[Peace-discuss] Medicare for all

[C. G. Estabrook]

Obviously in the US today the principal person acting on the assumption that "it
is OK to kill people in order to achieve some claimed long-term benefit for
humanity" is Barack Obama.

Or don't people in the Middle East count?  --CGE

Bob Illyes wrote:
> Like Claudia, and to my knowledge most of the folks on peace-discuss, I am an
> advocate of Medicare for all. And like Claudia, I'm not interested in the
> endless argument for its own sake that dominates this list. But I do want to
> make a few comments.
> 
> Much of this argument comes from proponents of "scientific" socialism, which
> is no more scientific than Scientology or Christian Science or for that
> matter Market Fundamentalism.
> 
> The thing that disturbs me in the argument from the socialist camp, aside
> from the unbelievable volume of stuff in my inbox, is the notion that the end
> justifies the means. The argument is that it is better to harm people who
> would be helped by the current imperfect bill rather than supporting it while
> continuing to work for a more just medical system.
> 
> If any of you think it is OK to kill people in order to achieve some claimed
> long-term benefit for humanity, which is what would have happened if the bill
> hadn't passed, think again. The right term for this approach is "human
> sacrifice". We can do better than this.
> 
> 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
> the details of the law to emerge. But there is still a lot of work to do, to
> say the least. Although I am not an Anarchist, I very much agree with the
> Anarchist emphasis on the value of each person. This has to be the starting
> place for any moral solutions to our health care conundrum. Human sacrifice
> is not the way to go.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.