Still, with all that, is it really moral, let alone wise politically to kill legislation that would provide insurance for 30 million people because immigrants in the country illegally would be barred from access?Moral? Yes, it is. Josh (unlike the way Yglesias has been acting) recognizes that there's a lot of crappy garbage in the Senate bill - but he still supports it. It's the "30 million uninsured hostages" scenario. But what if the bill provided insurance only for 30 people? Would it still be moral to support such an anti-abortion anti-immigrant piece of legislation?
It's like that Winston Churchill fable that ends “Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”.
Here's how I read your question: if we can help enough others in need - isn't it immoral to prevent government from further codifying illegal immigrants as non-people. Not that I believe that Josh Marshall thinks illegal immigrants ought to be treated like sub-humans and I do apologize if I'm even close to implying it. Which is certainly a better deal than what he's offering to the Unwise and Immoral.
3 comments:
The funny thing is that health care is money, and churning more money around in a shit economy is a good thing...so provide the fuckin' health care to the fuckin' illegals and reap the benefits.
Public health care has the potential of saving small businesses in the U.S.
The fact that workplace health benefits serve to keep workers in serfdom is a feature, though, not a bug.
Being a small business, I will testify that ever increasing health care costs made me stop offering it to employees. I couldn't afford it, and that was before the current escalations.
Of course, the fact that smaller businesses could better compete is yet another good corporate bidness reason for opposing health care reform. Still don't understand why companies like GM, who are struggling with retiree costs, are silent on the issue.
Post a Comment