ETHICS AND MORALITY- HEALTH CARE. PT 2.

 

I would like to emphasize something I alluded to in part 1.  To often, the health care debate gets mired in details that have little to do with the reality that must be faced:

Initially, at least, HEALTH CARE BEING APPLIED UNIVERSALLY TO AN ENTIRE POPULATION OF ANY GIVEN COUNTRY IS A MORAL DECISION , NOT AN ECONOMIC ONE.

 

Like other state run social programs in the U.S, Universal Health Care is not designed to turn a profit.  Its' goal is to provide affordable medical insurance that will not cripple an individual or families ability to provide for other basic necessities.  This idea stems from the primarily 20th century concept that government has an obligation to provide for, to a certain extent, the basic needs of a portion of the population that cannot do so on its' own.  However, unlikecurrent social programs, Universal Health Care in the U.S differs from other social programs in one major aspect- ELIGIBILITY.  As it stands today in the U.S, there are three main groups that have medical insurance.

• Those who have high enough incomes that make attaining quality health care plans a non-issue.
• Private health care plans that are partially or wholly subsidized by an employer.
• Individuals and families with an income that falls below a certain level, which is set by the federal government.

 

These above groups leave out a substantial portion of the population in the U.S.

This segment of society is the real reason that Universal Health Care, or "Obamacare" is being instituted.  The middle class is the target group that will benefit the most, because they do not lie at either end of the financial spectrum in terms of income.  Since paying health insurance premiums will be done on a sliding scale basis, all Americans will be covered in a way that does not end in financial hardship.

See pt. 3 in a future issue.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. HEALTH CARE. PT 1.

HEALTH CARE-  PT 1.

I am not going to begin this regular feature by providing a definition that will no doubt bore most readers. In the future, I will define such words, but I would rather open up with a practical article. 

The theme, " When does personal belief conflict with the best interests of society as a whole." 

The subject- Health Care.

Providing Health Insurance to every person residing in the U.S and its' territories, is not an economic question. 

If the federal government creates a program to provide minimal guaranteed medical coverage, 

funding must be there to support those who cannot afford traditional private plans. 

This is the Heart of the matter, and the dilemmas we must face are;

• Do we, as a society, have an obligation to provide minimal affordable medical care to all.
• That many people will, through taxation, provide a service that will be of direct benefit to others and not them personally.
• That in the question of the right or wrong of a given situation, choosing a moral stand is;

              1) The responsibility of the individual who is a member of society.

              2) The obligation of the governing body in society, which is a collection

              of individuals.

To illustrate what I mean, here is an example.  Let us say an individual decides all questions of morality will be answered from a Doctrine based upon the teachings of a given faith.  Now such decisions have two distinct implications;

• Is the individual going to decide the morality of any given situation solely by religious instruction and nothing else. If not, they have invalidated their own moral code, for it is not universally applied. It contradicts any assertion that the doctrine of their faith, regarding morality, is to be accepted absolutely.
• Does the individual wish to establish this system of morality for all of society, and punish any deviations.

 If society is populated by a majority of such citizens, what will be the outcome?

See pt.2 in a future issue.

NANCY REALLY NEEDS US RIGHT NOW. DAVID.

NORMALLY I DON'T MAKE PUBLIC ANY PETITIONS THAT I HAVE SIGNED, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. HOWEVER, THE NATIONAL TRAGEDY THAT IS DONALD TRUMP MUST BE CONFRONTED BY ALL AMERICANS WHO STILL WANT TO LIVE IN A FREE AND OPEN SOCIETY, WHERE LOGIC, REASON, AND EQUALITY FOR ALL ARE NOT REPLACED BY FASCISM, HATE, RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY, AND XENOPHOBIA. DAVID MCDONALD, PUBLISHER.

                                                             

NANCY PELOSI.                                                SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. David: Nancy really needs you right now, because your support means so much during these troubling times. CLICK ON THE LINE BELOW: Add your name to show your support for Nancy as she holds President Trump accountable. Thanks, Team Pelosi

SIGN ON TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH & END THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

No one is above the law. This is about more than politics. This is about the kind of America we want to see. Add your name to stand with Nancy and let’s end this gross culture of corruption once and for all and expose the truth.

First Name

LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #7. THE FALLACY OF INTOLERANCE. PT 2.

The Basis for much of this Type of Fallacy, is often ZEALOTRY being masked behind Specific Beliefs and Attitudes found in Religion and Nationalism.  These are used as Reasons to claim that Certain;

-  EXPRESSIONS OF FAITH. 

-  POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES.

-  CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ATTITUDES, BASED ON CLASS DISTINCTION.

Are Supported by Individuals who claim They want what is Best for Every Individual, which Includes Families and Friends, and the Country as a whole.  However, Upon Closer Analysis, we find that such Conclusions are not Based in Reality, and Often hide a SELF- SERVING AGENDA.

Unlike the SOCIOPATH, (See FEATURE ARTICLES), most People don't want to Think that others are Being Cheated, Harmed or Treated Unfairly.  This is Especially True if They are Getting Benefits or Advantages Denied to Others.  This can become a Crisis of Conscience, unless they can RATIONALIZE THE INEQUALITY IN A WAY THAT LETS THEM OFF THE HOOK.  It may not take much to Alleviate any Feelings of Guilt, and POLITICS OFTEN OFFERS A CONVENIENT WAY OUT OF THIS EMOTIONAL DILEMMA. 

This is the FOUNDATION OF ZEALOTRY THAT IS FOUND IN MANY PARTS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.  It Allows SUPPORTERS;

-  To Draw Conclusions about Entire Segments of Society, without providing any Real Evidence that All Members of such Groups Deserves to be Judged in the Same Light.

-  To Justify abolishing certain Government Programs Designed to Address Economic and Social Hardships, if there are any Problems in how they are Administered, while at the same time ignoring the Positive Affects on those who were meant to be Helped. Further, these Same Types of Problems are Given a Free Pass, and are not Addressed, if They Occur in Programs that the Zealots Benefit From.

-  To Claim Discrimination or Unfairness if New Laws or Judicial Decisions take away Their Privileged Status, and Offer Equality Under the Law by Legalizing Social Behaviors and Civil Contracts that will give all the same Status.

ZEALOTRY IS OFTEN THE FACE OF INTOLERANCE, JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE FOR IRRATIONAL THINKING.