Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
What Would Jesus Do? Ask Obama
The president's troubling use of religion to sell health care reform
"For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light shall we see the public option."
Yes, it's finally come to this. We've dragged the Almighty Lord into the debate. It's Yahweh or the highway.
This week, President Barack Obama claimed his version of health care reform is "a core ethical and moral obligation," beseeching religious leaders to promote his government-run scheme. Questioning the patriotism of opponents, apparently, wasn't gaining the type of traction advocates of "reform" had hoped.
"I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness," Obama said, invoking the frightening specter of the Ten Commandments.
On Team Righteous, we have those who meet their moral obligations; on the other squad, we must have the minions of Beelzebub—by which, of course, we mean profit-driven, child-killing, mob-inciting insurance companies.
Why wasn't this multidenominational group of pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders offended that a mere earthly servant was summoning the good Lord in an effort to pass legislation? Certainly, one of the most grating habits of the Bush administration was how it framed policy positions in moral absolutes.
As CBS News recently reported, Obama has thrown around the name of God even more often than George W. Bush. Then again, no group couches policy as a moral obligation more than the left. On nearly every question of legislation, there is a pious straw man tugging at the sleeves of the wicked.
What isn't a moral imperative these days? As if they were chiseling commandments into stone tablets, Democrats refer to budgets as "moral documents." Thou shalt compost, or climate change will descend upon the lands and smite the wicked and innocent alike. Extend alms to the downtrodden moneylenders and carmakers, for it is just, and the president commandeth thee.
If the apostate argues that dependency programs keep poor people poor or that progressive environmental policies are ineffective and create poverty or that free will is more important than free stuff, they will be dealt with like the Amorites. And you know what happened to those swine.
Morality—whether derived from religion or a Starbucks coffee cup—is only one of the many considerations Americans take into account when thinking about policy. As an atheist, for instance, my core moral concern is that elected officials stop telling me what my core moral concerns should be.
While we have no clue what Jesus would make of a public option, we do have plenty of evidence that government tends to act immorally, corruptly, and incompetently—especially a government with too much power. And the self-righteous elected official who has complete moral certitude on his side also has a tendency to ignore any other concerns. That detail has been painfully obvious in this debate.
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies," wrote C.S. Lewis, a man who knew a thing or two about religion. "The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
We now know that the advocates of government-run health care have full approval of their own consciences. That is surely comforting to them. Now, I don't know about you, but I gladly will champion the policies of any president who can walk on water. Until that time, though, I'll take my chances with blasphemy.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
TallDave|8.21.09 @ 12:02PM|#
I miss the good old days, when lefties constantly worried about the American Taliban imposing a theocracy.
|8.21.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Somebody tell Obama that bearing false witness == perjury, not mere lying. The only people doing that during this crisis are Geithner and Bernanke.
|8.21.09 @ 12:08PM|#
I wonder if the President sees this as an opportunity to take the God plank from the GOP platform. That would be huge for democrats. I like it from a strategery point of view.
Jeff P|8.21.09 @ 12:08PM|#
For the record, jesus was pretty selective about those he healed. Sure he "saved" us all but only the leper, blind guy, and Lazurus reaped any tangible benefit.
ed|8.21.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Ayn Rand identified altruism ("You are your brother's keeper") as a core principle of Christianity and a building block in collectivist political systems. It's not surprising that Obama would utilize it. Most Americans believe it, until they feel the government hand lifting their wallets.
|8.21.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Luke 12
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=12&version=31
13Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to
divide the inheritance with me."
14Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter
between you?"
The Libertarian Guy|8.21.09 @ 12:14PM|#
I called out a local Democrat who has been using the "my
brother's keeper" line, by reminding him of his party's insistence
on the separation of church and state, and how he was using
Christian references to bolster his state-takeover of health
care.
Boy, was he pissed.
The Chad|8.21.09 @ 12:14PM|#
As ed pointed out, religion and government are two sides of the same collectivist coin
|8.21.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Somebody tell Obama that bearing false witness ==
perjury
Like Clinton did during the Paula Jones suit.
|8.21.09 @ 12:15PM|#
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies," wrote C.S. Lewis, a man who knew a
thing or two about religion. "The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but
those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end,
for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Wow. Lewis was a great guy.
Jesus Is an Anarchist|8.21.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Government is a way for the collective to pretend to redeem individuals' evil actions. God gives a collective no authority to do that. It is simply another instance of Man being his own god.
Ratdog|8.21.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Obama asked what Jesus would do? So he was talking to himself
then.
Just my opinion, but I've seen absolutely nothing to convince me
the Messiah in the White House, or any of his disciples in
Congress, have consciences.
Xeones|8.21.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Jesus was an early church/state separatist, what with the whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's" thing.
|8.21.09 @ 12:31PM|#
"As ed pointed out, religion and government are two sides of the
same collectivist coin"
It doesn't have to be. Religon has to be voluntary. It can't be
coercive. If you make everyone do the right thing at the point of a
gun, you have done nothing to save their souls. But, you have
created collectivist paradise.
|8.21.09 @ 12:34PM|#
Well said John. I've said it repeatedly here that christians, IMO, have no place in political office. It forces them to either force their beliefs on an unwilling populace, or relax their faith to satisfy the people.
ed|8.21.09 @ 12:36PM|#
The nice thing about Christianity is that, when the collection plate is being passed around, you have a choice whether to add to it. Obama and his cronies would take away that choice. They can't afford to have doubters in their Great Crusade.
|8.21.09 @ 12:39PM|#
I wonder if the President sees this as an opportunity to
take the God plank from the GOP platform. That would be huge for
democrats. I like it from a strategery point of view.
Democrats using pious language to sell their bill of goods are
going to be just as effective as Republicans playing the race card
have been. They're just insulting the people they're pretending to
side with.
Gilbert Martin|8.21.09 @ 12:41PM|#
"Icalled out a local Democrat who has been using the "my
brother's keeper" line, by reminding him of his party's insistence
on the separation of church and state, and how he was using
Christian references to bolster his state-takeover of health
care."
Yes the liberals are hypocrits on this.
They yap about the separation of church and state and denounce
those who want to outlaw abortions and prevent gay marriages as
trying to impose their religion on everybody else - and then they
turn around and invokve religion as a justification for government
mandated entitlement programs and any other coercive government
policy they happen to like.
|8.21.09 @ 12:42PM|#
I've said it repeatedly here that christians, IMO, have no
place in political office.
