Another Facebook Quote

Here's the other facebook post, from X:

"No one should die because they were forced to pay the way for someone else in any capacity. No one should go broke because they were forced to pay for someone else anything. It is a moral imperative to be charitable to those less fortunate than you. ...However, it is fascist and immoral to take by force what one person has earned and give it to another. "

I'm guessing that the quote I previously posted has been making the rounds on facebook, and this is a response to it. While I agree with this one, I probably would have worded it differently. I think that this particular response seems to imply that those who are opposed to government run health care mainly object because of financial concerns.

I'm not going too political on facebook, at least not yet. But if I were to post a response to the first post, it would be along these lines:

"No one should die because a government panel decides that they are too old or too disabled to warrant spending money on their health care. No one should go broke because they had to pay taxes. No one's child should have to wait six months for a doctor's appointment. And no one should have to choose between paying wages and paying taxes."

Incidentally, X posted this today:

"No one should be without a beer because they cannot afford one, and no one should be broke because they bought too many beers. "

Health Care, Government and Morality

Yesterday, a couple of my facebook friends had posts about health care. Here's the first one:

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, no one should go broke because they get sick, and no one's child should miss a doctor's appointment because it costs too much. And no one should have to choose between buying medicine and buying food. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."

While I'm quite fond of the person who posted that, I'm quite annoyed by the sentiment.

I strongly resent the implication that if I don't want the government to run health care, I am uncaring. That having the government in charge of health care (or anything) is somehow a morally superior stance.

I contend that having the government take charge of anything is a morally inferior stance. It's a copout.

Aren't our families and children better off when the parents take charge of providing for them? Well, I could buy this insurance policy but I know that the government will step in if something bad (health crisis, flooding, other natural disaster occurs). Shouldn't the schools be teaching my kids about that (manners, hygiene, sex ed, values, etc.)?

The more people expect the government to be involved in anything, the less they are inclined to be individually responsible for them. The more government is involved, the more institutionalized, and therefore less human, the help becomes.

If I know that the widow down the street is being provided for by the government, I am less inclined to see if she needs help mowing her lawn or getting a ride to church. My conscience is eased knowing that she's being helped, and yet I am in no way inconvenienced (aside from paying taxes).

But doesn't working through an inconvenience make us stronger. Does government control of anything make its citizens stronger or weaker?

I support government help for those in our society who are truly in need, namely those who are mentally and physically unable to care for themselves. But, the more we expand the category of those needing government assistance, the more we weaken the entire population.

Facebook

I'm on facebook now, and I'd welcome friends.