So NOW the left wants to legislate morality.

Ahh ... the dangers of circular logic.

I hesitate to add to Titus's rather succinct description of "morality" regarding government programs, because it was quite good ... but what the hell, I will anyway.

I think each of us here have an agreed disdain, if not a flat out fear, for the American worship of a culture of death. Abortions to "divorce parties" to gangster rap music and the glorification of "loser-ism" in movies and TV, the trend is disconcerting to any aware adult. In my opinion the entire line up of the E Channel, to MTV to the grotesque mind numbing phenomena that is "reality tv" in which the only reality I can see is that the stars of these shows would have no other way of earning a living without that genera, is collectively nothing more than tooth decay in the mouth of society. But let me return to that in a moment ...

My initial reaction to Jambo's implicit endorsement of a "moral argument" for public health care was nearly the same as Titus. To be honest I earnestly thought Jambo was joking to get a rise with his post, but then he text me on my way to work to inform me that he was indeed serious. Something I was genuinely surprised at, because the opposition argument seemed so compelling, and so unarguably part of the American experience in Democracy that it seemed uncharacteristic for him to miss.

I phrased it slightly different then Titus. I expressed my belief that it has long been considered since the time of our founding fathers "immoral" for a government (especially a central government) to intrude into the life and choices of the individual. "Tyrannical" governments were written about extensively as the very source of immorality itself by our founders, and that "tyrannical" aspect most notably took the form of unjust taxation. It can be said that at the core of our national DNA is the belief that to deny a man the fruits of his own labor epitomizes immorality. And this is all part and parcel of Titus noting that a moral society is one that encourages a man to be charitable versus dictating he be, for in the latter the dictation itself becomes the immoral act. I'm sure I don't have to remind Jambo how many quotes of the founders, pre and post Constitutional Convention, that exist that touch on that very aspect of governance with near unanimity of opinion, and AGAIN I submit that either Barak Obama and the advocates of public health care are correct or the founders were ... but I digress.

Let me address this another way ... I had an argument similar to this with a Canadian co-worker (now a naturalized US citizen) whom was adamant that if public health care was not passed in the States that upon retirement he was heading back to Kunnuck country in order to avail himself of their socialized medicine. I scoffed at such a statement because he talked right past the obvious hypocrisy staring him in the face. He relocated, by his own admission, to the US to make more money. On the side he even runs his own business. Now here is a gentleman that fundamentally doesn't understand that the robust economy he opted for over the nation of his birth is robust precisely because our experiment in self governance has traditionally rejected the collective central planning he is lamenting we don't have!

Now reenter the culture of death discussion ... whether it be the media avenues we discussed or, lets say, burning the American flag, I submit that the answer to such acts we as private citizens define as "immoral" is not a curtailing of the bad actors speech, but rather more speech, from us. The answer to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech. The answer to a moral obligation (assuming you believe one exists) to provide all citizens with health care is not less options, it's more options. And we all know that if a government option is introduced it will eat through the private sector of health insurance providers until none other exists.

And let me just extrapolate further on that point. Once the government option becomes the sole option it is inevitable that the "prohibition effect" will come into play. In other words the best doctors, those at the top of their field, will simply opt out and render services exclusively for those whom can afford to pay cash. In which case you have in effect reserved the very best care for ONLY the uber rich ... and that is a populist's version of morality?

Unless of course you intend to make going out of the system illegal no matter if one posses the means to do so, in which case we are back to dictating morality being an act of immorality itself, and blatantly denying a man the fruits of his own labor.

Now so far our discussion has been primarily based on the immorality of forcing me to pay for my neighbors health care, or worse, as Titus aptly pointed out, the immorality of forcing me to cough up money in order for others to engage in procedures that I find abhorrent, be it abortion or condoms for 7th graders. But Jambo text me after I gave the short hand version of this post to him over the phone, and asked: "Well if we could find a way to do this without an additional burden of taxes, doesn't your entire argument dissipate?" In a word, NO.

First off, that's like asking an anti-war protester, "As long as there isn't any killing, would you be for war then?" I hardly see how you divorce the two and maintain a rationale discussion, but for the sake of argument, lets try.