That's absolutely ridiculous and seems at odds with John's comment
(with which you seemingly approve). If you ever read Luther's
doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, you'd understand that nothing about
the Christian faith (at least as I and millions of others practice
it) requires either forcing beliefs on an unwilling populace or
relaxing one's faith in order to hold public office. It's apples
and oranges.
|8.21.09 @ 12:44PM|#
I've said it repeatedly here that christians, IMO, have no
place in political office. It forces them to either force their
beliefs on an unwilling populace, or relax their faith to satisfy
the people.
That's horse blank, and a mighty convenient line for non-Christian
ideologues. Legality need not precisely match morality, even for a
Christian. I'm not a Christian myself, but I'd prefer a legislature
full of Christians to the true whackjobs who would fill the power
vacuum if Christians stayed out of politics.
Tomcat1066|8.21.09 @ 12:46PM|#
I'm a Christian and while there are many things we talk about legalizing that I consider wrong to partake of (prostitution as an example), I find nothing in my faith that requires me to keep prosititution illegal. In fact, I believe legalization will reveal who are truly faithful. It's easy to be faithful to the Word of God when it's illegal to not be. It's quite another to be faithful when the temptations are all around.
TallDave|8.21.09 @ 12:47PM|#
I don't think Christ ever proselytized for coercive
utopianism.
He said "Render unto Caesar" not "redistribute income via
Caesar."
|8.21.09 @ 12:47PM|#
If I have to account to the govt for my every dollar, because Jesus says so, then we live in a theocracy.
|8.21.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything and give it to the poor (BTW, would it be moral to buy what the rich young ruler was selling?), then said it was his loss (the camel and the eye of the needle) when he refused. Jesus left the choice up to the rich young ruler.
JB|8.21.09 @ 12:50PM|#
This is so much bullshit.
Statements like this make the people that call Obama the
anti-Christ look like they are on to something.
Where did Jesus say "point a gun at people, demand their money, and
then give it to people you think are poor"?
He said the opposite. You make personal choices how you deal with
people in your life.
|8.21.09 @ 12:53PM|#
I am so freaking tired of my fellow non-believers giving this
man a pass on these type of comments simply because they like
him.
Why is consistency so hard to find?
|8.21.09 @ 1:01PM|#
When Obama talks of core ethics and morals obligations, I assume that since he claims christianity, that his faith is what drives his ethics and morals. He shouldn't let it if that causes him to act outside the constitution and laws of the land. If he ignores his faith to do the people's bidding, he is also wrong. I don't think you can hold public office and stay true to the faith.
Fist of Etiquette|8.21.09 @ 1:04PM|#
As CBS News recently reported, Obama has thrown around the
name of God even more often than George W. Bush.
In Obama's defense, however, most of those references were actually
to Allah.
BruceM|8.21.09 @ 1:07PM|#
It worked for Bush, and clearly the only way to convince the
American People of anything is to invoke jesus.
This might be the first intelligent thing Obama's done with respect
to pushing his healthcare reform agenda through.
Of course, the same people who are automatically convinced by the
appeal to religion are the same people who hate obama for being a
dirty commu-nigger. So his appeal to religion is prolly not gonna
work...
ed|8.21.09 @ 1:07PM|#
brotherben | August 21, 2009, 1:02pm | #
Or to put it simply, man cannot serve two masters.
Racist!
Sorry.
EJM|8.21.09 @ 1:13PM|#
FWIW, I might as well plug the 2007 print-edition review of Andy Olree's "The Choice Principle: The Biblical Case for Legal Toleration".
Amber Waves|8.21.09 @ 1:14PM|#
"This week, President Barack Obama claimed his version of health
care reform is "a core ethical and moral obligation," beseeching
religious leaders to promote his government-run scheme."
If they lobby for the president's policies, shouldn't they lose
their tax-exempt status?
|8.21.09 @ 1:24PM|#
there is nothing in christianity contra to liberty.
christains believe god gave man free will.
who is man to rescind that?
plain & simple....
|8.21.09 @ 1:25PM|#
"...I don't think you can hold public office and stay true to
the faith."
staying "true" to ideas or concepts in which you have zero evidence
for in terms of using it to shape policy that affects others shows
to me a truly egotistical view.
I have no problem with a personal faith that anyone has, but we
must make decisions that affect everyone based on reason and
evidence.
|8.21.09 @ 1:35PM|#
When Obama talks of core ethics and morals obligations, I
assume that since he claims christianity, that his faith is what
drives his ethics and morals.
That's a pretty huge leap from this statement to your statement
that no Christian should hold office.
Gilbert Martin|8.21.09 @ 1:49PM|#
"Where did Jesus say "point a gun at people, demand their money,
and then give it to people you think are poor"?
He said the opposite. You make personal choices how you deal with
people in your life."
Indeed.
Jesus didn't march around at the head of Roman legion strong-arming
people for "contributions" to causes he favored.
|8.21.09 @ 1:50PM|#
You may recall that I had some rather unkind words for a certain
ignorant hillbilly whackjob preacher using his interpretation of
the Bible as a basis for policy positions.
For the record, I find it no less distasteful when Obama does
it.
Amber Waves|8.21.09 @ 1:56PM|#
"I don't think you can hold public office and stay true to the
faith."
What about dog catcher? I see no conflict there.
Tony|8.21.09 @ 1:58PM|#
C.S. Lewis and Ayn Rand had a lot in common. Both are 3rd rate philosophers who wrote children's books.
Paul|8.21.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors income for wasteful and
egalitarian public works.
Thou shalt not lay with a bankrupt corporation as thou wouldst with
a woman. For it is an abomination.
Render unto the IRS, that is all.
Wicks Cherrycoke|8.21.09 @ 2:16PM|#
Could this be Obama's way of saying his health care reform proposal doesn't have a prayer?
|8.21.09 @ 2:34PM|#
"I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate,
and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false
witness," Obama said, invoking the frightening specter of the Ten
Commandments.
Given that Obama has defiled at least three commandments (covet,
steal and kill) I wonder who he thinks he is kidding?
Mad Max|8.21.09 @ 2:43PM|#
'C.S. Lewis and Ayn Rand had a lot in common. Both are 3rd rate
philosophers who wrote children's books.'
