BLAST FROM THE PAST- 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 PART 2.

THE YEAR: 2100. THE PLACE: HISTORY CLASS. THE SUBJECT: EARLY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY POLITICS. PART 1.

 

THE YEAR IS 2100. HIGH SCHOOL FRESHMAN.

WELCOME TO AMERICAN HISTORY. TODAY WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN OUR STUDY

OF EARLY 21ST CENTURY POLITICS. TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU ALREADY KNOW, BELOW

ARE THE RESULTS OF THE 2008,2012,2016,2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. YOUR JOB IS

TO MATCH THE NUMBERS IN THE FIRST THREE COLUMNS.

- % OF THE NATIONAL VOTE FOR ALL 8 DEM./REP. CANDIDATES.

- WINNERS VICTORY MARGIN IN % OF VOTE.

-  WINNERS VICTORY MARGIN IN # OF VOTES.

WITH THE CORRESPONDING OUTCOMES.

- # OF ELECTORAL VOTES FOR THE WINNER.

- # OF STATES CARRIED BY THE WINNER.

AFTER THEY ARE GRADED, WE WILL DISCUSS THE SIGNIFICANCE IF EACH. THERE

WILL BE A SPECIAL LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF ELECTION FRAUD, AND SEE IF 

ANY OF THESE RESULTS LEND CREDENCE TO SUCH ACCUSATIONS. 

GOOD LUCK.

  BOTH CANDIDATES.                           WINNER.                                               WINNER.

   % NATIONAL VOTE                     VICTORY MARGIN %                         VICTORY MARGIN #

1- OBAMA, 2008, 52.9%                1-OBAMA, 2008, +7.2%                    1- OBAMA, 2008, +9,550,193

2- BIDEN, 2020, 51.3%                   2- BIDEN, 2020, +4.4%                     2- BIDEN, 2020, +7,058,637

3- OBAMA, 2012, 51.06%              3- OBAMA, 2012, +3.86                    3- OBAMA, 2012, +4,982,291

4- CLINTON, 2016, 48.18%           4-  TRUMP, 2016, -2.09%                   4- TRUMP, 2016, -2,868,686  

5- ROMNEY, 2012, 47.20%

6- TRUMP, 2020, 46.90%

7- TRUMP, 2016, 46.09%

8- MCCAIN, 2008, 45.70%

          WINNER.                                                                                          WINNER.

MOST ELECTORAL VOTES.                                                                CARRIED MOST STATES

365                                                                                                   30 + ME-02       

332                                                                                                            28 + DC + NE-02   

306                                                                                                            26 + DC    

304                                                                                                            25 + DC + NE-02

REMEMBER THIS? A LOOK BACK ON A SHORT TWITTER POST.

 

WHAT THEY SAID:  

"There are two sets of rules in America today: one for anyone named Biden, Obama, or Clinton, and then a different set of rules for the rest of us," Rep. Jim Banks says.

WHAT I SAID:

Yes, I agree. The GOP plays by the rules of Fascism: Don't like the election result: Overthrow the government. Get a subpoena: Ignore it. Caught doing something illegal: Blame Law Enforcement. Investigation Incriminates You: Witch Hunt. Wealthy Tax Cheats- IRS is at fault.

It is the STALIN/HITLER/TRUMP CODE OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. PERSONAL ETHICS VS INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS, OR FINDING GOD VS FORCING GOD. PT 1. UPDATE: CHRISTIAN FASCISM.

Why is it that people with certain Moral Beliefs, automatically feel it is their mission to see that others also adopt this same ETHICAL SYSTEM?

What is even more Disturbing, is their desire to see it instituted into Law, either by Statute or Judicial Decree. Unfortunately, the Lack of Freedom to Choose never seems to bother them, unless it inhibits their own ability to make Individual Decisions.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AS A RIGHT, INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO OBEY OR DISOBEY ANY FORM OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.  IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SELECTING WHICH FORMS OF FAITH CAN BE LEGALIZED, AND ADJUSTING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO CONFORM. NONE OF THEM ARE TO BE PART OF ANY CODE OF LAW, BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION' WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. 

A Response to this is could be something like: "The Word of God is Absolute, we must Convert or Convince others that their only hope for Salvation is accepting Scripture, and Submitting to Gods Will."

This type of Response makes the following Assumptions;

-  DEFINING "GOD" IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND MUST BE ACCEPTED.

-  That Their DEFINITION OF GOD IS THE CORRECT ONE.

-  THAT FAITH ALONE IS REQUIRED AND NECESSARY.  NO LOGICAL PROOFS OR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IS NEEDED TO "KNOW THE TRUTH."

-  That GOD HAS REVEALED INSTRUCTIONS FOR A MORAL LIFE, THROUGH INTERPRETATIONS OF SPECIFIC TEXTS, WHICH MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND INFALLIBLE.

-  "SALVATION" IS A DESIRABLE GOAL, THAT CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED BY OBEYING THESE INSTRUCTIONS.

Now there is nothing UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL about believing any of the above.  A FREE SOCIETY allows each of us to find answers on our own and being able to share our BELIEFS OR FAITH with others. 

HOWEVER, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONVERTING OR CONVINCING SOMEONE TO ACT OR BELIEVE CERTAIN RELIGIOUS DEFINITIONS OR ABSOLUTES VOLUNTARILY, AND FORCING THEM TO THROUGH THREATS OF CRIMINAL OR CIVIL SANCTIONS INSTITUTED INTO LAW.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is currently being controlled by a SUPREME COURT that ignores the concept of Voluntary Acceptance of Religious Doctrine. The Constitutional Guarantee that Government will not Force a specific set of Moral principles upon all Americans, based on the Personal Beliefs of Individual Judges/Justices has now been destroyed. This is the  ESTABLISHMENT OF A  FASCIST THEOCRACY* THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO GUARD AGAINST. However, when acts of TREASON AND SEDITION ARE IGNORED, ALL THE SAFEGUARDS IN THE WORLD ARE BASICALLY USELESS.

*When we speak of CHRISTIAN FASCISM, we are describing a THEOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT that attempts to Legally Enforce a SET OF BELIEFS AND MORAL STANDARDS THAT ELIMINATES THE CONCEPT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR ALL CITIZENS INTO AN OBEDIENCE TO A NARROW AND STRICT CODE OF LAW THAT DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO REPRESENTING ALL BRANCHES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. CURRENTLY, THE ONLY CHRISTIANS IT REPRESENTS ARE THE TRUMPIAN/FASCIST PARTY OF AMERICA/GOP SUPPORTERS WHO USE HATE, PREJUDICE, IGNORANCE, AND AN ANTI-INTELLECTUAL MINDSET SEEKING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS THAT THE U.S. CITIZEN HAS COME TO KNOW, UNDERSTAND, AND ACCEPT AS PART OF BEING A LOYAL AMERICAN.