Quantcast

Comments about ‘John Florez: Health care reform requires moral leadership’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Nov. 23 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Our failure to provide health care to all is a moral one. All the lecturing I get on the morality of this, that and the other is just blatant hypocrisy if we can overlook health care at the same time.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Great points by Florez, but unfortunately I think they'll fall on deaf ears.

Utah Republicans have no interest in helping others via any kind of government program, set of regulations, hybrid public-private partnership, whatever.

It's a very odd place we find ourselves, but it doesn't take much to imagine a dramatically different environment, with nearly identical programs.

Let's say Hillary Clinton beat Obama to be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, and then beat John McCain to become the first woman president, and revived her "HillaryCare" single payer healthcare reform idea.

Republicans and many others would have reacted vigorously, which may very well have led to a Romney election in 2012, on the backs of an alternative, market-based healthcare reform, "RomneyCare", successfully pioneered by a Republican governor in a Democratic state.

Instead, Obama won, and implemented a nearly identical healthcare reform to what Romney had done in Massachusetts, but Republicans feel like it's Stalinism, freedom is dead, Obama is Hugo Chavez, etc.

Republicans gripe this is the first step toward a single payer system, but in Massachusetts they're happy and proud of RomneyCare.

Sore losers, on steroids.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

I would rather my tax dollars go to help Americans get healthcare….

than $4 trillion dollars go to the war in Iraq based on falsehoods.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Perhaps Mr. Florez could help solve the problem if he opened his wallet to those who need assistance and then campaigned to encourage others to open their wallets. Charity is not a duty of the State. Government has no authority to force charity on its citizens. Good people don't need to be forced to do good; they simply need to be made aware of the need to help.

Government cannot make us "good" by using force. The use of "force" was voted down long before we were born. Instead of "force", we were given "agency" and "accountability". Each of us will be held accountable for our thoughts and actions and we will be held accountable if we encouraged anyone, including the government, to take away agency by "forcing" people to be "good".

David
Centerville, UT

We must care for our neighbors. What does that mean?

The Good Samaritan parable, as taught be Christ, would illustrate that we help the needy by assisting with their health and food. But on the other hand, King Benjamin taught that we cannot run faster than we are able, illustrating that we cannot do all things for all people. There must be a balance.

So where is that balance?

And do we, as a nation, have sufficient funds to afford additional programs when we are spending over $220 billion on interest, due to debt? It is projected that by 2020 we could be spending $1 Trillion on interest alone. That is money that could benefit a lot of people.

There is a balance required, but I don't feel we have reached a good balance yet.

I feel it would be better to achieve control over our spending first, and then we will be better-positioned to help the needy. Otherwise, we'll all be sinking together, and eventually unable to help anyone.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

David and Mike:

Presumably you two are also opposed to the use of US military resources in assisting the victims of the typhoon in the Phillipines, since those resources are being used for charitable purposes, using funding obtained by force by the US government, and since we're already in debt, we can't afford it.

Please explain.

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Re:MikeRichards
"Government cannot make us "good" by using force."

Right!
That's why we have no laws against murder, rape, robbery, arson, etc.

Where do you donate to the 123,000 in UT who don't have medical insurance? Maybe you can enlighten us.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

1aggie:

I'm also a little dumbfounded at why there apparently exists no comprehensive system to align those with healthcare needs with what would appear a large, untapped reservoir of charitable individuals who are ready, willing and able to fund those needs.

Are the charitable unaware that people need help? How could this "care deficit" prevail in a society for so long, with so many with disposable income ready to contribute?

I suspect that expansive bullietin boards in churches with the needs of thousands would quickly result in compassion fatigue, and probably a tacit resignation that the sick and needy deserve their plight.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

without knowing for sure, and considering what I generally see on a consistent basis from the "do-Gooder" set, I would be willing to surmise that Mr. Flores lives in a really nice house and lives on an income far above the people he wants to help and yet his contribution will most likely be just words, while the rest of society is expected to bare the cost of such plans. it really is about time for the "do-Gooder" set to show us all by example how this is supposed to work. In fact, I would find his words much more profound if he was the first to contribute.

David
Centerville, UT

10cc,

There is a difference between helping those who survived a tragedy in the Philippines, and introducing a new program that will run indefinitely. In one case the event is short. The help will be gratefully received but of short duration. The other (a new government program) will add billions and even trillions in new spending.

The LDS church extends charitable help. The policy is online. My understanding is that help from the LDS church is given after other resources are exhausted, and is of a short duration. Long-term help is not generally provided. The goal is to provide help that will assist the needy to get their feet under them and aid them towards independence again. The goal of the new government program is to provide indefinite help, thus ensuring dependence.

One method is the way of God. The other is the way of poor governance.

Mr. Bean
Phoenix, AZ

@10CC:
"Republicans gripe this is the first step toward a single payer system, but in Massachusetts they're happy and proud of RomneyCare."

Healthcare via health insurance is not the function of the federal government. These matters are to be left to the state per the US Constitution Amendment X. Massachusetts government healthcare under Romney did just fine. Other states can follow suit if they're willing.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments