Moral Majority?

As I sit here flipping through the articles of the day, I came across one article condemning the new health care bill. Due to the health care bill, there’s been quite a bit of discussions among Republicans that the era of the moral majority is back. Unfortunately, I don’t find this to be the case.

Look at the main opposition to the health care bill – the cost and loss of liberty. Granted, these are big issues that should be dealt with, but conservatives were generally quiet about the fact that the health care bill is going to support abortions (there are notable exceptions, such as Rep. Tom Coburn). By ignoring this fact and focusing on the others, conservatives seemingly placed money ahead of life.

This is not the only example. When President Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act, there were no Tea Parties or major protests. Certainly conservatives protested such an act in their minds, but they did not take to the streets. No, only when their pocket books were threatened did conservatives raise their voices against a tyrannical government. Though justified in raising their voices against this government, they unwittingly showed where they stand on the morality of human life; overturn state laws to kill children on demand and we’ll shake a fist, mess with our income and we’ll come after you.

This upsets me quite a bit because it tells me that the government sanctioned murdering of innocent human beings is valued less than taxation. The irony is that for most conservatives, who do happen to be Christians of some form of the other, have a Biblical command to follow in paying taxes. This doesn’t mean we can’t complain about taxes or realize that we’re being over-taxed, but at the end of the day taxes exist and we’re told by God to pay them. The killing of innocent life, however, is something the Bible is not too keen on. Yet, where is our moral outrage over the most pro-abortion president in the history of America?

Why aren’t we taking to the streets to support a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits at-will abortions (with exceptions to the mother’s health) or one that protects the sanctity of human life (by prohibiting euthanasia)? Where are the tea parties for this? Even if Congress won’t listen, so long as we are out there, we cannot be ignored forever.

So long as conservatives protest over lost money, but remain relatively silent on the issue of abortion and human life, they will continue to lose their moral ground.


Tom Coburn on the health care bill

Here’s a statement from Tom Coburn on the passage of the health care bill. Thought I’d post it here because I happen to agree with it:

This vote is indeed historic. This Congress will be remembered for its arrogance, corruption and stupidity. In the year of 2009, a Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs and embarked on an ideological crusade to bring our nation as close to single-payer, government-run health care as possible. If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal. This bill will ration care, cut Medicare, increase premiums, fund abortion and bury our children in debt.

“This process was not compromise. This process was corruption. This bill passed because votes were bought and sold using the issue of abortion as a bargaining chip. The abortion provision alone makes this bill the most arrogant piece of legislation I have seen in Congress. Only the most condescending politician can believe it is appropriate to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions and to coerce medical professional to take the lives of unborn children.

“The president and his allies genuinely believe that expanding government’s control over health care is the way to control health care costs, improve lives and extend life spans. I don’t question their motives, but I do question their judgment. History has already judged this argument and put it in its ash heap. The experience of government-run health care in the United States and around the world shows that access to a government program is not access to health care. Forty percent of doctors restrict access to Medicaid patients. Medicare already rations care and denies medical claims at twice the rate of private insurers. Nations like the United Kingdom with government run health care routinely ration care based on cost, and Canadians flock to the United States to escape waiting lines. Neither nation, incidentally, has managed to control costs as promised.

“Our health care system needs to be reformed not because government’s role has been too small but because it has been too big. Since the 1940’s, government’s role in health care has been expanded to the point that it controls 60 percent of our health care economy, according the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. If more government were the answer, health care would have been reformed long ago.

Not Everything is About “Rights”

It seems the recent trend in American political debates is to point out that the status quo or the proposed policy will “ruin” someone or is currently creating multiple victims. For instance, Michelle Obama pointed out that under the current health care system, women suffer. There have been multiple people who have shown that the current system isn’t fair for the poor, doesn’t help the elderly (as there are already “death panels” in the status quo, under private insurance companies), or so on and so forth.

Certainly, some issues come down to someone or some people group being oppressed. Segregation is a good example of this. But not every issue facing America is an issue of oppression. An expensive health care system doesn’t necessarily oppress people (at least not by design); it may just be expensive. Certainly, even the poor can find ways to enjoy our health care system in some situations, showing that “oppression” is hardly the right view of the issue.

Or similarly, not all higher taxes oppress people. If someone makes seven figures a year and his taxes are raised, but they are raised to pay for a justifiable war or to help pay off the national debt (for a plan that works), that is hardly oppressive.

