@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.