Today we have a debate about using government to help poor and sick individuals. Then we have a problem where any attempt to question the dominant, Center-Left, Judeo-Christian ethos of our civilization, is reduced to anti-Semitism. To question whether society is to pay, because someone’s defective DNA led to their illness – why that’s just Richard Spencer talk, it’s far right hater material!
Actually it is not, as Spencer seems to favour a single-payer system: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/4/15164598/alt-right-single-payer-health-care-trump Matters are more complex than they might at first appear.
Still it is true, National Socialism had a different approach to getting old, and asked, whether society was not weakened by the presence of unproductive, sick, elderly people. In contrast, Judaism forbids suicide. The Roman Catholic Church continues a ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition, as do many Protestant groups, where not only is suicide a sin in the Catholic religion, but, moreover, the option of letting die is totally de-emphasised. On the other hand, letting die is indeed a difficult issue, and I can understand the Church’s reluctance to promote policies that do more harm than good. Still it is obvious, the Church pays very little attention to how health could be promoted through seeing death as superior to ongoing treatment: for it knows that this would only highlight the irrationalism of its opposition to euthanasia.
We are allowed to have freeways, but it seems almost all other NS ideas are tarred and feathered, despite their lack of logical connections with each other (and so with core NS notions). It is very similar to labeling many groups together as ‘hate groups,’ when all they have in common is not voting Democrat. Accepting the morality of suicide, has no logical connection to invading Poland. That Hitler killed himself, is not evidence, Judaism has the correct account of Selbstmord. Etc.
Unfortunately many good ideas on euthanasia were lost with the general blackening of the German world, and I suppose only the obvious utility of the freeway allows us to have these…. Otherwise they would have to be denounced as ‘totalitarian,’ ‘fascist,’ or ‘anti-Semitic.’
There have doubtless been many errors in Germany tied to notions of euthanasia and eugenics, e.g. crimes against the African. But now the over-correction of Allied culture is so extensive, it is getting to a point where one wonders, whether the central problem of our times might not be the vast economic disruptions caused by taking a Judeo-Christian approach to healthcare…. In earlier eras, the Christians did not have the advanced, expensive technologies that allow ‘Judeo-Christians’ today to cause so many problems. (So much for conservatism! Time change, and so do needed policies.) The amount of money spent on healthcare, as opposed to the broader lives of healthy descendants of these sick and old, has now moved so far to a new proportion, there seems little hope for national revival in the West.
Of course, this is not to say, the free market is the answer. Indeed, it seems to recommend, forbidding sick individuals from spending too much on their own health. I think one might find, that is de facto already the policy in some European countries, although of course flight to India or America are always possible…. Still I cannot help but imagine, a free market scenario would not only greatly increase possibilities for discussing God’s true intent with regard to the issue of suicide, but also ‘motivate’ in greatly increase the personal expense for the average sick, old person, of staying in life.
Why is it appropriate to point a gun at someone else and make them pay for the healthcare, of a third party? At first glance, it does not seem moral. Of course, appearances can be deceiving. It is possible, the taxed individual is not contributing his ‘fair share’ to the needs of others.
Nonetheless, prima facie, taxes involve pointing guns and pointing guns to get funds for a sick third party – as opposed, e.g., in order to force compliance with a contract – does not seem very proper. Why is it imagined there is something so moral and good about these advocates for ‘patients’ rights,’ i.e. sick old people who have likely wasted enough of our time already?
All things being equal, it is quite immoral to coerce an individual, to get funds for one’s own or others’ happiness. What if the person you are coercing, does not need government insurance? How can you force them into the situation you want?
There are other ways to pay for sickness. There is for example, charity. Let also add, if the government had not spent so much time trying to make things ‘fair’ and ‘just’ according to an SPLC vision of the world, our economy would be now be about twice as large with twice the average personal wealth, with vastly more resources available…. And I suppose, there is still time to choose economic growth over government strangulation.
Then too, as I have suggested, there are some questions here about why one goes on with life, if one is so very ill or deformed. Are these questions that we as a society, have approached in free and rational situation of communicative action? I don’t think so. These are religious questions, and as such complex. I do not know how they can be readily resolved. Still I have the opinion, while there are problems with suicide by the healthy in most cases, i.e. merely wishing to escape the troubles of life through suicide is not a good idea, nonetheless our society for various reasons has put too much stress on promoting illness, abnormality, and disease. In fact, it subsidies illness, even today. Then beyond all that, there is a Medieval morality present, which finds a value in Modern sickness, that likely only attaches the relatively shorter illnesses of the Medieval world. The West’s Platonic vision of a separation of body and mind, likewise in my opinion continues to cause problems for us. A happier pagan consciousness knows a greater respect for animals and animality, and so for the value of joy within this world.
But pain is not joy….
Is there something about our world that would allow us to say, the wealthy are not paying their ‘fair share’ for healthcare? Why would it be just for healthcare, i.e. for something especially needed by elderly people who have had more time to experience the joys of compound interest?
The Constitution assigns responsibility for promoting health to the states. Then I suppose these have the legal rights to tax within their own jurisdictions, for what morally speaking, are wrong policies. Still it is not very clear, where their moral right to tax for health would arise. Why are the hardships of illness ranked more highly, than those of relative poverty? Poverty likely affects more individuals directly than does illness so serious, medical coverage will not be available in a free market setting. The free market still offers insurance and charity.
Of course, still it remains true, the old are more likely to have ‘conservative’ political views than the young, i.e. they are more likely to support the authoritarian racket of coercing for the sake of the old…. Funny thing, that.
If economic equality is the issue, a universal basic income would make a lot more sense. But then again, this is just going to benefit young and old equally, isn’t it? Nor it is likely to be subject to or promotive of ideological controls….
Still I think the main thing here is: not only is the SPLC, etc., promoting coercion for the sake of others’ happiness, it is promoting a policy that is not Constitutional. There could be some scheme in place, for coercing for a fair share via Federal Government, but the Constitution is not that scheme. Anything the Federal Government does to regulate here, is un-Constitutional, unless it is a matter of interstate commerce in medical goods. Whatever the proposal – single-payer, ‘Obamacare,’ Federal subsidies for high-risk pools – none of that is Constitutional. It is just unlicensed coercion, no different from gangsters.
If not the Constitution, what could provide license? Let me suggest – nothing America has to offer.