That could be and I'm sorry if I have misunderstood. I just know that the premise and driving principle behind Obamacare is that health care is a moral right.
I also said there is nothing inherently immoral about the government providing health care. As I mentioned, I am a military retiree after 24 years service, and I have been part of a government health plan for decades.
From a moral standpoint I would agree with Marlowe and say that your healthcare is different because it was well earned. The people have collectively and correctly decided that part of our moral debt to you for your patriotic service in protection of our freedoms is healthcare for you. I consider that different from an unearned and unlimited right to healthcare at the forced expense of taxpayers.
P-Marlowe pointed out that I earned that health care, and I agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a government sponsored health plan.
It makes all the difference in the world. Gov't health plans are normally funded by confiscating money from the people. That can be moral if it is in exchange for something, but if not then it cannot be said to be in protection of a right. I would not say it is immoral for a government to run a healthcare program per se if it did not rely on stealing to fund it. I would just say it is improper for our government to do that since that is not a purpose of our government. An Amendment to our Constitution could change that, but that is what it would take.
What we object to is an addition to the welfare program, and that is what Obamacare is. Rightly, Marlowe points out that a man should have to work to provide sustenance for himself and his family. Those are all principles with which I agree.
Then you appear to be saying that healthcare is a right that should not be protected by the government. I am confused. :)
That is why I purposely stated above that a vibrant economy with real jobs is the best government health plan. For some reason, no one seems to read those comments.
Everyone agrees this would be ideal. We're trying to figure out what is right based on current conditions.
I wrote the following last week while everyone was thinking there were going to flip some democratic congresscritters:
Many of those ideas sound good to me and are antithetical to Obamacare. I suppose the core issue is whether healthcare is a right. If we concede that it is, then the progressives have won the war. The rest is quibbling over the best way for government to enforce and protect that right.
I have the right to life.
That means that my access to life cannot be obstructed (or taken) by others (without due process of law.)
That does not mean that someone has to provide me with the requirements for life: food, clothing, shelter.
I have the right to health care: (see above)
That means that my access to health care cannot be obstructed by others.
That does not mean that someone has to provide me with the requirements for healthcare: money, bandages, medicines, etc.
Why does my saying you have the right to life not elicit from you the response, “Well, that means you’re saying that I have to feed you lunch at noon and dinner at six.”