The old political debate about whether the ends justify the means apparently depends on what the ends, in fact, are. This dichotomy has now been in the news because of Dianne Feinstein's recent polemic against the U.S.'s enhanced interrogation techniques (aka torture) following the 9/11 attacks. Here the liberal argument is that these methods applied to despicable individuals yielded no actionable intelligence ... thus cleverly attempting to deny the CIA any justification for their actions ... see Dick Cheney's comments: Real Clear Politics.
On the other hand, the Democrats have incessantly rationalized their chicanery, bribery, and mendacity surrounding the passage of Obamacare because the result was so important that these base means were of no import ... see Jonathan Gruber's justifications of these Democrats actions: LA Times Article
Now I ask you ... are a few million more people with health insurance (don't forget, they already have healthcare ... such care cannot be denied) more important than possibly one or more new 9/11-type attacks where thousands, if not millions of Americans might be killed?
I know where I come down.
2 comments:
False Choice: Getting free care at the ER is not health care insurance. You insult your reader/s to insinuate that there is no difference. It's also a false comparison - the ACA is a law, passed via legal tricks by elected reps. The torture policy was a patently illegal action carried out by subversive self-styled "patriots". Their actions were disavowed by the secretary. Dick Cheney's comments are risable, playing the nuclear threat card to justify waterboarding a guy 171 times?
Emergency room visits are up after Obamacare has kicked in ... see: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Harvard-Obamacare-Medicaid-ER/2014/01/03/id/545066/. Those who suffer under waterboarding are the bad guys. Those who suffer under Obamacare are the good guys. You are on the wrong side of this issue ... like always..
Post a Comment