One thing they *don't* have in common: Being good writers. Lewis
was a good writer (in his own, Anglican way), while Rand . . .
well, if you can't say anything nice . . .
|8.21.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Actually, he's just onto the tactic that was used to promote the
welfare state in many of the countries that have it now.
Many of the socialists and social democrats who promoted the
welfare state were devout christians who were quite fond of quoting
scripture to bring the doubters into line. others were devout Jews
who similarly were not reluctant to bring religious messages to the
purpose.
The two men most responsible for Canada's Medicare system. L B
Pearson and T C Douglas came from extremely religious backgrounds.
Douglas, in fact, had been a Baptist preacher before entering
politics. Pearsons's mother was disappointed that he went into
government service (diplomacy) instead of the clergy.
The notion of passing Medicare in Canada as a manifestation of
Christian charity and compassion was widespread during the debates
over the issue. And, yes, "you are your brother's keeper" was heard
all the time, as well as other biblical exhortations.
Mind you, this was completely consitent in their eyes with crushing
censorship and provincial Sunday closing laws known as The Lord's
Day Acts.
Ironical, ain't it, when you consider what a bunch o' heathen
bastards them puck slapping, syrup sucking Canuck bastards have
turned into.
LarryA|8.21.09 @ 2:58PM|#
I don't think Christ ever proselytized for coercive
utopianism.
It was the other guy. During the 40 days Christ spent in the
wilderness Satan took him up on a high mountain, and they beheld
all the kingdoms of the world. Satan offered to put Jesus in
charge, make him ruler over all the rulers. Jesus declined the
"honor."
I don't think you can hold public office and stay true to the
faith.
If I held public office I would conduct myself as a Christian, in
accordance with my personal relationship with Christ. That would
keep me honest. I would hope that you have your own relationship to
maintain, therefore I would want to have the least government
possible, the fewest laws and rules and regulations, so that you
could exercise maximum free will and responsibility in establishing
that relationship.
There are immoral actions that should be illegal because you
shouldn't be able to force your will on others. (Murder, for
example.) There are immoral actions that should
not be illegal, since virtue lies in your choices
regarding them. (Abuse of drugs, for instance.)
For a Christian libertarian, there's no conflict at all.
Mike M.|8.21.09 @ 3:32PM|#
I've said it repeatedly here that christians, IMO, have no
place in political office.
You're free to have this opinion of course, but you should know
that the founders of America didn't agree with you. In fact, they
went out of their way to specifically put it in the Constitution
that religious tests of any kind for public office are illegal in
America.
There are people on the hard right who believe that atheists have
no place in public office, and they are just as wrong as you are,
for the exact same reason.
This|8.21.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Matthew 20 (King James Version)
1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an
householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers
into his vineyard.
2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he
sent them into his vineyard.
3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing
idle in the marketplace,
4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever
is right I will give you. And they went their way.
5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did
likewise.
6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others
standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day
idle?
7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto
them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that
shall ye receive.
8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his
steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning
from the last unto the first.
9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they
received every man a penny.
10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have
received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman
of the house,
12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made
them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the
day.
13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no
wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last,
even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is
thine eye evil, because I am good?
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be
called, but few chosen.
The ObamaChrist|8.21.09 @ 3:41PM|#
"It was the other guy. During the 40 days Christ spent in the
wilderness Satan took him up on a high mountain, and they beheld
all the kingdoms of the world. Satan offered to put Jesus in
charge, make him ruler over all the rulers. Jesus declined the
"honor.""
He was an idiot. I jumped at Satan's offer.
This|8.21.09 @ 3:44PM|#
"15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine
own?"
That's the money shot, BTW
polio robot|8.21.09 @ 4:10PM|#
"It doesn't have to be. Religon has to be voluntary. It
can't be coercive. If you make everyone do the right thing at the
point of a gun, you have done nothing to save their souls. But, you
have created collectivist paradise."
The Catholics who conquered and 'saved' the Native Americans from
hedonism and idolatry would disagree. Then they would enslave them,
in Christian love of course.
|8.21.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Larry A, thanks for that explanation. It is very helpful.
Mike M, I am a bible believing christian. Not being the libertarian
that Larry A is, I find it hard to imagine a christian in office
not trying to legislate from the Bible. I was not tryig to suggest
a law excluding christians or ant other groups from office. I was
saying that the two, imo, aren't compatible.
The Gobbler|8.21.09 @ 4:24PM|#
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?"
THAT'S what should have been the text on the Obama/Joker
poster.
Space Fiend|8.21.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Let's not forget that the Gospel of Wealth wasn't just made up
out of wholecloth by Carnegie. Here is St. Paul [2 Corinthians
9:6-11] on the issue:
6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly,
and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.
7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to
give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a
cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace abound
to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you
need, you will abound in every good work. 9As it is written: "He
has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor; his righteousness
endures forever." 10Now he who supplies seed to the sower
and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed
and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.
11You will be made rich in every way so
that you can be generous on every occasion, and
through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.
Space Fiend|8.21.09 @ 4:31PM|#
[quote]If he ignores his faith to do the people's bidding, he is
also wrong. I don't think you can hold public office and stay true
to the faith.[/quote]
You're really going to say on a libertarian website that you don't
even think it's possible to let others make choices you
disagree with? I don't smoke crack, and I believe doing so is
morally wrong, but I don't see how my Christian faith gives me the
right to put a gun to your head and restrain you from doing so. In
fact, it calls for just about the opposite.
Space Fiend|8.21.09 @ 4:33PM|#
Ransom: New International, pretty standard.
Here is King James: Every man according as he purposeth in his
heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God
loveth a cheerful giver.
|8.21.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Space:
cool, thanks. i haven't read in years... except when i'm arguing w/
someone.
|8.21.09 @ 5:05PM|#
For a Christian libertarian, there's no conflict at
all.
Most of the time Christianity and the state operate in parallel but
depending on the office you hold you could have issues to address
that conflict with Christianity. Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi
notwithstanding I don't see how a Christian could ever advocate
favorable abortion laws. The best you could hope for at the federal
level is to push it back to the states. The Pope believes that
Christ frowns on the death penalty. I believe Jesus also had an
opinion or two on substance abuse.
The Gobbler|8.21.09 @ 5:09PM|#
Hey Space,
Paul was just a guy. His theology is questionable at best. He
didn't like teh gays.
|8.21.09 @ 5:42PM|#
What draws me here is the thought that Christianity and
Libertarianism are very compatible. The charity and personal
responsibility of christianity, if practiced by all that claim the
faith, would result in society being governable by a libertarian
sized government.
