We don't actually let those concepts of caring for one another or general
welfare get in the way of our own interests first. And we're really good at
letting ourselves off the hook for it.
Does Mr. Florez think that government should take the place of religion? Does
he believe that the State should establish a church? Does he believe that
Congress should be our Bishops, Priests or Pastors? Does he think that
government power and authority should be used to provide "charity"?The function of government is NOT to provide personal welfare. Personal
welfare is a responsibility left to the individual. Nothing in the Consitution
authorizes payments from government for food, clothing, housing or medical
bills. The 10th Amendment clearly passes all non-authorized duties to the
States or to the people.If Mr. Florez is concerned about his
neighbor, he can personally assist his neighbor. He can encourage others to
assist their neighbors, but he cannot expect government to break the law to
assist his neighbors.Passing the buck is a favorite pastime for many
people who think that government should be our nanny. Americans should be
better than that. We pay taxes for the common welfare but we open our own
wallets to pay for personal welfare - our personal welfare and our
neighbor's personal welfare.
Your correct it is a moral dilemma... for most.
@mike richards. You missed florez's entire point. How can our state leaders
say we can not afford to help poor people but then turn around and go into debt
to move a perfectly good prison so wealthy developers can make money. Mr. Florez
is right that it is a moral dilemma. As far as being a nanny, the
state of Utah is the biggest one unless you are a member of a certain church.
Excellent editorial, John. Yes, it is a moral dilemma, for those who are willing
to look beyond their rigid ideology to see the larger moral terrain that should
define that ideology. Those who claim that charities (primarily
religions) should take care of our needy neighbors are not dealing with reality.
Charities cannot come close to providing health care for those who are too poor
to afford it (or who are excluded by the system). Technology has made the cost
prohibitive. And now even businesses are finding it too expensive. The only
reasonable way to provide health care for everyone who needs it is to allow
government to be involved. Every other industrialized county on earth sees this
(and sees the moral dilemma some of us cannot). We are apparently alone in our
blindness to basic morality.In our fear of socialized medicine, we
fail to see that we already have socialized medicine (a system that spreads the
cost over a large body of payers). We call it health insurance. It excludes a
large portion of the population, but it operates on the same principle as
single-payer systems do.
@ Shaun,Did you actually read Mr. Florez's article? His lead
sentence said, "Why is it we can find money for highways, buildings and
prisons but we can't find money to help poor people with health care?
It's a moral dilemma triggered by our changing times."From
what I understand, he would like someone else to pay for your healthcare. He
would like to pass that personal burden to others. Some people tell
us that everyone deserves health insurance. They haven't stopped to think
about health insurance. Health insurance is the problem, not the solution. Ask
any doctor. Ask him to tell you what an office visit should cost. It costs a
whole lot more than the $20 that most people pay. They know that they
can't buy a tank of gas for twice that amount, but they think that they
should have health care for $20 or free. If people had to pay all
non-major-medical care from their own pockets, costs would drastically be
reduced. Supply and demand would set the price, not the government and not an
insurance company. Governmnet needs to protect us from criminals,
not wipe our noses.
The Catholic Church agrees with you Mr. Florez. "In our Catholic
tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not
depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person
lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a
right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including
affordable, quality health care. This teaching is rooted in the biblical call to
heal the sick and to serve "the least of these," our concern for human
life and dignity, and the principle of the common good. Unfortunately, tens of
millions of Americans do not have health insurance. According to the Catholic
bishops of the United States, the current health care system is in need of
fundamental reform."(U.S. Conf of Catholic Bishops)April
2012:"The USCCB is criticizing the House Republican budget
authored by Ryan for cutting food stamps and other assistance programs for the
poor.In a letter sent to the House Agriculture Committee the bishops say
the budget fails to meet certain “moral criteria” by
disproportionately cutting programs that “serve poor and vulnerable
We live in a holistically oriented World, the Sun provides the heat for Mother
Earth, Mother Earth provides soil and nutrients, the rain and snow provide the
water, they must work in harmony with each other to provide us with things that
we need to live. Education, healthcare, economic development (providing jobs),
and growing food must be treated equally in order to be in harmony with each
other. If we don't take care of our people, they get sick and we lose our
workforce (critical element)and this has a domino effect, unfortunately, we are
in this together, no one is above the other.
@Roger TerrySo you say "Technology has made the cost
prohibitive". I assume you mean that the cost of technological advances in
health care are part of what is making it prohibitive?Let me ask you
this, since when does everyone have a right to something just because it exists?
Just because there are new advancements in health care that are brought on by
technology why is it that everyone all of a sudden has the right to receive
it?Certainly a shallow approach to it is that "if this
technology can save someones life then they should have the right to have
it" but why is that? Does everyone have the right to a flat screen tv? How
about a high pixel camera? Does everyone also have the right all the latest
technologies in the rest of their lives?I find it interesting how
some seem to believe that healthcare is somehow a "right" and any
advancement, any drug, and care, that is available people should have a right to
just because those people exist. Yes I understand we have inconsistencies in the
things our government spends money on but one more thing doesn't make it
@Roger Terry "[Health insurance] operates on the same principle as
single-payer systems do."No, it doesn't. Insurance is a
voluntary arrangement (or it used to be, before Obamacare came along.)
Government systems force compliance through fines and imprisonment. The
difference in principle is individual liberty versus state coercion.
There is no concern of morality in private enterprise business or in the
government that is owned and operated by private enterprise. Private
enterprise business exists to enrich the owner managers and only performs
service to the society as necessary to maintain their position. When private
enterprise controls the government the same agenda is followed. If
medical care was paid through the national government like highway funds, the
businessmen of the medical industry would lose their freedom to perform and sell
bogus and useless medical care. Conversely if the highways were handled
in the same manner as medical care, it is very unlikely we would have any. The rule is that if the preferred action is that which produces the most
profit for private enterprise.
