“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.
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?
ReplyDeleteVR: Why make assumptions about what I do or don't do with my resources. We aren't supposed to make public announcements about those things.
VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
ReplyDelete"Why make assumptions about what I do or don't do with my resources."
i) You constantly delegate that sort of thing to gov't. Indeed, that was the point of the Washington Post story which you plugged.
ii) And if you had your way, we wouldn't have the personal resources to be charitable. Gov't would take it all.
"We aren't supposed to make public announcements about those things."
Your humility is deeply touching. It would, however, be a wee bit more convincing if you didn't habitually contrast those heartless right-wing Christians who want to toss grandma into the icy streets with those infinitely kind and caring Obamatons.
"I didn’t see any references to her husband. Or the boy’s father. Or aunts and uncles. Or grandparents."
ReplyDeleteI don't see a problem with legally imposing some financial burden onto the adoptive or biological parents, but aunts and uncles and grandparents? While it would be certainly nice for them to offer, would you believe it to be just if the State came after you to pay for a nephew's medical care because your sister happened to bear a child out of wedlock?
In any rate, I'm not sure how we've come to a place where everyone who happens to be in need is guilty of sloth or some other moral infraction. There are the working poor and those whose employers do not offer coverage. Others might have been employed but have been laid off (an increasingly likely possibility these days).
If these were all chronic welfare recipients, it would be one thing, but that's often not the case.
As such, what better suggestion do you have for such people? Have them appeal to their local church and pass the collection plate?
Well, I can't do it all, obviously. The dental care every child in America needs is above my pay-grade. Fellow by the name of Gates up in your neck of the woods might be a better one to ask. Oh wait, he's prodigiously philanthropic. And politically liberal.
ReplyDeleteI don't think a Christian can avoid the conclusion that there is a war on poverty to be waged. Should individual Christians fight it? Yes. Am I doing enough? That's a conversation that has to take place within my prayer life.
I have never offered government involvement as a substitute for personal generosity, though if the government acts in this way I have to be prepared to pay more taxes to Caesar.
In other words, the question of what role government should play is independent of the question of what role individual Christians ought to play in fighting poverty.
I suppose you would have objected to Joseph's confiscatory grain tax had you been living in Egypt at the time. What right does the gummint have to take half my grain away?
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete“I don't see a problem with legally imposing some financial burden onto the adoptive or biological parents, but aunts and uncles and grandparents?”
To begin with, I see know evidence from the article that Reppert plugged that they even offered to pitch in. Why not? Maybe because they think that’s the government’s responsibility”
“While it would be certainly nice for them to offer, would you believe it to be just if the State came after you to pay for a nephew's medical care because your sister happened to bear a child out of wedlock?”
So you don’t think the state should do that to relatives, but you do think the state should to that to perfect strangers. Where’s the logic? Why should perfect strangers be forced to pick up the tab rather than members of his extended family?
“In any rate, I'm not sure how we've come to a place where everyone who happens to be in need is guilty of sloth or some other moral infraction.”
I don't know how you’ve come to that place either, since I didn’t say that.
“There are the working poor and those whose employers do not offer coverage.”
People can be working poor for a variety of reasons. If a high school girl engages in consensual sex resulting in pregnancy, then drops out of high school to become a single mom working at a dead-end up, she may well be of the working poor. Does that mean responsible students who stayed in school should be forced to subsidize her lifestyle choices?
“Others might have been employed but have been laid off (an increasingly likely possibility these days).”
Of course, the current recession was largely caused by liberal bureaucrats who threatened to prosecute lending institutions unless they offered subprime loans. Liberals create a problem. Then they create another problem to counteract the first problem.
“As such, what better suggestion do you have for such people?”
The Bible discusses certain forms of charity. We could update those alternatives.
Victor Reppert said...
ReplyDelete“Fellow by the name of Gates up in your neck of the woods might be a better one to ask. Oh wait, he's prodigiously philanthropic. And politically liberal.”
And, of course, he doesn’t take a tax deduction for any of that. It’s all out of the goodness of his heart, right?
“I don't think a Christian can avoid the conclusion that there is a war on poverty to be waged.”
Since that’s a blatant overstatement, I can certainly avoid that conclusion. Poverty has many causes. In many cases (not all) it’s due to lifestyle choices.
The Bible draws distinctions which you do not. It distinguishes between those who are poor through no fault of their own (e.g. widows, orphans) and those who bring it on themselves (e.g. sluggards).
I’ll deal with the example of Josephus separately.
"The current recession was largely caused by liberal bureaucrats who threatened to prosecute lending institutions unless they offered subprime loans."
ReplyDeleteNot quite. Most of the big banks (like AIG) who went under were not regulated by the CRA, and they willingly took outrageous risks because it inflated their earnings, their stock prices soared and their own wallets were fattened (at least temporarily).
NINJA and interest-only loans (all devised to get people into homes they couldn't otherwise afford) were not products of the CRA or any liberal legislation, at least not that I've read.
Add to that the general dishonesty of the mortgage lenders and appraisers, especially in grossly overvalued areas such as those out in California and Nevada.
Don't forget the people who took on mortgages they knew they couldn't afford but were nudged into it because they were "assured" that their home values would quickly appreciate and they could use their home like an ATM machine.
Laying this at the feet of the liberal establishment makes for a nice sound bite, but it has no bearing in reality.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTE0YmIwNjg1NjA1N2QxNGUzNGUyMmZiZThmN2UwNTg=
ReplyDelete"Well, I can't do it all, obviously. The dental care every child in America needs is above my pay-grade. Fellow by the name of Gates up in your neck of the woods might be a better one to ask. Oh wait, he's prodigiously philanthropic. And politically liberal."
ReplyDeleteVicariously living through the charity of others are we? And if you're trying to score political points, may I suggest the book Who Really Cares? Liberals give less, and are less likely to give.