I wrote this back in april.
My opinion about christians keeping their faith from affecting
their position as a lawmaker is similar to the arguments we have
about scotus appointees. If a judge is appointed that has very
socialist beliefs, it is hard to imagine him/her seeing the
constitution with the small govt eyes the founders had and ruling
from that perspective.
Another Anonymous|8.21.09 @ 6:00PM|#
"C.S. Lewis and Ayn Rand had a lot in common. Both are 3rd rate
philosophers who wrote children's books."
Way to dismiss entire bodies of work, Tony.
If Paul Krugman wrote a children's book, you'd be singing his
praises as the best fucking author to ever hit the market.
The Libertarian Guy|8.21.09 @ 8:07PM|#
Well, at least Huck's a capitalist... sorta.
Not that I was gonna vote for him, mind you.
MLevi|8.21.09 @ 8:54PM|#
Michael Ejercito | August 21, 2009, 12:52pm | #
Someone should ask George Obama if Barry is his keeper.
"Let me be clear. I am not my brothers keeper."
I wonder if he's Aunt Zeituni's keeper...
MLevi|8.21.09 @ 8:56PM|#
Mizuna | August 21, 2009, 6:47pm | #
Only guy worse than Obama might've been William Jennings Huckabee.
And coming in right after Huckster would have been the man that
worships his Progressive Hero Teddy Roosevelt...
|8.21.09 @ 9:00PM|#
So the premise here is that Obama's turn to religious leaders and good 'ol New Testament morals as a way of leveling the moral high ground is a flawed strategy? One thing can be said is this: there may be "good guys" and "bad guys", but every soul who laces up the gloves and enters the ring is first and foremost a fighter and has accepted the rules of the game. Whatever your reasons for entering politics, once you're in it you fight to win and the people that back you accept you as their champion. Our president can't allow himself and his mandate to collapse because of one challenged initiative and we, the people, expect our guy to fight to win. Americans wouldn't vote for Gandhi and we don't expect our heroes to turn the other cheek - by the end of the story they always unleash a righteous fury and trounce the villains - we demand this. My only criticism of Obama is that he's not hitting hard enough. I want the gloves off on this - call the liars out and honest citizens to the streets, draw and quarter the racists in the town square, lambaste and castigate the ignorant and shake the earth with reason, rightness and compassion for the unlucky few. I want my president to make whatever deals have to be made in order to WIN THIS DAMN THING AND GET ON WITH WHAT COMES NEXT. Fixing healthcare is only the beginning. Life is a series of choices, and just because an option is imperfect doesn't mean it's the wrong way to go - the only real failure we should fear is a simpering defeat at the hands of Rupert Murdoch (i.e. Fox News) and his WSJ cronies.
MLevi|8.21.09 @ 9:14PM|#
My only criticism of Obama is that he's not hitting hard
enough. I want the gloves off on this - call the liars out and
honest citizens to the streets, draw and quarter the racists in the
town square, lambaste and castigate the ignorant and shake the
earth with reason, rightness and compassion for the unlucky
few.
Is this Eric Cartman? /s
Seriously, I doubt Obama could be an LBJ...
|8.21.09 @ 9:20PM|#
I think he's too busy trying to please people to play the part of the heavy. If we don't see it by this time next week, he doesn't have it in him.
|8.22.09 @ 1:20AM|#
My only comments are:
F that nigger, god bless what should be a confederacy just so the
queers can have their utopia in CA, and the commies in NY can have
theirs.
Tony|8.22.09 @ 1:56AM|#
Way to dismiss entire bodies of work, Tony.
I'm allowed because I've read their entire bodies of work. The
philosophies of both Rand and Lewis seem to appeal to adolescent
minds looking for something clever to believe in, but are hardly
serious attempts to increase human understanding. I think Lewis's
children's books are entertaining though I think the message is too
sectarian for my taste. Rand's children's books are a little dry
for their audience.
B|8.22.09 @ 1:57AM|#
Of course Sullivan will now find some way to explain how this is
not being Christianist, just like he has found a way to rectify $9
Trillion 10-yr defecits and a belief in fiscal
responsibility.
Explain to me again why anyone calling themselves libertarian would
go anywhere near his bullshit blog, much less fucking post on
it?
B|8.22.09 @ 1:59AM|#
"I'm allowed because I've read their entire bodies of work. The
philosophies of both Rand and Lewis seem to appeal to adolescent
minds looking for something clever to believe in, but are hardly
serious attempts to increase human understanding."
Ok genius, why don't you provide us some concrete examples of the
above assertions, by which I mean specific citations accompanied by
your own insightful analysis. Yeah, I won't be holding my fucking
breath. I would be willing to bet everything I own that the amount
of Rand you have read would fit in this fucking box.
B|8.22.09 @ 2:09AM|#
"Fixing healthcare is only the beginning. Life is a series of
choices, and just because an option is imperfect doesn't mean it's
the wrong way to go - the only real failure we should fear is a
simpering defeat at the hands of Rupert Murdoch (i.e. Fox News) and
his WSJ cronies."
The above quote from the douchebag who wrote it is clear evidence
of what Katherine Mengu Ward wrote a few days ago: those who
support Obama's health plan absolutely refuse to admit or concede
that opposition to said plan is honest based on one's own limited
government principles.
What is with Obamabots? They evidently believe that he is
infallible thus any and all opposition to his plans absolutely MUST
come from racists, Rupert Murdoch (an all-encompassing boogeyman
for those on the left) or greedy Wall Street or insurance
executives. Because since he is right, without question, the
motives for opposing him are necessarily sinister, and as Obama's
recent invocation of God makes clear, immoral as well. I am none of
"bad" things I list above yet I would do anything in my power to
prevent the passage of "ObamaCare" and I guarantee a vast majority
of those on this site would say the same thing. But according to
dicks like "mike", we are all acting in bad faith, and really just
want Obama to fail because he is black, or some such other
bullshit.
B|8.22.09 @ 2:12AM|#
"Only guy worse than Obama might've been William Jennings
Huckabee."
If you still think that, even after the shit Obama has done during
his first seven months, you are probably beyond saving. I would
rather have Dennis Kucinich running the country than the
incompetent socialist douchebag we have now. At least then we could
laugh at his UFO stories on the way to our Euro-socialist state of
bankruptcy and perpetual sub-par economic growth.