@Mike Richards. Most health insurance plans have yearly deductibles before the
insurance and the co pay actually kick in. So I imagine most people know what it
cost for a simple doctor office visit.Besides its the major health
related issues that actually drive up the cost. Not simple visits to your family
doctor.And healthcare is not a true functioning market. To be a true
market you have to have the option to buy something or not buy something. If i
want a computer i can shop around for the best one that fits my needs. I can
also choose not to buy one if it is too expensive. If I have cancer or diabetes
or whatever, i may be able to put it off for a while but eventually I will need
some kind of care unless I want to die sooner than later.
Duckhunter,Technology is one of many factors that make health care
prohibitively expensive for almost anyone facing a serious health crisis. Mr.
Florez's point, though, is that health care is indeed a moral issue. Owning
a flat-screen TV is not, which makes your comparison irrelevant.And
yes, if we do determine that health care is a human right, which, by the way, we
have (this is why emergency rooms cannot turn the poor away), then we do have a
right to receive 21st-century treatment, not 1950s treatment, which would be
less technologically sophisticated. I can't very well go to an emergency
room with severe burn and ask to receive the cheaper, less advanced treatment
that would have been available to my grandparents. I'm sure if you were
dirt poor and were hit by a car, you would certainly hope that health care was a
right.And Nate, what I meant by operating on the same principle is
spreading the costs over a large population, which I believe I said. Of course
insurance is voluntary (in part, though, since some "volunteers" are
I agree with Mr. Florez.I feel that Health Care should be a right to
US Citizens.As long as we have U.S. Citizens who are unable to get
the health care that they need to to economic reasons we have no right to give
away money over seas to foreign governments.I speak specifically of
the middle east, Egypt and Israel.Americans need to come first.
Face it. There is virtually NO morality of any kind among our GOP leadership.
It's incredible that anyone could write something like this: "From what
I understand, he would like someone else to pay for your healthcare. He would
like to pass that personal burden to others."Where has the
author of those words been? Doesn't he know that ACA is an attempt to make
most Americans RESPONSIBLE for paying for their own health care? Doesn't
he realize that our present system to socialized medicine in which those who
have insurance are paying for those who don't?Ludicrous!
Continually overhear people criticizing minorities and those of lesser economic
status as if they do not belong. It is strange to hear the well to do, healthy,
strong, and prominant of our society act is such a way.Could their parents
have felt the same? Did they grow up hearing this negative, selfish way of
looking at life? Have they never learned to try to understand what hardships
others continually deal with on a daily basis?Have they never felt the
warmness in their heart when helping those who need assistance?Why are so
many people feeling threatened by "others", as they refer to them,
being able to have healthcare?
The question is "Should health care be a right guaranteed and protected by
the government (under The Necessary and Proper clause found in Article 1 Section
8 of the Constitution)? If we say yes, then tell me how do we pay for it? It
will be a "new" protection. I have no,problem with that. Protections and
guarantees under the Constitution have expanded and evolved over our
nation's 200 year history. Just tell me how we as a nation pays for this.
No one wants their taxes raised but we say we want to provide health care for
all. Tell me how we do this.
@thornbirdsNo one is "feeling threatened by "others", as
they refer to them, being able to have healthcare?" as you so duplicitly put
it. What we "feel threatened" by is being robbed of our own hard earned
funds by people such as yourself to assuage your guilt over this. The principle
here is simple and it is just.No one has the right to anything of
mine that I do not willingly give to them. It is as simple as that.
You voting for someone to be able to have what is mine is immoral. That is the
immorality on display here. Freedom, liberty, and personal
accountability have become relics in the minds of many, they now favor forced
participation and legalized thievery to accomplish thier ends.
Re: "Governmnet needs to protect us from criminals, not wipe our
noses.""To provide employment for the poor, and support for
the indigent, is among the primary, and, at the same time, not least difficult
cares of the public authority. In very populous Countries, the task is
particularly arduous. In our favored Country, where employment and food are much
less subject to failures or deficiencies, the interposition of the public
guardianship is required in a far more limited degree. Some degree of
interposition, nevertheless, is at all times and every where called for." -
James Madison, letter to Rev. F. C. Schaeffer, Jan. 8, 1820.
"Why is it we can find money for highways, buildings and prisons but we
can't find money to help poor people with health care?"The
answer is quite simple... Highways, buildings, prisons, provide for the general
welfare... Which is authorized in the US Constitution.Government
provided healthcare, such as Obamacare, is not 'general welfare.'
It's specific welfare. It's the job of the several states to provide
specific welfare if they so desire.
Pouring trillions into an unworkable program is not a moral dilemma - it is
fiscal insanity or suicide and that is where America is steaming toward. Instead
of using common sense laws to solve health care we instead adopt socialism and
call it the affordable care act when it is anything BUT affordable for anyone
including the poor. Go figure.
@Roger Terry "[W]hat I meant by operating on the same principle is spreading
the costs over a large population...."I don't object to
cost sharing. Only let me enter into into it freely, and not be forced into it
by the state. My objection to socialism rests on that distinction. Don't
try to pretend that they are the same thing.
I agree that we owe it to our neighbor who is without health care, and cannot
get it on his own, to provide a viable pathway to receiving it. This was the
basic premise of Medicaide, but Obamacare isn't like Medicaide. We should
have simply expanded Medicaide and raised federal taxes accordingly. The next
best thing would have been to introduce a single-payer solution. What we have
instead is a very complex system which will not work, either economically or