Von Aldo
The Tyranny of the Morality of Need

The Tyranny of the Morality of Need

home_cutedolphin.jpgQuestion: Just because you --- or a group of people --- need something, should the gub'ment be obliged to provide it? This is essentially the argument behind ObamaCare, that it, it’s unfair that some people can't afford to take out health insurance --- so we must provide it for him with our own money. This "morality of need" philosophy is a dangerous slippery slope to a establishing a rather complete Big Brother state.

Under this concept, if you need something important but can't afford it, the gub'ment should buy it for you. Healthcare is one of those newly added to the list of rights. Trouble is: How can it be someone's right to take some good or service from somebody else? The list could grow long. Arguably, one's diet is the most crucial factor in one's health. Shouldn't we provide healthy food for all those who can't afford it? It’s not fair that wealthy people can afford to eat properly, join gyms and receive education about how to take care of themselves. What about automobiles? Poor people probably drive cars that are not as safe as a rich person's, since a rich person can buy the latest, most up-to-date car with all the newest safety devices. Should we provide new, safer cars to those who can't afford it?

Here is one: We live in a litigious society. Just about everybody needs a lawyer at one point or another. Rich people can afford the best lawyers in any given specialty. Why not fix the prices of lawyers and in effect commandeer lawyers' services (such as the gub'ment does with Medicare and Medicaid)? The point is, it's nice to help other people, and we should help people. But it doesn't mean taking goods and services from a person to give it to another against his will. My father was a physician; he came home with gumball machines and chickens as payment. Sometimes he didn't even bill poor people at all. I believe that you have the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (basically you have the right to be left alone, free speech, bear arms and etc.).

Consider this interesting column by Larry Elder, a talk-show host and author, that was published in Friday's Investors Business Daily:

"Once a nation under a Constitution that restricted government intrusion, we now want government to provide for our 'needs' by calling them 'rights.'

"We now ask government to prop up failing businesses, make student loans, guarantee mortgages, build and maintain public housing, financially support state education from preschool though graduate school, fund private research, provide disaster relief and aid, pay 'volunteers' and on and on.

"Many in our nation happily submit to this bargain. They consider the Big Three entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — 'rights,' their absence unimaginable in a modern 'caring' society. It is out of the question to expect people, families and communities to plan for retirement.

"It's beyond reason to expect medical care, like any other commodity, to follow the laws of supply and demand — for prices and choices to allocate resources and competition to drive down prices and improve quality. It's too much to expect the compassion, morality and spirituality of humankind to aid those unable to care for themselves."

Hide comments

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Publish