“What it is like to be poor. One of them says ‘Being poor is hoping the toothache goes away.’ And one boy lost his life because of it. When this stops happening in America, maybe I will sew up my bleeding heart.”
i) Notice what Reppert’s compassion boils down to: “That’s terrible! You should do something about that!”
If Reppert really cares that much about the plight of poor kids, what’s stopping him and his radical chic colleagues from starting a dental fund for poor kids in Phoenix?
For that matter, why doesn’t Reppert post his credit card numbers on his blog so that needy parents can afford to send their needy kids to the doctor or dentist? Doesn’t Reppert believe in income redistribution?
But, of course, Reppert is one of those bleeding-heart liberals who outsources his compassion to a second party. “That’s not my department! Go down the hallway to the second door on the left.”
ii) Glancing at the Washington Post article, I saw numerous references to the boy’s mother. I didn’t see any references to her husband. Or the boy’s father. Or aunts and uncles. Or grandparents.
So this is Reppert’s idea of social justice: Some parents have no intention of providing for the kids they have. Instead of making these parents pull their own load, we should tax other, responsible breadwinners to siphon off money from the care of their own kids, and transfer that income to the pockets of indifferent parents. Breadwinners have no right to use the money they make to provide for their own family. That would be so unchristian, you know.
Instead, the hard-earned wages of responsible breadwinners should go into a general fund which everyone can dip into. Everyone’s paycheck is my paycheck.
“So we don't have to ration care because it is already rationed by affordability. We don't need death panels. All we need is for people to look inside their wallets and see that they don't have enough money to get the medical care that will keep them alive. I'm so glad the status quo takes such a strong stand for the sanctity of human life.”
i) One of the primary arguments for Obamacare was that healthcare is too expensive. It’s unaffordable for millions of Americans. And, as time goes on, even more Americans will be priced out of the market. Remember that oft-repeated argument?
However, in order to cover the uninsured, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are scrabbling for various ways to make Americans pay for Obamacare. In order to fund Obamacare, it’s necessary to raise the cost of healthcare for many Americans to subsidize the uninsured.
Therefore, the net-result of Obamacare is to make healthcare less affordable rather than more affordable. Hike the price that many Americans will be forced to pay–to bankroll the uninsured.
ii) In addition, it lowers the overall quality of healthcare. You’d have more folks chasing the same goods and services. The same number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical equipment, &c. to treat far more patients.
Reppert has the classic mentality of the Marxist: better to impoverish everybody since, if everybody is equally poor, that’s fair.
Reppert isn’t even a do-gooder. Instead, he’s a feel-gooder. He has no interest in workable solutions. He just wants to bask in the beatitude of his vicarious charity. Claim the moral credit for making someone else foot the bill.
“Not every deontologist has to completely ignore consequences. They can be important considerations, even though, in certain kinds of cases, those consideration can be overruled by deontological ones. I don't have to give up on arguments from the common good if I believe that there are circumstances where utility gets us the wrong answer.”
How does that cash out, exactly? Do you believe in organ farms where we harvest the body-parts of human clones? It’s for the common good.