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.

FEATURE ARTICLES- CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 1.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING ARE NOT THE SAME, BUT ARE OFTEN USED INTERCHANGEABLY. FOR OUR PURPOSE, BOTH WILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS ARTICLE.)

                                                                                                                       

 

IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT THE REAL REASON THAT THESE TOPICS CAUSE SO MUCH CONTROVERSY IS TWO-FOLD:

 -  MANY PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD,

THIS INCLUDES BOTH POLITICIANS AND VOTERS.

The Scientific Method, and what makes it a Valuable Tool, is sometimes not presented in a way that sets it apart from those Opinions that are Derived from MINDSETS That Are Essentially Useless, when discussing Phenomena that Occurs in Nature.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

First and Foremost, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT A SET OF BELIEFS, WITH A DOCTRINE THAT PASSES JUDGMENT ON A CATEGORY OR SUBJECT, LABELING THEM AS EITHER SCIENTIFIC OR UNSCIENTIFIC.

Like the RULES OF LOGIC AND MATHEMATICS, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A PROCESS, THAT LEADS TO ANSWERS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT EITHER DEFINITIVELY EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED, OR OFFERS HYPOTHESES THAT POINT OR DIRECT US TO THE MOST PROBABLE SOLUTIONS.

We do not use the Scientific Method to Evaluate Subjects, that by Definition, do not rely on LOGIC OR EVIDENCE-BASED MATERIAL TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTHFUL, SUCH AS RELIGIOUS FAITH OR OTHER SUPERNATURAL  SYSTEMS OF BELIEF.

-  DISCUSSING OR DEBATING THE PROBLEM OFTEN MISSES THE POINT.

When you DISCUSS OR DEBATE ANY SUBJECT, THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET, OR THE RESULT WILL BE ESSENTIALLY USELESS.

SEE PART 2.  

BLAST FROM THE PAST: PRESIDENT OBAMAS IMMIGRATION SPEECH- WHAT DOES HE ACTUALLY SAY? PT 1.

INTRODUCTION:  AS THE U.S. CONTINUES TO GRAPPLE WITH DONALD TRUMPS "POLICIES," I THOUGHT A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE WOULD SHOW US HOW THEN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM. 

(First Published on 11/25/2014.)

Let's try a Novel Approach. Ignoring what the Political Pundits on Television and the Radio Have to say, and actually READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM PRESIDENT OBAMAS IMMIGRATION SPEECH.

It is available online.  So, if you are interested, why not Download it, before passing Judgment.

The following Posts on this Topic, are my Thoughts and Opinions taken directly from the Transcript.

Let's get started.

He opens by praising the Two- Hundred Year+ History of the U.S. welcoming Immigrants from around the World, and the Advantages it has given the Country over other Nations.

However, he goes on to say:

"...Today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.  Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules.  Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them less."

From this passage we can take the following;

-  The President is acknowledging the State of the Immigration System, AND THE NEED FOR IT TO BE FIXED.

-  That the way the system is currently operated victimizes;  Legal Immigrants who follow the Law, and Honest Business Owners who offer good wages and benefits, who see competitors using undocumented workers to save money.

The President goes on to say;

"All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America."

-  In other words, the Advantages and Responsibilities go hand and hand.  With one comes the other.

LOOK FOR PART 2.

THE HATE CHRONICLES. THE KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THE MINDSET, MOTIVATIONS, AND GOALS OF THE FAR RIGHT FANATIC. #1.

.

It is a mistake for Progressives to think that those who make up the Most Conservative Elements of the "NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY" ARE ALL CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH. WHILE THEY MAY VOTE AS A BLOC, THE PRIMARY MOTIVATION DIFFERS FROM GROUP TO GROUP.

While They are usually Packaged Together, ULTRA CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS HAVE REALIZED THAT FINDING THE ONE KEY ISSUE THAT DRIVES CERTAIN GROUPS OF VOTERS TO THE POLLS, OFTEN WILL TURN THEM INTO LOYAL ALLIES, who will support an agenda full of Issues They may care little about.

It could be GUN CONTROL, SAME- SEX MARRIAGE, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, IMMIGRATION LAWS, REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE etc. THE STRATEGY IS TO PUT FORTH AN UNCOMPROMISING, RIGID, AND VITRIOLIC POINT OF VIEW ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE, APPEALING TO THE BASER ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE.

THE REASON: TO LEARN OF THE ONE ISSUE THAT EACH SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MOST IDENTIFIES WITH, AND MANIPULATE IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.

IT'S A TACTIC THAT REQUIRES NO INTELLECTUAL EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE LISTENER. THERE IS NO NEED TO UNDERSTAND, OR EVEN CARE ABOUT THE OPPOSITIONS POINT OF VIEW. IT PLAYS ON RAW EMOTION, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR CONTEMPLATION OR REFLECTION.

THE INDIVIDUAL IS ENCOURAGED NOT TO THINK ABOUT AN INTELLECTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE OPINION THEY ARE SUPPORTING, BUT TO REACT TO THE WORDS OF THE AUTHOR AND\OR SPEAKER, AND ACCEPTING THE MESSAGE AS TRUE, AND WORTHY OF SUPPORT.  THIS, IN TURN, ENCOURAGES AGREEMENT WITH OTHER OPINIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSED THE SAME WAY.