Sinners don’t deserve health care

Mar 14 2012 Published by under Rants

Stocks, Schloss Berg

I propose a new health care system in this country, one regulated by morality. People who are “good” pay less and have more options, and people who are “bad” pay more or are denied services altogether. I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want my hard-earned money paying to treat moral degenerates.

Take murder, for example. Most people would probably agree that murder is immoral. Since murder is immoral, isn’t it fair of me to expect murderers to pay more for health care than I, a non-murderer, do.

Thieves, rapists, drug dealers… all obviously immoral. They clearly don’t deserve health care. It’s not even worth arguing about.

And if you were seriously injured in a car accident, and the accident was your fault because you were legally intoxicated at the time, it’s only logical that your surgery should cost significantly more, because your “loose morals” got you into that situation in the first place. Am I right?

Suicide is self-murder, so that must be morally wrong also. If someone attempts suicide but does not die, shouldn’t she be charged more for her hospital stay, pay a fine, or be denied access to medical care altogether? I mean, it was her choice to attempt suicide. Why should the rest of us have to pay?

The Bible says gluttony is a sin, so we can easily add gluttony to the list. For starters, everyone who develops diabetes as a result of obesity can pay for insulin out of pocket. I shouldn’t have to pay a higher premium just because Fatty opens his mouth for every piece of cake he sees. I’m just telling it like it is.

Don’t even get me started on lust. Why should we force insurance companies to cover birth control? Everyone knows only sluts use birth control. If they don’t want babies, they shouldn’t be having sex…

Sound familiar?

It’s a very slippery slope when we start denying or restricting health care based on moral judgments, which is exactly what cutting all federal funding to Planned Parenthood and requiring women to have an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion are doing.

While I may be persuaded that religious institutions shouldn’t have to cover medications and procedures that go against their tenets, if the Blunt amendment had passed, and it nearly did, any employer would have the right to refuse to cover any kind of health care service by citing “moral reasons.”

A proposed law in Arizona (yes, this is real) could give employers the right to fire women who use birth control.

Did I unknowingly fall asleep and wake up in Salem in 1692? It smells like a witch hunt to me.

Photo by aghrivaine on Flickr

8 responses so far

  • nichole says:

    Rage. Right on. This is a bad path we seem to be on.

  • Tara says:

    I didn’t see that employers had the right to fire employees who used birth control…I saw that they (under the proposed bill) had the right to ask to see medical records to prove a birth control RX was for medically necessary reasons (ie acne!). Still wrong. Still so 1692. And don’t you just love it when they keep saying it’s NOT about birth control? Of COURSE it’s about birth control you idiots. And women control.

    Every time I read a story like this I can imagine our foremothers turning over in their graves. Imagine!

    • Cheryl says:

      Well, it has to do with Arizona being an at-will state, meaning employers don’t need a reason to fire someone. Wisconsin is also an at-will state. What’s next? Going back to women needing a man’s approval to get a loan?

  • Rebekah says:

    You’re forgetting that women who’ve been raped were probably asking for it by wearing tight clothes— no medical help for them! And rehab programs shouldn’t even exist, since prayer and willpower are free… I think we all instinctively know that teen mothers should be shipped to an island to fend for themselves, lest they set a bad example for others.

    We’re lucky to be so enlightened, eh?

  • Chase Night says:

    Basically it stills comes down to the fact that men are threatened by women’s superior life-making power and want to exert control over it with their law-making powers.

    I’m surprise they don’t invent a drug to make women fertile every day of the month and make it mandatory because every egg deserves a chance to become a baby.

    • Cheryl says:

      I’m not sure what it is, but it’s beyond frustrating. I wouldn’t be surprised if a drug like that were in the works, based on the shit that’s going down lately. Thanks for reading, Chase.

  • matias says:

    i found this post completely and utterly idiotic, the fact that you say we should be going back to a health care system based on morals, is begging for a theocratical way of governing, in a country where we are diverse in culture and religion, who is it to say what those morals are. and under diabetes, diabetes is somewhat hereditary, so are we punishing people for things that are completely out of their control? And also what do we do about the people who cant afford even a minimal payment! it seems to me that you are on the far RIGHT on the political spectrum, and need to stop and think, i stumbled upon this blog post looking for debate material, and the team is going to have a HUGE laugh reading this blog post. Their is so much about this blog that is immoral.

Leave a Reply