MLevi|8.22.09 @ 2:26AM|#
Of course Sullivan will now find some way to explain how this is not being Christianist, just like he has found a way to rectify $9 Trillion 10-yr defecits and a belief in fiscal responsibility.
Explain to me again why anyone calling themselves libertarian would go anywhere near his bullshit blog, much less fucking post on it?
And this whole time I thought libertarians wanted to know who Trig
Palin's real mother was... I don't see why you are bashing on
Sullivan. Doesn't he represent all that is good about progressive
libertarians? /s
MLevi|8.22.09 @ 2:29AM|#
I'm allowed because I've read their entire bodies of work.
...and you'll cry if you want to because it's your party or
something?
Just don't let Mommy find out you're posting comments...
Tony|8.22.09 @ 10:55AM|#
I would be willing to bet everything I own that the amount of Rand you have read would fit in this fucking box.
Read her shorter works in middle school, Fountainhead as a
teenager, got around to Atlas pretty recently. It was even worse
than the rumors I'd heard. But that's just my opinion. Now it's
just a matter of proving it so that we can settle the terms of our
contract and I can take possession of all your property...
|8.22.09 @ 11:58AM|#
I'm allowed because I've read their entire bodies of
work.
Tony, I am gonna call bullshit on this. C.S.Lewis had at least 59
works published. If you found his children's fiction too sectarian,
there is no way in hell you made yourself read his dozens of
non-fiction christian apologetics books.
|8.22.09 @ 1:46PM|#
I recently sent the letter below to Mr. Obama. I realize that
many who are regular Reason readers and LPers are atheists or
agnostics or Non Christians so this letter will sound "crazy"
perhaps even demented.
Unfortuantely if Mr. Obama did read the letter and ponder upon its
warnings and promises from God theorugh me as a messenger, he
arrived at conclusions NOT from the light side but from the dark
side.
#############################################
I have written you twice during the last two weeks asking you to
voluntarily step down as POTUS to avoid being forced to do so and
causing race riots especially throughout the big cities of the USA.
I warned, in these two messages, that the political noose was
quickly being tightened around your neck.
This week, with the help of a number of friends in the
international intelligence/special forces community, we now have an
authentic copy of your Kenyan birth certificate. Within the next to
two weeks, we will have an authentic copy of your original, long
form, vault birth certificate housed in Hawaii.
Court technical games, buyoffs of Hawaii officials, and your
"protectors" in the MSM can't protect you against the special
operations that have been created to obtain that birth certificate.
There are too many men and women who are committed to protecting
the liberties in the Constitution.
Once both these documents have been tested by a team of
internationally recognized document forensic scientists, they will
prove that they are the "real thing," and the noose will be
complete. Please voluntarily step down as POTUS
The other night while conducting my nightly prayers with "hatred"
in my heart towards you, I suddenly had a total change of heart
towards you. "Hatred" turned to sorrow for your eternal welfare.
God choose me for His reasons which I don't know to be an
instrument in His hands to deliver you a message as you face the
crossroads of your political and personal life during August. Below
is that message:
"He has seen your stress and tremendous mental anguish. He has
searched your heart and sees some remaining good that can be used
for His cause.
The warning to you is that you're presently following the dark
path, surrounded with people who seek to use you for their own evil
purposes. The prince of darkness is behind all these acts. To
continue along this path will result in an inability to be forgiven
by God both in this life and the eternities to come. Your legacy in
history will become known as the "black Benedict Arnold."
Now in contrast, if you place your total trust in God and turn from
the dark side, while fully exposing and criminally prosecuting
those who seek the destruction of the US Constitutional Republic
and the creation of a Global Government, I'm authorized to promise
you the following:
1. That God will physically protect you and your wife and lovely
children from any harm from all elements of the dark side
2. That He will literally lead you by the hand each and everyday.
He will provide you will the path you should lead as POTUS.
3. That your legacy will be as the "black George Washington," being
loved and respected by peoples of all races and creeds, not only in
the USA but throughout the world. That you will go down in history
as a man even greater that Abraham Lincoln
I realize that you don't know me: that I could simply be a crazy
religious fanatic. But… IF you will seek to talk with an open mind
and heart to God out loud in very private place away from all
distractions and people, He will certify to you that the message I
bring is from Him. He will in His infinite mercy forgive you of
everything you have done in the past. He will wipe the "slate
clean." You will literally become an instrument in His hands.
May you take my message very seriously,
Dr. Douglas W. Schell aka Captain Moroni
Retired Professor of Business
The Libertarian Guy|8.22.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"Rand's children's books are a little dry for their
audience."
Rand has never written a children's book. You're just pissed off at
her philosophy, and can't help but be childish about describing
it.
Why do you even bother posting here, Tony? You're not a free-market
fan, you support a political party that is openly hostile to the
private sector and only cares about "choice" on one issue. Wouldn't
you be better off over at DU or NewsHounds?
bibliophile|8.22.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Xeones:
Jesus was an early church/state separatist, what with the whole
"render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is
God's" thing.
Jesus was an early church/state separatist? Try God.
1 Samuel 8-18.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=8&version=31
I mean, if you believe the bible, God meant for the Hebrews to be
Libertarians. But they wanted otherwise. And that didn't turn out
so well for them over the course of the rest of the bible.
Charles|8.22.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Let me start by stating first that I do *not* support the health
care reform policies put forth by the Democratic majority. That
being said, I have not been able to find any realistic alternatives
being put out by the so-called "conservative" Republicans which
address the following:
I pay $980.00 every month for health care insurance covering my
family of four. That's my portion *after* what is paid by my
employer. My co-payments have risen 150% in the past 5 years. I've
passed on two opportunities to open a small business because I
believe I can't purchase insurance-even at a higher cost-because of
pre-existing conditions. And finally, if one of us were to suffer a
catastrophic accident or be diagnosed with an all-to-common
condition like cancer, there is a good chance we would be driven
into bankruptcy.
I am personally offended by the blasphemy of invoking the Lord, and
the borderline illiterate interpretations of the principals of this
nation's founders, put forth by my party. I have been a Republican
for 25 years, and I am active (Precinct Judge, member or county,
state, and national parties), and I am so utterly disheartened by
the lack of leadership and ideas on this important issue that I've
honestly considered withdrawing from the party.
