Further Discussion of the Health Care Debate

My latest contribution to the discussion at the Las Vegas Sun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JahReb-
Welcome to the discussion. However, I find it utterly incredible how much you miss my point. I am not denying the need to help one another. What I am saying is, do not tell me who, when and how much to help. Instead of helping a fellow citizen with some genetic difficulty they were born with; maybe I would rather help children with AIDS. Another 'someone' born with an ailment not of their choosing. By choosing a child born with AIDS, I know where my resources are going. By giving health care to those who choose not purchase it is not how I want my resources spent.

Additionally, when I give of my resources, I DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING IN RETURN! Mine is not a 'me first' attitude. Mine is a 'I choose who is first' to receive my resources attitude. When I choose to make my contribution to society, it is the freedom that this country was founded on that says it is my right I choose where to contribute.

Once a month I drive over 400 miles, round trip, to spend a weekend in the Arizona desert to clean, feed and shelter exotic animals. I am not paid to do this. In fact, I spend my own time and money for tools, travel, food and lodging. Please explain what benefit I could possibly gain from this endeavor.

JohnF-
You are absolutely correct when you say "we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, do your rights include diminishing mine? I would think not. And no, I would not rather see you die. But my tax dollars are already being used to pay for health care for those in need. Now you want more. When will it end? I have in fact faced medical difficulty without insurance. I paid for the surgery; not government or anyone else. It was not fun, which is why I choose a path in life which minimizes health care needed and the cost thereof.

Again, for families similar to yours, I am all for providing all the government (or other) assistance necessary. But you have not addressed my concerns with regards to those who choose not to buy insurance or lead less-than-optimal lifestyles. Is this not, albeit indirectly, a 'me first' attitude? Are you a proponent of providing health for those people?

Lastly, I believe you make my argument with your closing remarks to Gordon. Yes, it very unfortunate for anyone to experience the plight that he, his family and others endure. "Thankfully the MS Society was there to help you" is my point exactly. If I choose to donate to MS, cancer, or children with AIDS, it is my choice as to how much and when. By having the government provide the assistance you needed you are denying my 'right to liberty and happiness': the liberty of choosing who, what, when and where, and the happiness of having done so. Would I be morally bankrupt for choosing cancer to receive my resources over MS? I hope not, but it is my choice. Further, it is not your place to determine who is morally bankrupt. That decision rests with the Creator. lazyfaire will answer to his Creator at the appropriate time; it is then he will suffer the consequences or benefits of his choices.

Response to Brian Greenspun

This post is in response to the op-ed piece Las Vegas Sun's editor, Brian Greenspun in the July 12th Las Vegas Sun. I find it funny and controlling/restrictive that he comments on the 'comments' posted in response to articles all over the internet yet, Brian Greenspun does not allow readers to comment online to his opinion(s). Mr. Greenspun, please explain. Thomas Mitchell at the RJ allows comments.

1) This country was founded on FREEDOM. Most importantly, freedom of choice: where to live, which religion to follow (if any at all), which to car drive, where to work, who to work for, who date/marry, where to educate your kids, whether or not to live a healthy lifestyle, and the list goes on. By taxing the citizens to pay for something that is a choice (method, amount and quality of health care) is akin to taking from the citizens(see ‘takings clause’ of the 5th Amendment); it also reeks of Socialism/Communism. I choose to live a healthy lifestyle, to only bring those into the world which I can support, avoid danger, etc. If I make a poor choice, I pay the price, not you. I don’t expect you to pay for my bad choices.

2) What you are saying is that we have a moral obligation to help our neighbor, our fellow man. Is it an obligation? Maybe. But it is my choice to complete my obligation(s). If I choose an immoral path, my God will deal with me accordingly. But what about those who do not share in your beliefs? If they do not believe in your God, or any other, are they immoral? By taxing the citizens to pay for example, health care, you are forcing your morals on the citizens. Those who society deem as immoral will pay the price, the cosmos will be sure of that. The universe we live in is precariously balanced: the universe has a way of taking care of those who attempt to change that balance.

3) If it is my moral duty to behave a certain way and take of my fellow man, it is MY MORAL DUTY, not yours. It is in fact your duty to espouse the virtues/benefits of your beliefs, and why I should want to share those beliefs. It is not, however your duty to force your beliefs upon me (i.e. Stalin, King George, fanatical Islam, etc.). Again, the universe has a way of taking care of those who force anything upon another.