I’m not sure about that. Not to side-track the thread, but if you had taken a poll in WW-II era Germany, most of the people would have said that they thought the resettlement of the Jews was the best for all involved. Even the internment of the Japanese-Americans would have been considered the best for all involved since it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Hence, by your definition, they would have been a Christian position.
You should not take my comment to mean I believe that we can do anything at all so long as our intentions are pure; I certainly wasn’t implying that the ends justify the means. There are certain things we may not do but within those limits we are free to reach our own conclusions and prefer our own solutions. Regarding the health care act we, as Christians, may morally support or oppose it. That doesn’t mean that at least one side won’t be terribly wrong but as I said before, it isn’t immoral to be mistaken.
It would be in view of the record.
I really think it is inappropriate to try to morally condemn error. Simple charity obliges us to interpret the words and actions of others in as positive a light as possible so the very last interpretation we should apply is that a person’s choices represent immoral behavior. It is much more charitable to assume others are misinformed, uninformed, ignorant, or yes even stupid, before we conclude they are evil.
Wasting valuable resources is immoral, especially when they are used to buy votes…
So how close to totalitarianism should we be going? Tell me. Where do we draw the line? What human rights are optional and that we should surrender to the State? I don’t worship the government so I am having trouble understanding why we should surrender more rights to the state.
Is Anarchism something you are fond of? Because what you said now could be seen as an argument for Anarchism, an opinion not many in the Church think is correct.
If you are a man born around 1940, you were not expected to live long enough to collect any benefits. IOW, you were expected to die at the switch.
Personally, I think we crossed the line sometime in the 1960s when peoples’ attitudes changed from wanting to make a contribution to society to one of entitlement. The military draft is a good example. Anti-draft demonstrators took to the streets demanding an end to an immoral war; but when the draft was eliminated, the anti-war protests evaporated.
The state is not some Santa Clause with magical powers to provide for everyone’s wants and needs. It has no money that it doesn’t get from the people.
That Medicare is a good deal for you says nothing about whether it is a good deal for all those who have to take care of themselves and their families … as well as pay for your medical coverage. Are you really unaware that your benefits come at someone else’s expense?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with benefits coming at someone else’s expense. That is the principle unlying the concept of insurance. Those that are lucky enough not to need the benefits pay for those that do. The injustice of it, if there is injustice, would come from a situation where someone’s chances of needing the benefits are not commensurate with the premium they pay. And you might make such an argument in the case of Medicare by pointing out that those who smoke pay the same premium as those who do not smoke, yet they stand a higher chance of using Medicare benefits. But the case for injustice is not as obvious as you implied.
I think Bob’s concern, and mine as well, is that when you grant a government the ability to provide care to anyone on their dime you implicitly give that same government the right to dictate to you and everyone how you live your life, because any resulting health issues resulting from decisions that you make that government has to pay for. That is the logical consequence of socialized care, the same as care rationing based on cost-benefit analysis and denial of proceedures based on arbitrary criteria. Aside from all this is tthe fact that the law itself is utterly unconstitutional because the government cannot force you to buy anything, especially when the product is being sold by that very same government.
The principle underlying the concept of insurance is shared risk. The principle underlying Medicare is you pay my expenses today and hope that someone else can pay your expenses in the future. We share nothing at all. Beyond that, all other forms of insurance are purchased at the discretion of the consumer. There is no choice with Medicare: you pay my costs whether you choose to or not. I am a little less inclined to find nothing wrong in forcing person A to pay for benefits enjoyed by person B.
I think you must be unaware that much of this comes at our expense. My husband and I paid almost $2500 for our Part B Medicare premiums last year. This is in addition to our supplementary medical and dental insurance, which came to almost $3400. This adds up to almost $5900 that we paid for out of our own pockets. This is a lot of money when you’re living on Social Security and a small pension. I think that you’re not considering all of the years and years that my husband and I worked our tails off, paying into the system so that our parents’ generation was able to enjoy Medicare. That, also, was a gift from God. I think that both we and our late parents would have been living on the street if their medical bills had to be paid out of their pockets or ours. I also sincerely hope that this coverage will be there for the younger generation.
Is that true, or is he just realizing a return on his investment?
