Die Quickly

I had a discussion this past week with a fairly “progressive” client on a wide variety of topics. Mostly cordial, of course. He was the client.

One of his positions was that access to healthcard should be a right, not a privilege. I took the position that while I agree that individuals should be given access to healthcare, it was just as moral to make sure our country was fiscally solvent if it was to take on the role of healthcare. To do otherwise would limit healthcare for all and simultaneously lead the USA down the road of fiscal ruin.

I fear for my country the last couple of years. I see the amount of spending from our government seen as a “right” by progressives. And if they can’t tax and spend, then at least they’ll spend and worry about taxing later. And before you jump all over me for being partisan, I include George W. Bush (and George H.W. Bush) and Barack Obama.

From today’s Wall Street Journal, James Taranto discusses a possibly fabricated quote from Aristotle (or possibly Aristotle Onassis), and includes this statement:

Whatever Aristotle might or might not have said, the flip side of establishing a “right” to medical care is that it also entails empowering the government to define the limits of that right.

I think he’s right on. While compassionately I care that all people receive full healthcare, I also compassionately care about the country we leave to our children, one that isn’t bankrupt. In order to provide “affordable” healthcare, the government will be forced to “limit healthcare to the lowest common denominator. That means cutting edge technology will no longer be used, which means future innovations will be canceled.

There are many good reasons to oppose letting the government into our healthcare decisions. Find some other, simple way if you must – a minimum guaranteed payment or tax credit or something. But if the government takes over healthcare, they will both bankrupt our country and hope we will “die quickly” as the Democratic representative Alan Grayson has been saying.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Conviction versus Tolerance

LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 12: A wreath of pla...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

My wife showed me an article this week; I *think* it was from the Museum of Natural History, but I can’t be sure. The article was mostly well-written and talked about how by a very early age, 6 months, humans begin rational thinking. Babies know that hidden objects haven’t disappeared but are still there, that sort of thing.

Then the author went into how some knowledge is influenced by our environment and is wrong, though it takes critical thinking to see the flaws. Children know that object fall down, but trying to picture us on a spherical planet is harder, and children want to know why people on the other side of the planet don’t fall off.

Then the author discussed how also at a very early age we learn to trust adults over other children and some adults more than others, and how we trust our parents over scientists.

Then came the twist. Most Americans believe Darwinism has flaws, and God created the world. Children believe God created animals, even if they are the children of atheists.

The conclusion was that humans that doubt Darwin must be flat-earthers and must be trained to trust scientists over their parents. Obviously I have a problem with that.

Dr. Young has a wonderful essay today in the Houston Chronicle about the intolerance of the psuedo-tolerant and how we can stand by our convictions and yet be tolerant of those intolerant toward us. But part of his essay lists scientists who doubt Darwin.

Darwinian evolution is a major doctrine in the humanist religion at whose altars so many of America’s supplicants of political correctness bow. The keepers of the high PC religion apparently don’t want students to know that scientists like Henry Schaefer (nominated five times for the Nobel Prize), Fred Sigworth, Robert Kaita, Dean Kenyon, Carl Koval, William Dembski, Siegfried Scherer, David DeWitt, Theodore Liss, William Pelletier, Muzaffar Iqbal, Walter Bradley, Theodore Saito, Marvin Fritzler, Keith Delaplane, Clarence Fouche, Hugh Nutley, Fazal Rana, and 82 others signed a statement reading, “I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

I would suppose, if the museum article had read this, that the author would then suggests that not all scientists are trustworthy and must be vetted against Political Correctness first. Which is also Dr. Young’s point, that those with convictions are systematically being excluded from the secular debate because people with convictions infuriate those that call themselves “tolerant.”

This is why I am not only against government intrusion in my life but I also want a realistic alternative to government funded public schooling. The government will choose what our children are taught, regardless of whether the parents care for that teaching. *And* we’re forced to pay for it through our taxes. I want to redirect my taxes toward schools that reflect the morals and values I hold.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Condom Conundrum

Liberal conundrum:

US Agency for International Development has distributed 10 billion US-made condoms around the world. To save money, they can switch to Chinese-made condoms. They’re less than half the price. But that will eliminate jobs in Alabama. Should the US government insert a “buy American” provision back into the stimulus bill, even though it’s known that protectionist trade policies hurt long term GDP? To save US jobs, it’ll cost more money and extend the recession.

Conservative conundrum:

What the *&#% is the US Government doing paying for 10 billion condoms?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]