If it is a "moral obligation" that we provide each and every citizen not equal opportunity to health care but (supposedly) equal care, haven't we ventured in to definitional Marxism? Lets further the question - Americans whom become doctors spend 4 years in undergrad school, another 4 years in medical school, and an additional 2 years as an intern, and in the process rack up hundreds of thousands in student bills and loans, and yet you are advocating that it is "ok" to limit their income once they attain their goal. And we all know that is precisely what will happen because be it socialized medicine or public insurance inevitably the private sector of either will be wiped clean, and since that causes a finite amount of care, that care WILL be rationed, and one of the ways to ration the finite resources, in other words reduce cost, will be to ration compensation (and as I think about it that action will result in a "doctors union" so say hello to the NEA teachers union version of health care ... ugh). At any rate, if you are comfortable with rationing compensation due to a moral imperative why not go a step further and install a "doctor draft?" Why not make 2 or 4 years of their service mandatory at military enlistee wages? They can get a draft letter at their office. The difference being of course that an enlistee begins his initial wages before he puts in his 10 years to be a soldier, not after. This would be the equivalent of the opposite. The dictation of compensation ... that is morality?

Let me deal with another aspect. You must realize that with a finite amount of services comes rationing, that's a given. In other words distant bureaucrats, government workers, whatever you want to call them, in the end they are strangers to you and your family, THEY will be judging the worth of a person's life. That is ultimately where senior care will head. They will have no choice but to consider the worth of the elderly patients ability to "contribute" ... and THAT is morality?

See, this is why I initially, in my text, described the "morality" argument for public health care as "insidious." Jambo claimed that this was "inflammatory rhetoric", but I mean that critique honestly. This moral imperative for government intervention is the grand puba of slippery slopes. It ultimately redefines freedom. As a moral imperative the government must step in and give you X, Y and Z. You need a house, you need an education, you need a car, why not have the government provide all of these at no cost to you as a moral imperative so you aren't bothered with the burden of having to provide these things for yourself? The rich can afford the taxes. After all, "true freedom," says the central planner, "is freedom from want. It is freedom from need." But ultimately that is freedom from "choice", from decisions, from being the master of your own destiny.

{deep exhale} ....

During this entire discussion I keep replaying a talk with my elder son I had not long ago. On the way to some errand we came upon a red light at a busy Las Vegas intersection. There, amidst the pounding heat, stood a disheveled unshaven man with a sign. "HUNGRY", it read. He was making his way from car window to car window, with some drivers emptying out their ash tray of change, another few handing bills from a wallet. When finally he made his way to our truck. I simply shook my head, without rolling down the window, and the man moved on. The light turned green and my son and I drove away. As we did I asked him a simple, but revealing question: "Can you tell me what just happened there?" He answered, "That homeless guy was begging for money, and you told him no." "True enough" I responded, "but there's more." I made a detour to the crudely named "ho-bo village" here in town, just 3 or 4 blocks from the Golden Nugget and all of Down Town. There my son's jaw dropped, for one after another a series of tents and make shift card board boxes lined the street in a scene reminiscent of a Great Depression era film, and in searing temperatures. "They live there?", he asked with true surprise on his face. I didn't say anything. I took a few more streets and came upon a building that reads: "Desert Industries", and I explained to him what that was. These buildings are all over town. They take in the homeless and clean them up in every sense of the phrase. Give them job training, a place to stay while they learn, and then set them up on job interviews. There is a catch though - in addition to some other rules such as curfews, it is an alcohol and drug free zone. He asked why they didn't just all go there. And I told him - "Because those people's hand outs, at the red light, enable them to stay in those shanty tents just one more afternoon. Their handouts make that village possible. Those people are enabling a fellow human being to live on the street just that much longer. So son, where is the compassion in that?"

See, in the end, whether they knew it or not, that person at the red light was making that hand out about his or her self. They felt good giving the homeless man money. They did ... and I did not. I had a different moral imperative. Who was right?

I submit that the person whose genuine compassion is driving them to make a moral argument for public health care, whether it be grandma's end of life decisions or a homeless man at the red light, they must inevitably trust that the government will define compassion the same way as they do. Does anyone think that will be the case? Has it ever? Did FEMA define "emergency management" the same way as you, Titus or I would?

I sincerely doubt it.