Dear f. John,
What a heartwarming story…. an attractive, young, white woman with a
compelling story gets help. I suspect that there are others whose stories
might not tug at our heartstrings in the same way, but are also in great
need. And did you notice in the story that it said that her sister had
pitched the charity site for a year to get the young woman’s story on the
site? I imagine that there are many others who wouldn’t have such an
eloquent, persevering advocate to get their stories in front of the
donors. And how about the volume of need? Are we each going to have to
plead our cases and have our fellow citizens decide whether or not to open
As a “society” we act through our elected representatives. In the area of
health care needs, we can’t just let everyone have to plead their case for
charity. We need to act collectively to provide a compassionate, just
system to see that everyone gets decent health care. We can debate the
meaning of “decent” but that’s not the same as leaving whether one can get
any health care to the capriciousness of random acts of charity.
# – # – #
Toner, Mike (MC1972)
# – # – # – # – #
Ahh, yes, “liberal white guilt” coming to the fore.
The essence of the once great American experience was freedom and responsibility.
Voluntary associations grew up in communities to address the needs of the indigent, the unfortunate, and the Irish. Life insurance for the common worker was invented by the Knights of Columbus. After the Great Chicago fire, there was great charity. But not for “freeloaders”.
Insurance, before the perversion of the marketplace, by the Gooferment was something that people did as responsible capitains of their own ship of life. I remember the Metropolitan Insurance agent going door to door in the tenement collecting premiums. Who said that being “poor” meant you were stupid about risks.
Many of the stories we are hearing are about freeloaders, gamblers, and folks with bad habits. When we talk about “health”, “health care”, “health care insurance”, or something else, remember it’s about “control”. When the Gooferment is in “control”, we have immorality, ineffectiveness, and inefficiency. (When I use “immorality”, I mean force; not religious beliefs. But forcing Catholics to subsidize abortion is immoral on both scales!) When individuals make choices — even bad ones — everyone wins.
Finally, the notion that there is a “society” or even more humorous that “elected representatives” are “ours” in any meaningful sense is patently absurd. Try and have “society” do anything. Or even better yet, get “your” rep to represent your view. Just is NOT going to happen. “Crony Capitalism” rules the day. Why do you think Big Insurance is letting themselves be cast as the evil villian in the morality play. Because they know they are going to dump the sick on the public dole and get nice healthy youngsters to buy expensive new policies that they don’t need, want, or can use.
I am astonishes at the fuzziness of thinking around this issue. Quality free health care is easily available. Look at Saint Judes Childrens Hospital. Look at the ERs in any city. The notion that the Sheeple have to guiltily subsidize the mistakes of others and pay the Gooferment to do it is absurd.
Maybe I’ll burn in hell for being a hard ass about this, but I think we have “free will” as given to us by Our Creator. If He can stand bad choices, so should we.
# – # – # – # – # 2013-Nov-18 @ 09:45