- Status
T
TenBobNote
Guest
It starts to be a moral question because when the federal government does not follow the highest law of the land you have to question the morality of that federal government.
M
markomalley
Guest
Now that is a good point.
C
convertedmom
Guest
Hi. I think your question is more appropriately phrased, “Is it moral to force people to buy health insurance?” My answer is, it is not moral to force people to buy health insurance. I am not saying that the health system in the US is perfect. It needs certain reforms…reforms that can be individually legislated without a full government take-over. Forcing people to purchase a good or service (including health insurance) is called Socialism. What is happening to this nation? God Help Us!
M
markomalley
Guest
Well, actually, socialism is where the government owns the means of production. That wasn’t activated (except by the poor sods who advocated for the “public option” – and eventual elimination of the 'option")
This would be more accurately considered a fascist (or more precisely a dirigiste system)
M
mariediana
Guest
First of all, we have to understand how we got where we are. Insurance and drugs were so much more affordable before lawyers became invovled. If we don’t get tort reform, we’re going to be bankrupt. Why do you think insurance companies have started raising rates and refusing policies to those with a history? Why do you think doctors have to run so many unnecessary tests? Because they have to pay through the nose in court - to the tune of millions of dollars, 1/3 of which (after expenses) goes intot he pockets of the lawyers. MILLIONS of dollars! Why wasn’t tort reform addressed? The reason that such huge settlements are made is that juries think of insurance companies and drug companies as endless sources of wealth - so the settlements are enormous. They forget that people make their livings through insurance companies and drug companies. I wonder if they know how many people have lost their jobs because of these enormous settlements. These lawyers, like John Edwards, have made their livings off the sorrows of others. They pretend such compassion for these “victims,” but if they were really compassionate, they wouldn’t keep almost half of what is awarded to them. We need to wake up. Badger your congressman for tort reform. The problem with that is, though, most of them are lawyers. I wonder if we’ll get this figured out before we do indeed bankrupt ourselves.
And, yes, it IS immoral to be forced to pay for health care which allows abortions.
And, yes, it IS immoral to be forced to pay for health care which allows abortions.
C
CPA2
Guest
Coerced charity is just disguised theft.
M
mariediana
Guest
Exactly. If I had a favorite charity and forced you to contribute to it at the point of a gun, what’s the difference? The government is doing the same to us.
F
Fidelis_Unus
Guest
“Legal and moral to force”: Sound like a representative government to you? It sure doesn’t to me.
The Catholic Church DOES NOT support forcing people to purchase health care. To state this grossly misrepresents the Church Teaching. Our Church supports providing healthcare to people and there are other, far more just ways of doing so.
F
Fidelis_Unus
Guest
P
peter_banks
Guest
I find it interesting that the original poster has been really answering their own question. The intent doesn’t seem to be to receive an answer by the original poster of this question, but to argue his/her point that doctors are charlatans, etc.
Is it moral to force people to buy health care? It depends on a lot of things I believe. Is that health care affordable to even the poorest of poor?
Does the poster buy car insurance as required? Is that moral to force people to buy car insurance? If the poster is in an accident and needs medical care, who will pay for that medical care? I think there’s a lot to the question of whether it’s moral to force people to buy health care.
We are obliged to follow legitimate man-made laws.
Is it moral to force people to buy health care? It depends on a lot of things I believe. Is that health care affordable to even the poorest of poor?
Does the poster buy car insurance as required? Is that moral to force people to buy car insurance? If the poster is in an accident and needs medical care, who will pay for that medical care? I think there’s a lot to the question of whether it’s moral to force people to buy health care.
We are obliged to follow legitimate man-made laws.
J
jdwood983
Guest
I’m with Ted Nugent on this one: we need to vote every single one of those pigs out of the office.
I don’t think it’s immoral to force people to buy health care, just highly unethical.
I don’t think it’s immoral to force people to buy health care, just highly unethical.
J
jaxster
Guest
Is it moral to force people to do anythig? Free will, gone. Let’s force people to pray to idols…oops, that’s been tried.
