A Moral Obligation: Health Care Reform

I have heard all too often recently that “we have a moral responsibility” to enact health care reform this year.

This thought bounced around in my head for some time. How could it be that a secular government would find anything to be a “moral imperative” or an action “moral”. Is this right?

I went to my (online) dictionary, and found that the definition of “moral” (#3) is: founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral]

Then I pondered: How ironic that liberals who have spent my lifetime taking moral standards, moral norms, and moral judgements out of play using legalities, enactments and by contravening customs, is now claiming that something THEY want to foster on us all, has a moral obligation attached to its attainment.

How can those who have battled so long and hard against moral stands and moral customs now claim any legitimacy with morality? How can they make this argument with a straight face?

And why do we let them get away with it?

Feel Good Policy

The new left asserts the noble claim that healthcare is a right. A right by definition requires nothing of anyone else except that they do nothing to infringe upon that right. To claim healthcare as a right requires more than that others step out of the way; it requires that others provide it.

Joseph C. Phillips : Feel Good Policy - Townhall.com

Shared via AddThis

The Hyphen

... we're American, that says it all.

NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK

AS HIPPIES PARTIED

By RICHARD K. KOLB

August 17, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...umnists/as_hippies_partied_184895.htm

NEWSWEEK described them as "a youthful, long-haired army, almost as
large as the US force in Vietnam." One promoter saw what happened near
Bethel (nearly 40 miles from Woodstock), NY, as an opportunity to
"showcase" the drug culture as a "beautiful phenomenon."

The newsmagazine wrote of "wounded hippies" sent to impromptu hospital
tents. Some 400,000 of the "nation's affluent white young" attended
the "electric pot dream." One sympathetic chronicler recently
described them as "a veritable army of hippies and freaks."

Time gushed with admiration for the tribal gathering, declaring: "It
may well rank as one of the significant political and sociological
events of the age." It deplored the three deaths there -- "one from an
overdose of drugs [heroin] and hundreds of youths freaked out on bad
trips caused by low-grade LSD." Yet attendees exhibited a "mystical
feeling for themselves as a special group," according to the
magazine's glowing essay.

The same tribute mentioned the "meaningless war in the jungles of
Southeast Asia" and quoted a commentator who said the young needed
"more opportunities for authentic service."

Meanwhile, 8,429 miles around the other side of the world, 514,000
mostly young Americans were authentically serving the country that had
raised them to place society over self. The casualties they sustained
over those four days were genuine, yet none of the elite media outlets
were praising their selflessness.

So, 40 years later, let's finally look at those 109 Americans who
sacrificed their lives in Vietnam on Aug. 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1969.

They mirrored the population of the time. A full 92 percent were white
(seven of whom had Spanish surnames), and 8 percent black. Some 67
percent were Protestants, 28 percent Catholic. A disproportionate
number -- more than one-third -- hailed from the South. More than
two-thirds were single, nearly one-third married. Not surprising, the
vast majority (91 percent) were under the age of 30, with 78 percent
between the ages of 18 and 22.

Overwhelmingly (87 percent), they were in the Army. Marines and airmen
accounted for 8 percent and 4 percent of the deaths, respectively,
with sailors sustaining 1 percent. Again, not unexpectedly, two-
thirds were infantrymen. That same proportion was lower-ranking
enlisted men. Enemy action claimed 84 percent of their lives,
nonhostile causes
16 percent. The preponderance (56 percent) had volunteered, while 43
percent had been drafted. One was in the National Guard.

Of the four days, Aug. 18 (the last day of "peace and love" in the
Catskills when the 50,000 diehards departed after the final act) was
the worst for the men in Vietnam. Thirty-five of them died on that one
miserable day.

Many perished in the Battle of Hiep Duc, fighting with the hard-luck
Americal Division in the Que Son Mountains. In fact, 37 percent of all
GIs lost in this period came from this one unit.

So when you hear talk of the glories of Woodstock -- the so-called
"defining event of a generation" -- keep in mind those 109 GIs who
served nobly yet are never lauded by the illustrious spokesmen for the
"Sixties Generation."

NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK

Timely, pertinent quote

"A danger foreseen is half avoided."

--Thomas Fuller (1608-1661)