Will Stupak’s Healthcare Deal Be Worth Its Socialist Price?

Maybe you should go back to Europe if you loved their style of government so much. Absolutely, we should be concerned about the unfortunate and down and outers. But..I certainly don't think it is loving or moral to FORCE people against their will to provide for them. We should have the freedom to give freely not out of obligation or compulsion or imposition. Also...within those people there are many that have truly been dealt real hardship outside of their control and as neighbors and within churches and families we should reach out to help in ways that are effective. However, there are also others within this group that helping them will perpetuate bad decisions that they have made or continue to make that have landed them where they are. Having no consequences is neither loving or moral to them because you are potentially destroying an opportunity to enable them to experience the consequences of their actions and thus encourage a desire to change and make different decisions. Though intentions may appear to be good, it often has a backlash negative effect if you just let them get away with it. Just human nature pal, and we all know it if we are honest. It is also not moral to make someone else suffer the consequences for their wrong doing. Sorry...its like hey, I'll greedily spend more money then I have, declare bankruptcy and you pay for schooling or insurance.

Also...you need to get your facts straight regarding the uninsured.. Within that number are many illegals(is that moral??) as well as others that did not want insurance. Besides that under the current system...NO ONE IS REFUSED EMERGENCY COVERAGE. We are already paying for that. Finally, government is simply not designed to be the giver of these things. This has been proven over and over again in the financial mismanagement of their programs. Though good intentioned perhaps, this is not what they were designed to do...thus they will always be inefficient at it. Instead it is the churches, families and neighbors that should encourage and reach out to those in need...and many are. Unfortunately...with this bill you are going to have many more with great financial hardship which is hardly for the common good.

D. Grey of IL 8:27PM March 22, 2010

PWTALA is absolutely right. We are witnessing a Marxist transition from within. "Progressives", who should rightly be called regressives are happy because they have finally succeeded in implementing some of the planks of a Marxist society. The terrible irony is that many of the persons who think that they took a stand based on principles were able to do so precisely because many good men and women dedicated their lives to battling the very Marxist threat now being embraced. Shame on us for forgetting history and succumbing to the mind numbing rhetoric that disguised Marxist concepts with the words "change" and "reform."

Manuel Arthur Mesa of FL 7:01PM March 22, 2010

I could write a book every time I talk about that, but seems wasteful. You keep your comment short as well.

Bill Hedges of MO 6:22PM March 22, 2010

This is a typical example of misleading commentary founded in national chauvinism and a description of the economic and social structure of European society that is is founded in ideology rather than reality.

I've spent the better part of four years in Italy, the Netherlands and Great Britain with extended periods in Germany and France. Are there problems in supporting their welfare system? Of course there are, and they are having to make painful adjustments--some countries more successfully than others. But the claim that European social welfare policies cripple economic growth is belied by the health of many of the very European economies that have the most extensive and far-reaching social welfare systems.

As for the claim that such programs compromise "personal liberty" in the marketplace, I suppose that's true in the same sense that regulations that prevent fouling our waters or adulterating our food compromise our personal liberties.

Still, I can understand the claims of Mr. Roff and his "conservative" supporters. They represent a powerful strain in American life which sees every attempt to promote the common good as "socialism" or "totalitarianism" and slanders a Democratically elected President as a "dictator" because he ran on a promise of health reform and then carried out that campaign promise against overwhelming odds. As Rep. Eric Cantor made clear, he and his fellow Republicans regard health care as a luxury--rather like owning a second television.

I find that morally repugnant.If that makes me an apologist for a "European style social democracy," I can frankly think of a lot worse things: like being so greedy and self-focussed that I have no concern for the wellbeing of the 47 million Americans who don't have access to health coverage and are one step away from financial catastrophe.

D. Carter of NC 5:32PM March 22, 2010