Trolling Not Allowed

Trolling Not Allowed! Comments from anonymous trolls are not permitted and are deleted if posted by the offending pest.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

ObamaCare Is Morally Correct. Opponents Are Egocentric, Selfish Heretics!

Over on Facebook, I saw that some of my "friends" (as Facebook connections are referred) had clicked the "Like" icon on the "For America" Facebook page wall photo cartoon with a caption that reads:
LIKE if you agree that ObamaCare is wrecking our nation!
Upon seeing and reading that I just could not pass up the opportunity to write a little something in response to their slam on ObamaCare. My comment appears on that Facebook page, as follows:
Roland Hansen commented on ForAmerica's photo: "I support national health care. The insurance industry is not only ripping Americans off financially but they are making medical decisions that let people die who could otherwise be treated and saved. People who are anti-ObamaCare are selfish and uncaring."
It seems that some people, far too many people in my opinion, put a much higher value on the almighty dollar and on the quest of making a profit than they do on the value of human health, on that of every single American. (The following sentence has been revised as a result of being updated on September 26, 2013.) An example of such had been the posts tagged "ObamaCare" on a website called Fix Health Care Policy that has since been replaced with that of Defund ObamaCare, both projects of The Heritage Foundation.

Some people even use mass e-mail on the internet spreading blatent lies about ObamaCare in an effort to scare Americans. They would rather resort to their malicious mistruths than stick to the facts. But, any way you cut it, these so-called patriotic Americans value money more than they value human health.

I venture to guess that many, but certainly not all, of those folks who are opponents of ObamaCare are also defenders of the Patriot Act, which in my opinion undermines the liberties and freedoms of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I also venture to guess that many, but certainly not all, of the ObamaCare opponents label themselves as Christians. Gee, I wonder what Jesus of Nazareth thinks of people who place a higher value on money than they do on human life.

Well, at least I know that Barbara Bush supports ObamaCare.


CWMartin said...

Thanks for pointing it out, buddy. I went over and liked it.

Roland Hansen said...

You are very welcome, good buddy CW. The fact is that most of my blogging friends and quite a few of my Facebook friends are against ObamaCare.
They are also the people who most frequently visit my two blogs and usually make sensible, thought-provoking, intelligent comments; people like you and Chili Dog (Chris) and Tim Higgins. I am very appreciative and grateful to have the friendship of these people. It shows that a difference of opinion does not have to create unfriendly relationships.
On the other hand, my "friends" on the left rarely comment. It also seems that whenever I disagree with them, they want to totally write me off and break any ties with me.
However, there have been exceptions to that. I remember an early mentor and friend going all the way back to 1970 (now deceased), who was an admirer of Eugene Debs, use to quote "You're either all for us or all against us." Fortunately for me, he did not apply that to me (I was probably the only exception to his rule) and we remained friends until his early departure from this world in his early 50s.
I remember another friend from a long time ago (back in the mid 1970s and into the 80s and 90s) with whom I worked in a variety of citizen participation organizations. He always said,"Lets agree to disagree, and continue to work on those things with which we do agree." I have striven to put that into practice my entire adult life.
I have high regard and respect for people with whom I can strongly disagree from time to time and yet remain on a cordial, even friendly, basis. It sure is a lot better than being friends with people who have the "It's my way or the highway" attitude.
Again, you're welcome, CW, and thank you.

Timothy W Higgins said...


I guess that this is one of those times mi Amigo, where I am going to have to disagree with you.

Two issues seem to be intertwined here, and they need to be separated. The first is access to health care, which the government long ago stepped into. Hospitals are in fact obligated to treat patients who come to them regardless of their ability to pay. Therefore Obamacare is not so much about access as many would like us to believe.

It is however, more about medical insurance, which if Obamacare moves forward, will inexorably find the government taking over the medical insurance industry. It has already begun, through Medicare and Medicaid, to become an incomprehensible morass of regulations, mandates, and price controls in which the only people who win are the bureaucrats administering the program. Such practices seldom result in more efficiencies or better service, and never result in lower costs. Government cannot determine what anything costs, and here like elsewhere, they will only determine what they will pay for it.

Yes, there are abuses in the medical insurance industry and in the practical practice of medicine, but nationalizing the industry (which this eventually does) does not solve that problem, it only transfers the responsibility (and perhaps increases the opportunity) for graft, waste, and fraud to the government. It also allows some of those you would like to demonize to abuse the system even more through lobbying Congress and the HHS for special advantage or exemption.

As for Christians, like any other group, each will have their own motivations; but the teachings of Jesus were about charity, something which those evil conservatives seem to do more than their more compassionate liberal counterparts, and something incompatible with government taking contributions at the point of a gun. Perhaps if the government were to end its attempts to nationalize this as well through taxation and redistribution, many out there would and could act even more charitably. (Though I suspect we've gone too far down that road already.)

I for one deplore the Patriot Act and NDAA as incursions on the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, but place a good bit of Obamacare and its future potential in the same category.

Something must be done done to help those looking for proper medical insurance to be able to purchase it, but this program is far too over-reaching in my opinion and needs to be walked back into something less intrusive.

Roland Hansen said...

As usual, mi amigo Tim, I respect your right to your opinion and I do value your input. You are correct in that we do disagree with one another on this.

Continuing on, I do have a response to that of which you have written here.

