Trumpcare Is Not Morally Defensible
I need someone to explain this logic to me.
Why do people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year need a tax break when people making a fraction of that do not?
Why do people who are young and can find a new or better job need help but people on a fixed income with no options do not?
Why would healthcare skew to benefiting the healthy at the expense of people who are sick?
None of this makes any sense in context. At all. This is the logic I need someone to explain to me, because it seems everyone I ask who supports this morally indefensible measure can’t do it, can’t explain it, and tout it as better than the current system that does none of these.
At what point do we allow our desire to be part of a group and identify as such over throw our moral obligations to treat all of humanity with equality and respect.
I have no interest in attacking anyone, and if you have a reasonable answer than stays within the bounds of logic I encourage, no I implore, you to try and give me a straight answer.
If we are going to accept the premise that some people need help and we as descent moral human beings are not going to just drive by people dying on the side of the road when we see them then why would we codify morally deficient legislation that demands we do exactly that, but then pull over when we see someone sunbathing net to their Cadillac and ask if they need any lotion?
Look, I just want to understand the thing. Why do people who are doing well need more money but people who can barely afford to pay the power bill need no help at all? How is that morally defensible and if you support the idea I don’t care about how much you hated Obama or how you love to be on the winning side, I want to understand the logic that says it’s ok for us to ignore the fact that people on a fixed income might need more help than someone who has more than they could ever need already.
It’s absurd, and completely morally indefensible. I’m not making cultural judgements, I just want to understand why this makes sense to anyone at all, what is the calculation there? Why should healthcare be set to benefit those who don’t need it while at the same time making it harder for those to actually need it to get it or to use it.
While we’re on the subject, why does it make sense to call a 30 percent increase in premiums paid directly to companies not a mandate? If it’s a punitive action designed to incentivize people to purchase care or maintain coverage they think they don’t need, it’s a mandate. The only difference here is instead of being paid to the government where it can go into things like bridges and roads now we propose to pay it directly to executives so they can build things like bigger houses and fancier cars.
A spade is a spade just like a rose is a rose, by any other name it’s still bullshit and morally indefensible, but if I’m wrong I would love to hear from anyone at all as to how the logic of upward redistribution of wealth to people who don’t need it makes sense since most of the people who might take so much as a stab at answering that question are probably all in the same boat, not rich, but somehow believing this makes some kind of sense.
So answer the question if you can. Why do rich people need a tax break but those who are not rich do not? Why do people who need help don’t get it under this legislation but those who are doing better than fine get a net benefit and how on God’s green earth does that make even the slightest bit of sense?