by the majority of the pro-choice group.

I think sometimes we have to legislate morality. There are people with no conscience or weak self-control. Is murder a moral issue? Theft? Drug use? Where do we draw the line between morality and the safety and well-being of the public? Why should the United States have some of the worst health care availability in the developed world? We have great resources, only people can't pay for them. Is it ok to let someone die of cancer or go bankrupt because they don't have health care?

What are our responsiblities?

Now here is an interesting post worthy of a good respectful discussion.

Okay, again, I haven't read the entire thread. So sorry - I just have a few minutes available and this thread is very interesting to me so I'm just picking and choosing posts. Really sorry if I go off a tangent from ongoing discussion.

There are, in general, 2 opposing views that exists in a representative democratic government. The liberal view (rights of the individual over state) and the conservative view (state culture and tradition over individual).

Please throw out the American definition of the words liberal and conservative for this particular discussion. Let's go back to the CLASSIC definition of both words. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, refer to my post here.

Both of those views, even in opposition, are valid and ethical. It is not that one principle is right while the other principle is wrong. They are both right as a principle of government. So, the question is not whether one is moral while the other is not - the question is which one is better suited for this particular group of people for the betterment of society as a whole?

I am not American, I am Filipino. But the Filipino and American government are fairly similar (after Marcos got ousted). There is an element in Filipino government that is different though in that majority of Filipinos are Catholic. We are a young republic compared to the United States. Our laws are a reflection of our Catholic traditions.

For the Philippines - the law that divorce is illegal is a very conservative principle. It is not legislating morality though. The government is not saying it is immoral to divorce. The Catholic Church does - separation of church and state, remember. But, the people under that law are majority Catholic. Therefore, if some guy in the Philippine senate drafts a bill to make divorce legal, it is very understandable that the liberal principled Filipinos who will side with the bill will cry to their opponents - You conservative people are trying to legislate morality! But, if you really think about it, this is not the case.

The reason why the Philippine government made divorce illegal is because they do not want to have to legislate the welfare of the children. It is more practical than moral. They do not want to have to write legislation to determine who pays for what, who gets to own what, who gets to pay for children's clothing, education, food, shelter, etc. etc. etc., and have court battles to determine how to interpret the law to one particular divorce case. But, of course, the general public doesn't really think of things that way - all they think about is - are we following God's plan? Which is completely valid, but has no place in politics.

Murder, theft, abortion... all that, are not moral issues as far as government is concerned. They are social issues. A lot of times moral issues and social issues go hand-in-hand because, in general, Americans are a moral people. But, you cannot say that the government legislated against murder because murder is immoral. I don't agree with that. It is more appropriate to say that the government legislated against murder because the government defines life as a basic human right. If the government legislated against murder because it is immoral to take one's life, they would not make a law instituting capital punishment. God as surely never stated in the 10 commandments that Thou Shalt Not Kill unless found guilty. The government legislated for capital punishment because once you commit a crime you relinquish your basic human rights to life, liberty, and property. Nothing to do with morality.

So, when we talk about government and laws and law enforcement, and fire rescue, and theft and murder and abortion and healthcare in a political discussion, it is best to rid ourselves of the notion that government is legislating morality. Nope. Cannot happen. Should not happen. It is dangerous to make it happen. Because, in a representative democracy, we do not want the government dictating what is moral or not - we want the SOCIETY to decide that.

Hope this post makes some sense.

Edited February 19, 2010 by anatess

[Guest]

I split this out from the above post to make my postings easier to read....

So, when we talk about Healthcare as a government provided function of society - we should not decide whether it is a good idea or a bad idea because it is what is moral. You should think of it as - what would be good for the betterment of American society? This is true for all other social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. etc.

Just like my example of divorce being illegal in the Philippines - you have to think - if we want national healthcare, you better be sure you take into consideration all the impacts that has. Just like if you draft a bill to make divorce legal in the Philippines, you better make sure you have sufficiently thought of what to do about children, joint property, etc. etc. This is what is currently lacking in the national healthcare bill in the senate. It completely misses the boat on providing people a comfortable understanding of how this thing is all going to work out and how it impacts American society! Therefore, this bill cannot stand as it is written right now. And whether you are liberal or conservative you should study it more before putting your name on the FOR IT or AGAINST IT hat. Not to decide whether it is moral or immoral or what Jesus says about taking care of our brothers - but to determine if it is a worthwhile government function!

