<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, C. G. Estabrook <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Obviously in the US today the principal person acting on the assumption that "it
<div class="im">is OK to kill people in order to achieve some claimed long-term benefit for<br>humanity" is Barack Obama.<br><br>Or don't people in the Middle East count? --CGE </div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>They count, Carl, but we're not gonna cover 'em under Medicare/Medicaid, even if we pull our military out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow. Apples and oranges, except insofar as the money wasted on war could be used to heal the sick.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">Bob Illyes wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Like Claudia, and to my knowledge most of the folks on peace-discuss, I am an<br>advocate of Medicare for all. And like Claudia, I'm not interested in the<br>
endless argument for its own sake that dominates this list. But I do want to<br>make a few comments.<br><br>Much of this argument comes from proponents of "scientific" socialism, which<br>is no more scientific than Scientology or Christian Science or for that<br>
matter Market Fundamentalism.<br><br>The thing that disturbs me in the argument from the socialist camp, aside<br>from the unbelievable volume of stuff in my inbox, is the notion that the end<br>justifies the means. The argument is that it is better to harm people who<br>
would be helped by the current imperfect bill rather than supporting it while<br>continuing to work for a more just medical system.<br><br>If any of you think it is OK to kill people in order to achieve some claimed<br>long-term benefit for humanity, which is what would have happened if the bill<br>
hadn't passed, think again. The right term for this approach is "human<br>sacrifice". We can do better than this.<br><br>Davep and John W make good points, though I think Melodye is correct regarding the relevance of expanded Medicaid. It is going to take a while for<br>
the details of the law to emerge. But there is still a lot of work to do, to<br>say the least. Although I am not an Anarchist, I very much agree with the<br>Anarchist emphasis on the value of each person. This has to be the starting<br>
place for any moral solutions to our health care conundrum. Human sacrifice<br>is not the way to go.<br><br>Bob</blockquote></div></div></blockquote>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.