Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"If you want to pay for the treatment of a kid born with leukemia, you're welcome to it. "
The thing is, I can't do it on my on. But all of the healthy people, together, can. And in my opinion, should.
We've had this discussion before. It got nowhere then, and will not now. I like you a lot, Jim, but in my opinion, your opinion on this matter is too narrow and too personal. There is so much to consider before we let our emotions translate into coercion. Our natural existence is over-filled with ways to die. Until we can control nature, it will always be so. Why do you think nature, or your Catholic God, created beings with the potential to continuously propagate, or as your Bible might say: be fruitful and multiply?
It's ironic that as we conquer nature we have in this country alone 50,000 cases per year of destroying or preventing the natural life they engendered from being born, while at the same time thousands who desperately want to save their offspring from nature's hand of death. It seems that if we don't allow nature to cull the herd, we'll unnaturally do it ourselves.
We were meant to die. If you insist that we must all be coerced into sharing the cost of someone foiling or putting off the moment of death, you've got a massive, probably impossible, agenda, and one which will enrich a few at the huge expense of others.
You have a special concern about leukemia because of your friends expensive experience with their daughter. But there are other diseases and misfortunes that plague us. Are they of any less concern or empathy than what you have for leukemia? If you can afford, even in the most desperate way, the choice of saving one of your children, bless you, go for it. But if you're young enough to have another child, why would you burden the rest of society with the cost of saving the sick one? Why would you deprive the one you can procreate of the chance for life in order to have society pay for your sick one?
Does that sound cold, heartless? Perhaps. Or perhaps it is pragmatic. It is amazing how, when life was far more tenuous than now, and there weren't the options we have now, we grieved for little ones we lost to nature, then naturally produced more little ones to love and to give them the gift of life.
An aunt and uncle of mine lost both daughters to leukemia. Back then, it was pretty much a death sentence. One was quite young when she died. The other was around 18 if I remember correctly. It affected me strongly when the youngest one died (I was not too much older than her then). That feeling lasted a long time. Eventually, I forgot the grief, but remembered her for the positive feelings she inspired by her innocence and goodness. The older one grew from a gangly tomboy to a very beautiful and vivacious young women. She confided in me her joy of life, especially the pleasure and excitement of her romantic escapades. I, again, felt the grief of losing her, this time because of her vibrant and beautiful presence. I thought it was not fair that she should die with so much life to live, especially one as beautiful as her. But I wonder now, if those beautiful memories of her would have been obliterated now by her lasting to old age with all its infirmities and deformities and calamities. Would she have had a bad marriage or two, some broken hearts, psychological and economic poverty? There are many versions by many wise people of an ancient saying "Whom the Gods love dies young." Or the other version "Only the good die young."
But they, as was more common back then, had two brothers who grew into responsible family men who bred their own children, who eventually did the same, but whom I really didn't like and became distant from. It was all just the natural and usual cycle of life and death. Nothing that I think society, or government, should have made a huge fuss over. The freedom they had to pursue their commonplace lives was all they had a right to expect from their government. In my opinion.
"There are already charities that do it. You can contribute to them. You are FREE to do that."
I do. But there aren't enough people contributing which is why families who deal with un-preventable ailments, suffer severe financial consequences for the rest of their lives. I don't like it.
Waiting for government to save us from suffering is like "Waiting for Godot." Ain't gonna happen. Get over it.
"That's the problem with your Catholicism. Everyone else should feel obligated to share in it. "
Now you sound like someone at MSNBC. I have no interest in forcing people into my tent. In fact, I think we need to clean house and kick out phonies like Tim Kaine and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.
But you do have an interest in doing so if you want us to share in paying for forced charity of paying for leukemia or automobile catastrophes as an expression of your Catholicism.
"But I don't want to be compelled by government, especially some distant central one, to share in inclinations that arise from the practice of those various beliefs or disciplines."
Well then I have bad news for you. The Constitution, which I think you like, was largely formed via the religiously-informed consciences of the founding fathers. It sounds like you are saying you are OK with constitutionally valid federal laws, as long as they weren't inspired by religious motivation. I don't particularly care what motivated the conscience of the person who supports a law, as much as I care about the content of the law.
You've really twisted the news there. Those religiously-informed consciences were also informed by secular notions of the purpose of government. And they understood very well when they wrote the Constitution that it prevented the government it created from coercing even their own religious inclinations from being forced on those who wanted none of it. They purposely prevented even themselves from coercing others to believe or think as they did other than to defend the notion that individuals were free to pursue their own life, liberty, and happiness--so long as it didn't deprive others of the same freedom.
You're the one who brought up your Catholicism as, I guess, the inspiration for why you think everyone should share in the cost of paying for someone's leukemia. And, by extension, I guess, why government should force us to share in such costs. Why bring up your Catholicism if you "don't particularly care what motivated the conscience of the person who supports a law, as much as I care about the content of the law"?
And while your insurance company has made a lot of money on you individually, they haven't made much on the pool of people you are rated with. Premiums and losses must be submitted to your insurance department, and if profits are too rich, the state of Michigan will tell your carrier to lower their rates. Margins are pretty thin here.
|