Unless there has been a change in federal regulations of which I amm aware (and there might be), it is my understanding that "Hospitals are in fact obligated to treat patients who come to them regardless of their ability to pay" only to the extent of federal funds that they hahve received under the Hill-Burton Act. And of course, there is Title XIX of the Social Security Act. None-theless, neither adresses the health concerns and medical needs of middle-income Americans.

Then there is this silly-assed debate about private insurance companies versus government-sponsored national health care systems. Why the hell is no one in the United States taking a look at the health care system of Denmark and how it may be adapted to the United States?

Even so, my blog entry is not about accessibility to health care; It is about priorities. It seems to me that far too many people appear to think in terms of dollars, rather than in the quality of human life as it relates to the actual provision and delivery of adequate and proper health care. Unless I have miscontrued your comments, it seems to me that your own comments seem to follow in the same vein as that which I have pointed out. I do not give a darn about the money; I care about people getting the health care they need without having to consider money -- period!

Regarding Christianity and Jesus, I do not believe that Jesus would have placed money, the waste of money, the prevention of government inefficiencies, a debate over the role of government, the taxation and "redistribution of wealth" dialog, the safeguarding of private money-making businesses including the health care industry and the insurance companies, and all those peripheral excuses to be of a higher priority than human health and human life.

No one, but no one, should be denied proper health care and medical treatment! Not the infant born with a multitude of birth defects, not the person suffering from cancer, not the working man or woman needing dental care or diabetes medication or medical attention of any kind, not the elderly person who needs an organ transplant -- No ONE!

I am sick and tired of all the excuses people give for not wanting to actively assure that each and every person gets the medical care needed just to keep on living.

I return to my subject and put it quite succinctly:
I value human health more than I do the almighty dollar and all arguments linking money issues to the provision and delivery of adequate and needed medical care. To me, the opponents of such a perspective are indeed egocentric, selfish, heretics.

So, Tim, mi amigo, I guess you and I will continue to disagree. None-the-less, I wish you the best, dragon-slayer. Keep up the good fight and together, people like you and CW and Chris and Dave Z and Maggie and Jill Z and I just might, maybe, perhaps, make a difference resulting in a better world for future generations.

Chili Dog said...

Obama-care, while praiseworthy, is like attempting to put out a forest fire with an eyedropper.

Until the government attacks the real problem, the health care system itself, which it will never do, any reform Obama-care brings is window dressing.

Roland Hansen said...

Chili Dog,
You have made an excellent point. One that is well-taken.
I say let's stop the whole dog and pony show, get down to the nitty-gritty, and get the job done. A guarantee of the provision and delivery of adequate, proper, and necessary health care for everybody!

dalepertcheck said...

First of all, Roland is absolutely right about no American being denied health care, and that the wokring poor, the former middle class, are the group that is left out the most. Under the current system,insurance bureaucrats make medical decisions with litle regard for the opinions of the health care professionls who supply the medical services. It's all about making money. And when was the last time you saw a physician living on the streets? People are enriching themselves at the expense of others. One friend of mine about two years ago needed a bone marrow transplant. He was in his early sixties, not exactly elderly. An insurance bureaucrat denied the request of his doctors, because the byreaucrat called thie decades-old procedure "experimental". It took weeks for his appeal to be upheld and for him to receive the transplant. Naturally, his condition had deteriorated and the procedure was unsuccessful, and he died! These types of preventable deaths are not little glitches in the current American health care system. they are all too commonplace. Why are we the only industialized nation in the world which does not have a national health care system? Why is it that Communist, Socialist China can enjoy the greates economy of the 21st Century and still afford to give everyone health care? And their health care system is improving dramatically, as ours deteriorates. Isn't there a lesson here?

Roland Hansen said...

The following is a copy and paste of a comment I made on March 9, 2012 elsewhere on the internet:
"Tell ya what, if a person cannot financially afford private health insurance, if a person cannot afford to pay for adequate, needed, and proper medical care out of pocket, if a person does not have the money to buy into any health care programs, then let's all just let them die. The elderly, the children, the infirmed, -- all of them. That seems to be the attitude of the majority of American Conservatives, Republicans, members of the Tea Party Movement, Libertarians and the likes of their kind. Because while those people debate the role that the government should not play, people are indeed dying!!!"

Roland Hansen said...

I made an entry on my other blog, Roland's Ramblings back on March 6, 2012 that I also think is a good addition to this Roland Hansen Commentary ObamaCare Is Morally Correct. Opponents Are Egocentric, Selfish Heretics! entry.

Please click on over to read:
To Life: L’Chayim, L’Chaim. Saving A Life: Pikuach Nefesh

Judy said...

This is from the AZ. Repulic Letter to the Editor today, very well said!
Kudos to E.J. Montini for his column on Tuesday on the need for insurance ("Like our cars, our bodies need to be insured").

Not only did Montini explain the need for universal health care so clearly that any "tea party" Republican could understand it, he also explained how the word "Obamacare" was created to denigrate the Affordable Care Act.

A few days ago, I was talking with five friends and mentioned the Supreme Court issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act. Not one of the five "educated voters" knew what I was talking about until I said, "You know, Obamacare."

Immediately, they all bristled and said they were against it. So much for the power of semantics!

It was then that I excused myself so that I could write out checks to the mortgage company that mandates a homeowner's insurance policy, another check to the auto-finance corporation that mandates that I have automobile insurance and another for my mandated taxes to pay for fire and police protection.

-- Charles J. Walko, Glendale