In the UK/Australia/Canada/etc. they have national healthcare. It works for them. It works, not because it is moral, but because their society is culturally in tune with it. They have lifestyles that support the reason for its existence. In America - we don't know if it will work. We are a different cultured people. No, we're not saying we are immoral people so we don't want it... That is an argument founded on naivete of the role of government in society.

American tradition is UNIQUE in the world. Even Filipinos who patterend their government using American standards is not the same as America. America is good only for Americans. You cannot say - oh, it works in the UK, it should work in America. Nope. Americans are different than British people. In America, individual achievement and reward has ALWAYS been the tradition. It is what made America the GREATEST country - and I can say that as a fact, not just rhetoric. Go back to your history books and research the answer to this question - Why is America the world leader today? You will find out what I found out while I was studying government closely. The American spirit that is brandied about worldwide is what makes America great - and that spirit is comprised of American enterpreneurship. This is why government provided healthcare is a giant discussion. It is not between moral or immoral. It is what impact government healthcare has to the American spirit.

This post I made here does not in any way say government healthcare is bad or good for America. There are reasons why it is bad, there are reasons why it is good. Both valid and ethical. The same way that being conservative and liberal, although in opposition, are both valid and ethical. Maybe the American culture has shifted so much that national healthcare is viable now. Maybe it hasn't and it is still not viable. That's why we are in debate on this issue.

But don't come into the discussion saying - WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? That has no place in this debate. The answer to that is not the goal of politics. Also, don't come into the discussion saying - But, it works in Britain - and even worse - see! British NHS is terrible! - it is a disservice and disrespect to our friends across the big pond. Remember - we are America. Not Britain. What works for Britain does not necessarily mean it will work in America and, on the other side of the coin, what doesn't work in Britain does not necessarily mean it will not work in America. And even worse than that - do not come into this discussion saying that America has the worst healthcare in the world. That is not fact - and even if it has things left to be desired, it is not the worst healthcare in the world - go to the Philippines. You'll see what I mean. And even if Philippine healthcare is not what I would want it to be, you will never hear me say Philippine heatlhcare is the worst in the world! Hey, it may be worst to you, but for the Filipinos, it works the best! Remember, what you think is good for Britain/America/etc may not necessarily mean it will work in the Philippines.

Maya - hope this answers your question sufficiently as well.

Edited February 19, 2010 by anatess

[boyando]

So, when we talk about government and laws and law enforcement, and fire rescue, and theft and murder and abortion and healthcare in a political discussion, it is best to rid ourselves of the notion that government should legislate morality. Nope. Cannot happen. Should not happen. It is dangerous to make it happen. Because, in a representative democracy, we do not want the government dictating what is moral or not - we want the SOCIETY to decide that.

Hope this post makes some sense.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are trying to say that, in a representative government, the laws should be a reflection of the morals of the majority of it's people. I agree, as long as those laws do not trample on the rights of the individual.

The problem here in the US, is the same problem all over the world. People want power to decide what other people should do. People want to tell you how you should think. What car to drive. Were you should live. What you should eat. The list goes on and on.

Here in the US, these people often seek this power, via the government. And we often give them that power, if we "think" it is for a good cause. So what happens when the rights of the individual are superseded by the desires of the minority, in what they consider a good cause, combined with those who seek power. I think we are seeing what happens, right now. Disaster.

In every health care bill that came out, there was always the provision that the individual could keep there currant provider, if they wished. But if you looked through any of the two thousand paged bills, you would see that the intention of these bills was to regulate private insurance, out of existence. In this case, the minority who believe that the government should be the sole provider of health care, decided that trickery was OK, as long as there goals were achieved.

I think you can safely say that this is a case of the government trying to provide the morals for society and not the other ways around.

b