Overland Park, Kan. – Chronically Ill, and Covered – NYTimes.com
Overland Park, Kan. – Chronically Ill, and Covered – NYTimes.com.
So I can’t help but feel that this is so backwards. There are questions like: Should a child be denied health care because they don’t have enough money? Should someone who is not sick be forced to pay for someone who is? If insurers can charge whatever they choose to add previously denied children to policies doesn’t that make those children, still, un-insurable?
The first two questions are questions of philosophy and about how we all want to live together. The third question is more of an indictment of our politicians, the insurance companies and the media.
Is there anyone who feels that a child, meaning someone who has been brought into the world as an effect of the choice of two “adults” should be denied health care? The child has no money making capacity, and for practical purposes didn’t choose his or her familial situation. Who thinks a sick child should be simply left, unattended? I would bet not many.
So what’s the problem? Well aside from the fact that the whole thing is basically political and strategic posturing and that the priority is not helping children but making popular laws and insuring that the companies that contribute to election campaigns are taken care of…there is the problem of process.
Process. Because most of us agree that a child shouldn’t be turned down for health care doesn’t mean that someone else should be forced to pay for that child. The evil that exists by trying to make those two ideas congruent is this: It assumes that human nature is evil, it assumes that if left to our own devices human beings would not take care of children without the threat or imposition of force. That is the bottom line. The people and yes these are real people representing you and me, when the people who make these laws go to bed at night they are fearful for their lives, they think everyone is out to get them, they think that if the world was left without significant government imposition it would devolve into chaos. They think that they are the arbiters of goodness, justice and humanity when what they are is the opposite.
Our species has been on the planet long before the politicians, long before CAT scans, long before laws, long before insurance companies, long before taxes. We survived. We are still here. How impossibly arrogant is it that the people who are making these rules think that without the rules (essentially without them) our humanity would be left to it’s natural state of rottenness. This is because rotten is how they feel about their own humanity. And the effect of what they are doing, the effect of these laws by the end of a gun are to separate us from our humanity – that’s what is happening. We are no longer required to think about what it means to be human, what it means to be compassionate, what it means to care for someone. We don’t have to do it anymore because others are doing it for us. Or at least they are “saying” that they will do it for us.
This article is an example of the destruction of the human spirit and it’s replacement of humanity with law.