Free Republic

In case you did not read it, my piece said, “. . .a nation with the wealth of resources of the United States should be able to ensure a reasonable level of health-care for all citizens.” If you don’t agree you can say so, but my comment did not mean that the U. S. or any other nation could or should afford just anything that people desire.

Your comment is a good illustration of how conservatives defeat one another. You mistake a fellow-conservative for a “stinking fascist.” No doubt you may be a conservative, but seemingly a merely fiscal one, not a social conservative one who stands up for the moral principles our nations were built on.

The denigration of fellow-human beings implied by your language is a pretty sure way of turning off masses of yhour fellow-citizens from the conservative cause.

In case you did not read it, my piece said, “. . .a nation with the wealth of resources of the United States should be able to ensure a reasonable level of health-care for all citizens.” If you don’t agree you can say so, but my comment did not mean that the U. S. or any other nation could or should afford just anything that people desire.

Your comment is a good illustration of how conservatives defeat one another. You mistake a fellow-conservative for a “stinking fascist.” No doubt you may be a conservative, but seemingly a merely fiscal one, not a social conservative one who stands up for the moral principles our nations were built on.

The denigration of fellow-human beings implied by your language is a pretty sure way of turning off masses of yhour fellow-citizens from the conservative cause.

Conservatives in the United States are generally opposed to what they believe are Obama’s health-care plans. It seems to this observer (who, admittedly has not had time to examine the matter in as much detail as he would like), that some of the opposition is definitely misdirected. As a result, from a socially-conservative point of view, the real dangers are in danger of being ignored, and an opporunity has been give to besmirch legitimate opposition to health-care measures that are objectionable.

Equating Obama’s administration to a Nazi regime and the like adds more heat than light to what should be a sharp but logical debate. Disseminating rumors which appear to be of dubious validity and treating those rumors as established facts does not help the debate either.

It seems to me that a nation with the wealth of resources of the United States should be able to ensure a reasonable level of health-care for all citizens. What is needed to achieve that level is a matter for debate: a debate that should take into account the negative tendencies of government beaurocracies to be wasteful and to accumulate inordinate power.

Whatever health-care plan the citizens of our neighbours to the south choose should take into consideration the shortfalls of national systems already in place in other countries, including the sometimes unconscionable wait-times that some Canadians with painful conditions such as broken hips have had to endure.

One of the things that pro-life groups in the United States need to do is to make sure that abortion is not one of the procedures paid for by the nation. Another thing to insist on is that absolutely no health-care money go to counselling for or providing euthanasia.

A coalition of a very large number of groups in the U.S. is concentrating on ensuring that abortion is not promoted by any new health-care plan. The coalition has taken the name “Stop the Abortion Mandate.” This coalition has put out a video which we would encourage any American reader of this post to view. This video asks Americans to oppose any health-care reform proposal that includes abortion coverage.

If language is written into a health-care bill that specifically excludes paying for abortion coverage or for counselling or providing euthanasia, then surely social conservatives could support carefully-thought-out health-care reform in the United States.