The problem is that people on both sides want to moralize every issue they support; if you don’t support me, then you are immoral and for oppression. It’s a way to vilify and demonize the opposition while pushing yourself toward sainthood. In some instances, this is justifiable. But in most cases, it’s not. In most cases, it’s simply two opposing points of view on how to fix an issue.

Random Thoughts for the Day

* A government that believes its citizens have no need or would never have a need to revolt against it is a government that must be revolted against.

* Obama should forgo using Linda Douglass. Using videos from the last two months to counter a video showing that Obama is changing his rhetoric to get a bill passed, a video that uses proof from previous speeches, is substandard propaganda. Instead, Obama should bring someone on with similar ideology and who is an expert at propaganda, like Joseph Goebbels.

* The problem isn’t the health care system – it’s the health care cost. At the same time, the reason the United States has a good health care system is because of the amount of money pumped into it from the private sector.

* If just 10% of the conservative orthodox Christians in the United States did what they were supposed to do according to the words of Christ, the issues of welfare, universal health care, public eduction, and homelessness would no longer exist.

* If you don’t believe that Jesus was God, that He resurrected from the dead, or that He was born of a virgin, then why bother to call yourself a Christian? I believe Muhammad lived, I believe he existed, but I don’t consider him special; this is why I don’t call myself a Muslim (among other reasons).

* Is it better for a man to have lived 90 healthy years, acquired vast sums of wealth, but fail to be a positive impact on people’s lives, or is it better for a man to have lived just 20 years of poor health, lived in poverty, but have touched the lives of many?


After looking through the news this week, I came across this comment from a casual observer that the media decided to interview.

“[Universal Health Care is] about human rights. It’s about morality. And denying people health care ranks right up there with genocide.”

This is one of those quotes that you read and start laughing, then blurt out, “What the heck,” and then get a very sick feeling in your stomach because the person believes this tripe without ever thinking about it.

Genocide is the act of intentionally killing off a people group because of that group’s race. It is the government (or para-military) sanctioned eradication of an ethnicity. Denying universal health care is the government saying, “Individuals have the right to choose their own health care” and/or “We don’t have the money to pay for it.” There’s a night and day difference. So that last sentence is just plain stupidity and underscores how many on the Left don’t know the first thing about moral equivalency.

Is it immoral for the government to refuse to pay for a person’s health care? It does depend on the situation. If the person put his life in harm’s way for the service of his country, or was injured while defending his country or doing a service for his country, then it is highly immoral for the government to refuse free health care (or even the best health care available). If, however, the person blew his hand up while holding onto a firework to see what would happen, it is actually immoral for the government to take other people’s money to pay for this man’s mistake.

But what about neutral parties? What about a person who has cancer, but can’t afford health insurance? It still isn’t moral for the government to use other people’s money to pay for this one person’s ailment. The reason is that by doing so (because there is always more than one person suffering), others are inevitably harmed. Thus, instead of a few people suffering, multiple people suffer. Rather, the moral thing to do is for the government to offer incentives to individuals who willingly give their money to funds and charities that help those who don’t have health care.

Either way, aside from being stupid, is just sick. The government refusing to have a universal health care system is very different from what Hitler did to the Jews or what the Hutu did to the Tutsi.

Taxes 101

What’s more effective and moral:

A parent who uses negative reinforcement to stop his child from acting out, or a parent who attempts to use positive reinforcement (though negative reinforcement will be needed at times)?

A boss who puts restrictions on his employees and adds rules, or a boss who gives bonuses and raises for employees who do more than is required of them?

A teacher who consistently marks down the grades of students for the smallest mishaps, or a teacher who adds points when the student does more than expected of him?

In most cases, though negative reinforcement is needed to “motivate” those who just don’t care, positive reinforcement works far better. When people realize they can get a deal for doing something, they’ll almost always do that “something.” So when it comes to health care, under a capitalistic system, doesn’t it make far more sense to offer substantial tax breaks to employers who offer health care for full time employees?

Doesn’t it make far more sense to offer even bigger tax breaks to those who give health insurance to part-time employees? Doesn’t it make sense to offer tax breaks to people who pay for their own insurance (which, by the way, contributes to the economy)? Doesn’t it make more sense to offer even bigger tax breaks for those who add supplemental insurance? Doesn’t it make more sense to offer a tax break to employers who pay double the minimum wage for their employees (and make sure the tax break supplements the money lost on payroll)?

Continue reading