Posted on 02/25/2011 6:47:06 AM PST by stillafreemind
Is this the first hint at the "death panels" so many feared would be a part of Obamacare? Will a 20 year old who has kidney disease AND heart problems be knocked lower on the list than a 25 year old that only needs the kidney transplant? Will they look at the 25 year old and say they can earn more and pay the government more than the 20 year old?
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
The Kelo decision, writ large.
Gosh!!! Maybe Sarah is not as dumb as they say! [/s]
Death panels at your service.Sarah was right after-all.
But in the modern era, the Left has turned government into an earthly god. Now, all the decisions are based on one thing: "Does this help the government?"
I agree. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
But if, however, you are over 50 but happen to have a couple hundred million in your brokerage account....
Posts like yours are why I read FR!
"Government Control!!! ????
Hell, back in 1990, the US Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it… They failed and it closed. Now, we are trusting the economy of our country, the school loan program, our banking system, our auto industry and our health plans to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling whiskey?!"
"What the Heck are we thinking??"
“There was a higher power which guided our moral decisions. The question was: “Is this pleasing to God?”
But in the modern era, the Left has turned government into an earthly god. Now, all the decisions are based on one thing: “Does this help the government?””
There are a few of holes in your reasoning.
#1. You are not arguing morality - is it more moral to take someone elses hard work and treasure to pay for a kidney transplant for person A, or person B?
I reason that if you want to make the moral argument for choosing A or B (or not make that choice) that is fine, but you still have to confront taking from one person and giving to another.
#2. You are not addressing WHY are resources constrained so that both person A and person B can get needed transplants?
Why does a transplant cost as much as it does - and is the cost moral, and when does a cost become moral or immoral - or is there no cost too high that affects morality?
#3. Nobody is preventing Person A or Person B from paying for a transplant themselves, if they want to.
While there is no doubt a judgment to be made on declining morality and government’s role in this decline - this isn’t the best argument in my opinion
In a free market economy, people buy insurance and receive the level of health care for which they pay. Poor people might get help from charities, but there is a recognition that not everyone can get everything. Some people get a better deal, and this comes in part in return for being a productive (rich) member of society. I don't think anyone has ever figured about a better way to distribute scarce goods and satisfy the basic law of supply and demand.
In short: your level of health care is mostly dependent on you. I consider this moral.
In the new world, it's all about government. You're not going to shop around for health care. Your ability to pay for health care is irrelevant. There are rules to be followed. Government bureaucrats will decide what you get. It's all about what will help the government. People over 50? No kidney transplant for them. The guy at the desk says it hurts the bottomline.
I consider this immoral.
I think I got a knee-jerk reaction from you because I mentioned God. You probably decided that I was wrong as soon as you saw that. My real point is that we have moved toward a centralized, government-controlled system in which we increasingly see Person A take money from person B so that person C can get a kidney transplant (but person D isn't so lucky). My point is that I disapprove of that.
“I think I got a knee-jerk reaction from you because I mentioned God. You probably decided that I was wrong as soon as you saw that.”
I was attempting to have a reasoned debate with you, in case you didn’t notice (and you didn’t). There was no knee-jerk on my end, only on yours on the inexplicable comment above.
If you want to discuss the merits/demerits of your or my argument, fine, but you are going to have to quit being so defensive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.