There's no need-or cause-to invoke the Bible. This is entirely a
secular, economic issue. Health care reform MUST happen for this
nation to be competitive and to prevent escalating costs in the
next few decades which will necessitate tax increases and spending
on par with the early 1960's (where the top tax bracket was over
80%).
This is a golden opportunity for our party to seize control over a
critical debate, and put forth TRUE free market solutions.
Otherwise, please-leave the Lord out of this. To continue to invoke
His name in vain in this pathetic squabbling is blasphemy at best,
sinful at worst.
CH|8.22.09 @ 7:03PM|#
I'm asking this question sincerely and not to start any kind of
flame war:
Did Reason have any problem with GWB selling the Iraq war with his
"god told me to do this" line?
I hope they did, and that this article isn't supreme
hypocrisy.
Both parties have used god to win elections and pass legislation. I
actually remember the Democrats doing it first with Jimmy Carter's
"born again" shit. The Republicans just do it better,
usually.
And that C.S. Lewis "robber baron" line is awful. How about "Robber
barons and big-government hacks are all stupid cunts who deserve to
die."
I can get behind that a little bit easier.
Anonymous|8.22.09 @ 7:06PM|#
Charles,
Our assertion is that government has created the situation where
health insurance and medicine costs are rising disproportionately
to inflation, quality standards, and technology. Regulation and
cost trends, correlation between intervention and costs, since even
social security was created bear this out.
We all know the government is intent on increasing control over
this sector.
"Never waste a good crisis" -- this is the official line of the
administration.
The conclusion is simple. Central planning is an economic failure,
and the constitution does not allow it to occur. Either one of
those would be enough reason to fight it as the attack on sovereign
soil it is.
Lexmark 342|8.22.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Some people tend to misjudge people who are too frank as liars or sarcastic. Well, it's hard to go straightforward using the right words for that person!
Zionazi Niggerfaggot|8.22.09 @ 10:48PM|#
I'm asking this question sincerely and not to start any kind of flame war:
If so, then you're asking it the wrong way.
Did Reason have any problem with GWB selling the Iraq war with his "god told me to do this" line?
If he had, maybe they would, but he didn't. Don't trust your
W-hating pals on this: find us a speech where he actually said that
or some reasonable facsimile thereof before you go attacking Reason
for not condemning it.
We should note that these heathen libertines over here at Reason
did snicker a bit at Bush's calling Jesus his favorite philosopher
(when somebody asked him about it, let the record state). They were
also hostile to the point of being well-nigh libelous of the entire
War on Terrorism, albeit not specifically over the theology of
it.
I hope they did, and that this article isn't supreme hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy not to attack someone for something they didn't
say. It is hypocritical and disingenuous to put words in someone's
mouth and attack them for what they didn't say in an attempt to
distract us from what someone else definitely did say. (We've got
the video and everything. What've you got?)
Both parties have used god to win elections and pass legislation. I actually remember the Democrats doing it first with Jimmy Carter's "born again" shit. The Republicans just do it better, usually.
The tendency for politicians to cozy up to the reigning deity goes
all the way back to the start of recorded history; without the
cult, there is no culture. As to who's doing it "better" can we
some definition please? Also, what exactly is your problem with
them if they are cozying up to God win support? Persuading your
constituents to let you do things the way you propose to do them is
the whole point of politics.
Cozying up to a deity is one such method of persuasion; in, for
example, Al Gore's case, that deity is known as Science.
Y'know, as in "She blinded me with Science!" I rarely hear
that kind of theology condemned around here though.
And that C.S. Lewis "robber baron" line is awful. How about "Robber barons and big-government hacks are all stupid cunts who deserve to die."
Yes, because your line sure is a great way of winning friends and
influencing people. How very original and thought-provoking! Here's
an equally original and thought-provoking line for you: "All Bush
bashers are Saddam-loving mass-murdering traitors and too stupid to
live!"
I can get behind that a little bit easier.
The rest of us, not so much.
The Libertarian Guy|8.23.09 @ 12:07AM|#
"I am personally offended by the blasphemy of invoking the Lord,
and the borderline illiterate interpretations of the principals of
this nation's founders, put forth by my party."
Fair enough, but now the Democrats are doing all of the above. It's
just as disgusting.
Conservative Republican Voter|8.23.09 @ 1:20AM|#
Charles | August 22, 2009, 5:11pm | #
Let me start by stating first that I do *not* support the health care reform policies put forth by the Democratic majority. That being said, I have not been able to find any realistic alternatives being put out by the so-called "conservative" Republicans which address the following:
I pay $980.00 every month for health care insurance covering my family of four. That's my portion *after* what is paid by my employer. My co-payments have risen 150% in the past 5 years. I've passed on two opportunities to open a small business because I believe I can't purchase insurance-even at a higher cost-because of pre-existing conditions. And finally, if one of us were to suffer a catastrophic accident or be diagnosed with an all-to-common condition like cancer, there is a good chance we would be driven into bankruptcy.
The obvious solution here is commonly known as privatization. Your
coverage is currently linked to your employer and is therefore
corporate; if it could be de-linked from your employer and made
transferable, you would then be able to stick with your current
plan wherever you go and those pre-existing conditions would not be
an obstacle to your economic mobility.
That the premiums are so high is indeed a problem. You do need to
realize, however, that your employer's part of the payment is in
fact coming out of your paycheck. In other words, if health
insurance were to be privatized so that you were picking up the
whole payment yourself, your pay should rise along with the payment
in compensation.
Obviously, if the Republicans were in a position make the laws,
they could call for this in a privatization and deregulation bill:
that all employer premiums be transferred to the employees along
with a raise in pay that directly corresponds to their share of the
burden. Republicans are currently not in such a position. If you
want them to take up your cause, therefore, your best bet is to
band together with others in a special interest group to lobby your
Republican candidates for a promise to privatize health insurance
in return for your vote. (You can lobby Democrats for this too if
you think any of them will listen to you, though I am quite certain
they will not.)
The very reason we have corporate health insurance plans such as
yours in the first place is that back before the information
revolution, employers were able to get a kind of bulk rate discount
for their employees because the administrative costs of covering a
corporate group were lower than they would be for covering the same
number of people individually; with the information revolution and
the rise of database software, this difference has been rendered
negligible. There is therefore no longer any need for health
insurance to be linked to one's employers. The current system
persists mainly through inertia.