M
mamaharper
Guest
Jesus paid taxes.
"The Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk.
They sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and teach the way of God in truth, no matter who you teach, for you aren’t partial to anyone.
Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test me, you hypocrites?
Show me the tax money." They brought to him a denarius [coin].
He asked them, “Whose is this image and inscription?”
They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” - Matthew 22:15-21
"The Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk.
They sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and teach the way of God in truth, no matter who you teach, for you aren’t partial to anyone.
Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test me, you hypocrites?
Show me the tax money." They brought to him a denarius [coin].
He asked them, “Whose is this image and inscription?”
They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” - Matthew 22:15-21
D
DennyO
Guest
I am fairly certain that over the millennia since taxes were first levied, people have felt many uses of them to be unjust, in that they do not see a benefit from them.
But a society by nature has to serve the common good, and the limits of the government power are detailed by a constitution. But the constitution does not demand that each and every person benefit from a tax or other demands on an individual, such as military conscription. Some may argue that the health reform is not constitutional. In fact several states are taking that position and will be asserting such to the courts.
If the legislators who voted for the reform bill and the president who signed that bill believed by their conscience that it was outside the constitution, then I would say the law was immoral.
Nor do I think one can look at the scope of government at the time of the Constitution’s signing and say that that scope could never have been enlarged. If so, would past generations have provided roads, bridges, schools and canals by government authority? Or authority over telecommunications? The constitution does provide for government to provide for the common welfare. Even if you do not have kids you benefit by having a new generation educated so they can provide services yo will need in the future. Even if you do not drive, your city benefits from having a bridge that cuts the commute time for a large number of people by ten minutes each day.
All these are socialist in the broader sense. Even if we do not like the word socialism, in a sense all nations have varying degrees of socialist institutions publicly funded.
But a society by nature has to serve the common good, and the limits of the government power are detailed by a constitution. But the constitution does not demand that each and every person benefit from a tax or other demands on an individual, such as military conscription. Some may argue that the health reform is not constitutional. In fact several states are taking that position and will be asserting such to the courts.
If the legislators who voted for the reform bill and the president who signed that bill believed by their conscience that it was outside the constitution, then I would say the law was immoral.
Nor do I think one can look at the scope of government at the time of the Constitution’s signing and say that that scope could never have been enlarged. If so, would past generations have provided roads, bridges, schools and canals by government authority? Or authority over telecommunications? The constitution does provide for government to provide for the common welfare. Even if you do not have kids you benefit by having a new generation educated so they can provide services yo will need in the future. Even if you do not drive, your city benefits from having a bridge that cuts the commute time for a large number of people by ten minutes each day.
All these are socialist in the broader sense. Even if we do not like the word socialism, in a sense all nations have varying degrees of socialist institutions publicly funded.
R
rpp
Guest
My “Ignore list” has been updated.
R
rpp
Guest
There is so much I could say here based on your false assumption, but I will refrain.
I will add that, as I know you are well aware, if I had really added YOU ( as you asserted) that I had added you to my ignore list, you would not e able to send me PMs.
I will add you really need to start checking you spelling and grammar. I realizr this was a longer post than usual for you at three sentences, but really, your frequent errors make it tough to figure out what you are saying.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Those are known in this day and age as typos, which Ill admit I do make many. When I make comments on others here they are based on what I read in the past. When someone comments on what I post in threads here, I go and read comments they have made on similer issues in the past. I am also well aware of my style of posting too. I have the ability to both expand on a subject most would post a line or 2 on and make it 100’s of words or do the direct opposite. I was just responding to the post you made. If you don’t like my “off the beaten path” outlook on life all I can say is too bad. In the history of humanity free spirits are often misunderstood. How free of a spirit am I ? In CAF forums Ive been called both a liberal and a conservative crybaby. It’s right vs wrong , not right vs left in my eyes. I may e wrong but it seems Iv’e gotten under your skin a bit. Are you affraid of something?
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Um…boys, play nice and remain on topic.
- Status