Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:28:56 PM
Almost a week ago, the Los Angeles Times ran letters reacting to Obama's special plea for expanding government under the guise of reforming health insurance. I wanted to look at a few of them.
Rachel Bruhnke of San Pedro wrote:
Regarding your editorial, what I would like to see Obama propose in the debate on how to pay for healthcare is a transfer of money from U.S. warfare to U.S. healthcare.
Awww, isn't that sweet? Here's the problem. Unless it is amended, the Constitution instructs the federal government to engage in national defense, but does not permit it to get involved in health "insurance".
Larry Rennacker of Santa Barbara wrote:
I am having trouble connecting the dots. You have folks who support the right of the state to kill people (death penalty) but are up in arms, literally (according a recent Times article about ammo purchases), when it comes to that same state providing healthcare to its citizens?
Yes, Mr. Rennacker, some people support executing duly convicted murderers but not forcible redistribution of wealth under the guise of health "insurance". People can already get health care by going to the emergency room. Prosecuting criminal cases and carrying our sentences is a basic function of government. Obama isn't talking about a state program – he's talking about federal programs. There is a difference.
Arthur Saginian of Saugus wrote:
The most realistic approach to reforming our current healthcare system would be to attack its biggest problem: cost. Find its components and tear them down. In the meantime, we can simply make it illegal to deny or cancel coverage.
Socialism? Perhaps. But how else can you combat abusive capitalism?
"Abusive capitalism" takes place when there is a monopoly or some sort of fraud. It isn't fraudulent to say, "We don't want to insure you." It is fraudulent to promise services under certain conditions, then take the money and not provide the services even though the conditions were met. So, socialism is not needed. Fraud detection and prosecution is needed.
Kevin McKiernan of Santa Barbara wrote:
The president finally said the words he needed to say: Healthcare for all is a moral issue. It kind of makes you proud to be an American.
So, just to be clear Kevin, it is perfectly okay for force one's morality on other people via the law, correct?
What is moral about forcing someone to pay for services rendered to a stranger?