This inertia comes in part from the mistaken belief many people
have that anything somebody else is paying for is "free" and in
part from people at the insurance companies being set in their ways
and resistant to upgrading their filing technology and updating
their administrative methods. As others have noted, the insurance
companies really are "the villains" in a way completely the
opposite from what Pelosi pretends: in fact, they have an
incestuous relationship with government that has them supporting
more government control and interference, not less. They don't want
privatization, because it means getting them off the government
teat.
In the end, though, the main obstacle to true reform is this
widespread foolish notion that money from any large
collective--such as government or a big corporation--is essentially
infinite. When any such entity (such as government) spends other
people's money (the taxpayers') on other people (such as you), the
price of the services that money buys (health care) skyrockets
because the market always sets the price at what the seller
believes the buyer can pay, and the buyer seems to be able to pay a
well-nigh infinite amount.
If we privatize health care, the insurance company will no longer
be operating on the belief that it can squeeze so much money out of
their payers because the clients won't be corporate. This in turn
will make them stingier toward the doctors and hospitals that treat
you, decreasing revenue and forcing the medical workers to lower
their prices to reflect what they believe you and your insurance
company are able and willing to pay. (One method they have for this
that works exceedingly well is also the system by which new
graduates from medical school usually get their first job: HMOs,
which provide their trainees with patients and valuable job
experience in exchange for a steep discount on the services they
provide.)
In your case, privatization would bring down your premiums,
enabling you to purchase more insurance for the same amount of
money, allow you keep your plan even if you change jobs, and keep
what you do with your money between you and your insurer instead of
putting it in the hands of some distant bureaucrat who can't
possibly know or care much about what you really need. In short,
it's a true "single-payer" system that leaves government out of
it.
Beyond that, for special cases beyond what any insurer can handle
(such as someone whose kid gets spina bifida or cerebral palsy or
other hyper-expensive conditions) charities can deal with some of
the expense, and with existing laws requiring the hospitals to
treat patients whether they can pay or not, people can apply for
federal aid to cover truly desperate cases. This should be called
what it is: welfare. Privatization would thus have the fringe
benefit of also separating insurance from government subsidization,
again dispelling the economically ruinous belief that large
collective entities have access to some kind of infinite revenue
stream.
Therefore, that's my recommended solution as a conservative and
Republican voter: privatization. Now, if you can get your elected
officials to go for this--and convince them that you'll back them
up against their opponents if they champion your cause--then
they've got a plan. If they won't go for it, find someone who will.
If no one will go for it (or nobody can get elected) because it
doesn't have enough support, then that's hardly their fault, is it?
Elected officials of all stripes find their way into office by
promising the people what they think they want. What they don't
know so well is how to deliver the goods once they're elected.
That's where you have to give them a little guidance.
Tony|8.23.09 @ 7:09AM|#
Rand has never written a children's book. You're just pissed off at her philosophy, and can't help but be childish about describing it.
Why do you even bother posting here, Tony? You're not a free-market fan, you support a political party that is openly hostile to the private sector and only cares about "choice" on one issue. Wouldn't you be better off over at DU or NewsHounds?
And you're someone who masturbates to thoughts of mass murder of
people who disagree with you, as expressed on another thread, so
let's not lecture one another about individual liberty shall
we.
MJ|8.23.09 @ 9:15AM|#
As Tony does not believe in the American conception of human rights, he does believe in liberty anyway.
The Libertarian Guy|8.23.09 @ 12:15PM|#
What the hell are you talking about "from another thread", Tony? Where did I "advocate mass murder", in any serious sense?
Chad|8.23.09 @ 8:27PM|#
Conservative Republican Voter | August 23, 2009, 1:20am |
#
The obvious solution here is commonly known as
privatization.
How does privatization solve the pre-existing condition problem?
Please explain how your private medical insurance would handle the
following two scenarios:
1: A person, who while uninsured, is diagnosed with Type 1
Diabetes
2: A person who is diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes while insured,
but who later loses or drops that insurance for whatever
reason
Then, please contrast that with home-owners' insurance in the case
of a devastating fire, for both someone who had no insurance at the
time and someone who had insurance but later dropped or lost
it.
I think anyone would agree that there is something quite different
about the two scenarios. In the latter, the person would have no
problem picking up new insurance at a later date, at a reasonable
price. In the former case, getting a new private insurer would
either be entirely hopeless or enormously expensive.
There is a fundamental difference between these two types of
insurance. I encourage you to seek it out so that you understand
it.
Anonymous|8.23.09 @ 9:02PM|#
getting a new private insurer would either be entirely
hopeless or enormously expensive
So what you're saying is that people shouldn't pay for their own
risks, because they can't be forseen (definition of a risk) and
because they cost too much (you assert the expected value of the
cost of treatments to be estimated by insurers too high to be
reasonable -- no evidence).
What principles bring you to this conclusion? Where does charity
come in? I see drives for money for diabetes, cancer, and such
quite a bit; hospitals make good use of that, I'm told by those in
the know.
What I'm trying to say is that you're making assertions about the
state of the insurance market that don't fit a reasonable risk
analysis, mainly for lack of evidence, and which ignore the market
distortions currently in place. In other words, it's easy to assume
you're leveraging government's past mistakes in order to justify a
future mistake.
Conservative Republican Voter|8.23.09 @ 10:19PM|#
How does privatization solve the pre-existing condition problem?
Specifically, as I stated if you read a bit further (though
evidently you didn't), privatization solves Charles' pre-existing
condition problem by making the coverage he already has
transferable. It's not a panacea, just an improvement on the
current system.
Please explain how your private medical insurance would handle the following two scenarios:
1: A person, who while uninsured, is diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes
Check out that paragraph with the words "charities" and
"hyper-expensive" in it in the long description above.
2: A person who is diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes while insured, but who later loses or drops that insurance for whatever reason
Obviously, the legislator and his constituents should do what they
can to keep that from happening, though that's beyond the reach of
mere legislation. (Specifically, one needs sound free-market
economic policies and the rule of law to ensure that the economy
stays healthy and people who lose their jobs can find new ones
quickly so they can keep paying their premiums.)
In this particular plan, transferability keeps the buyer from
losing his plan when he switches jobs, and--let's face it--how many
people do you think would willingly drop their coverage if it were
paying for medical bills they were currently incurring? Your
"whatever reason" objection is awfully vague and therefore
virtually meaningless.
