OTHER: No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day

ME: Sounds good, have a solution?

OTHER: Privatizing something like health care can’t work – it didn’t work of mental health services. The driving force cannot be profit – when that happens it becomes immoral. As much as you won’t like to read this – it’s got to be socialized in some form to keep from being ruled by economics. Complete socialism – no, but there has to be some system in place to keep profit from being the goal.

ME: Why would I not like to read that? I respect your opinions and encourage you to support your ideals. Since you brought morality to the table, I would like to speak of it. I currently support my family, my church with >10% of my income (seeing as they’re multi-faceted within the community), family outside the US and other opportunities as they arise. I’m a blessed person who actively partakes in helping others. I assume the same of you. My question is how is it moral to use a ballot box to forcefully take yet another portion of my paycheck to support someone else’s idealistic solution (setting aside for now its benevolence and efficiency)? If you personally demanded a percentage of my income for any reason through implied force, I would rightly oppose you. If you joined with a group your friends and repeated your demand, I would continue to stand in opposition. But if a group of people under a banner called government demands it (we voted!), shall it then be considered moral and proper?

ME: I write not to speak of politics or even of economics. I simply desire to focus on supporting system(s) where everyone is treated fairly and with dignity, through being able to provide what is needed to everyone and by avoiding the looting of others under the guise of being helpful.

I also hope others will provide their respectful insights.

OTHER: It’s my view that you cannot talk about this issue without bringing politics, and economics into the picture. Your main argument is based on economics; money you feel will be stolen from you and given to someone else (that someone being the government and any social programs they run). I live in a social system that is run by a federal government – while not perfect and definitely in need of oversight – but none-the-less a government that I would not want to see dismantled. I applaud you for the contributions to your community – and it appears yours is a very spiritual one. What about those in your community who are not part of your church? Those who are separate for one reason or another? Whose community do they belong to and who will care for them. I know you are blessed – as am I; and in many ways very privileged. I find it hard to justify to myself not contributing to the wellness of the society in its totality when I myself have benefited so much from it.

ME: Bad wording on my part: I meant I wasn’t trying to debate the economic/political reasons for the current state of health care. I share your concern about people that are viewed as outside the community and therefore may not be approached with assistance. Do you agree that a solution would be to expand those communities, whose very foundations are the willful and peaceful desire to be a provision for others, and to avoid forcefully taking from one to give to another? When you said “I find it hard to justify to myself not contributing to the wellness of the society in its totality”, are you speaking of voting to force others to perform as you see fit?

PS – I don’t believe you answered my original question.

OTHER: We view taxes from very different perspectives. I don’t view it as being forcefully looted. I view it as every citizen’s responsibility and contribution to the society we live in. While my answer to your question is yes – the way your question is worded forces me into a double bind. While this is a very effective way to argue a point, it does not allow for the true message of my view to be expressed. We live in a social system that requires of it’s citizens contributions. Does this mean my contribution may be used for services I do not necessarily agree with or use – yes. But this is the price of living in a world that provides what I cannot – for myself and for others. I know you care deeply about your community – I genuinely know this. But, I am puzzled by your description of being taxed. The violence you attribute to a necessary part of our society forces me to semantically agree to you being robbed – which is not the reality from my perspective. So, across the fence we stare…

ME: Thanks for answering. Others often agree with you saying ‘yes, I see how it’s theft as people are forcefully taking without asking, but good things can be done if we do it to enough people, regardless of whether it hinders their already successful efforts’. I get this a lot and I too remain puzzled as I never get an answer on where demanding a portion of someone’s income transforms from an immoral act that society’s members go to jail for to a moral one to be revered when done by those in government. I’ve been an example that people willingly contribute to those in need, but I believe we “live in a social system that requires of it’s citizens contributions” only because voting for others to submit to personal preferences on how to solve a problem continues to remain alluring and convenient.

So, any ideas on how to expand those charitable communities? Do you believe government will make them obsolete since they’ll have a pool of more of our money and use it the best way possible?

I took the liberty of shortening it to fit, and it has been reposted by several of my friends:
No one should die because unelected government bureaucrats deem them a drain on the System. And no one should go broke because of politicians' false promises to run health care more cheaply and humanely than the private sector. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.