Then, please contrast that with home-owners' insurance in the case of a devastating fire, for both someone who had no insurance at the time and someone who had insurance but later dropped or lost it.
Your comparison and contrast is already faulty: hyper-expensive
health conditions last for months and years and lifetimes. House
fires last (usually) an hour or two and are a one-time
expense.
I think anyone would agree that there is something quite different about the two scenarios.
I think most anyone else would also agree that you're comparing
apples and oranges.
In the latter, the person would have no problem picking up new insurance at a later date, at a reasonable price. In the former case, getting a new private insurer would either be entirely hopeless or enormously expensive.
Unless, of course, there were some way your house could be on fire
for the rest of your life; then getting a new insurer would also be
entirely hopeless. So what's your point?
There is a fundamental difference between these two types of insurance. I encourage you to seek it out so that you understand it.
It seems to me that I already understand the difference better than
you do. Again, what's your point? You seem to have stated two
premises and then neglected to come to any conclusion.
bt|8.23.09 @ 11:35PM|#
"I just wish he'd quit coveting my goods."
Cheer up, BO may covet your goods, but his pal Barney covets your
ASS!
bt|8.23.09 @ 11:37PM|#
The real problem is not that BO sees himself as a partner with
God.
The problem is that BO sees his own name first on the door
sign.
|8.24.09 @ 1:04AM|#
"C.S. Lewis and Ayn Rand had a lot in common. Both are 3rd rate
philosophers who wrote children's books."
I don't think many philosophers would disagree with that.
Objectivism is far too dogmatic and anti-utilitarian for my taste.
I agree with most of its main tenets but, IMO, it's not a practical
philosophy.
IceTrey|8.24.09 @ 5:19AM|#
This is just all part of Obama's use of neuro-linguistic programing. It's a form of covert hypnosis. He was well trained in these techniques during his time in Chicago. Remember the whole "A light will shine down and you will think, I have to vote for Barack" schpeel? Unfortunately the great unwashed masses are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
IceTrey|8.24.09 @ 5:26AM|#
Tenets of Objectivism:
1. Metaphysics; Objective Reality
2. Epistemology; Reason
3. Ethics; Self-interest
4. Politics; Capitalism
How is any of that dogmatic or anti-utilitarian?
|8.24.09 @ 6:51AM|#
Yo, ICE-T, why you disrespectin' NLP?
Tony Robbins was a big NLP fan.
Are you afraid to "awaken the giant within"?
The President isn't.
Unfortunately, those of us who want to sleep through this present
national greatness self-help course won't be left alone.
Chad|8.24.09 @ 6:54AM|#
Conservative Republican Voter | August 23, 2009, 10:19pm |
#
Specifically, as I stated if you read a bit further (though
evidently you didn't), privatization solves Charles' pre-existing
condition problem by making the coverage he already has
transferable.
So he is supposed to be locked into this one company for life,
regardless of any poor decisions it makes or bad products it
delivers?
Obviously, the legislator and his constituents should do what
they can to keep that from happening
I thought we were talking about a "free market". Legislators should
do nothing but enforce contracts.
In this particular plan, transferability keeps the buyer from
losing his plan when he switches jobs, and--let's face it--how many
people do you think would willingly drop their coverage if it were
paying for medical bills they were currently incurring? Your
"whatever reason" objection is awfully vague and therefore
virtually meaningless.
Here are a few examples.
1: Chris misses paying a bill while he is in the hospital. Bye-bye
insurance.
2: Chris forgets to put a stamp on his monthly bill. He misses the
deadline to pay. Bye-bye insurance.
3: The insurance company digs through every piece of paper they
have on Chris, and find some improperly dotted "i". Bye-bye
insurance.
4: Chris, being sick and unemployed, is forced to choose between
his forclosure and his insurance. He chooses to pay on the house.
Bye-bye insurance.
5: The insurance company goes kaput. Bye-bye insurance.
Your comparison and contrast is already faulty: hyper-expensive
health conditions last for months and years and lifetimes. House
fires last (usually) an hour or two and are a one-time
expense.
Exactly. That is my entire point: health insurance is
fundamentally different than any other kind of insurance,
because the things incidents you are insuring against are often
chronic and impossible to isolate from one another.
Sun Stealer|8.24.09 @ 10:46PM|#
Even the devil can quote scripture, as has been demonstrated.
The Democrats have no problem paying lip service to the religion
they hate the most and wish to destroy if they think it will work
in their favor. However, the most startling is how Obama's god
complex really came to forefront. He spoke as if he actually
believed he was God. However, Christ is my god, not Obama. No true
Christian will be swayed by the god of the Statolaters.
Also, as a Catholic, I resent any suggestions that Ted Kennedy and
Nancy Pelosi are christians, when they are clearly apostates. Nancy
Pelosi even lied about the catholic stance on abortion, which
caused the Pope to scold her. Then she had a meeting with the Pope
over the matter and afterwards lied about what the Pope said, to
which, the Pope then went on to publicly scold her again.
The Atheist|8.27.09 @ 4:10PM|#
As an atheist, for instance, my core moral concern is that
elected officials stop telling me what my core moral concerns
should be."------No shit!!
I'm so sick and tired of the zombie worshipers blaming us "hethans
and pagans" and calling on "god" to fix their bull shit
problems.
|11.24.09 @ 11:22AM|#
I think by making simple decisions to buy or not buy, consumers have changed entire industries — banking, travel, cell phones. A little pressure from consumers typically produces a lot of innovation that shifts products, competition, prices, quality, choices, and ultimately value. The problem with personal and corporate health insurance plans is that it has been built around providers, insurers, the government, employers — and not around consumers. We've ended up with spiralling costs and few consumer choices, primarily because many of the regulations and mindsets governing health care have inhibited the kind of broad-scale consumer innovation that's happened in other industries.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by David Harsanyi
- Phony Are the Brave, David Harsanyi, November 25, 2009
- The Palin Experience, David Harsanyi, November 18, 2009
- The Case Against Twitter, David Harsanyi, November 14, 2009
Related Articles (Health Care, Barack Obama)
- Who Decides If Breast Tests Are Best?, Ronald Bailey, November 24, 2009
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- My Body, Their Choice, Peter Suderman, November 18, 2009
- Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes, Andrew Napolitano, November 16, 2009
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245