This right here.
Yeah, well said.
I’ll be happy when none of us have the choice to abandon people who need health care.
Because that’s exactly how charity (and charities) works - only the popular people are helped.
I’m sure people like Mother Teresa (were she alive) would be in full agreement with you - thank goodness we have them to equally apply that government tax money.
I was given a chance while checking out at a store the other day to donate a buck or two to help with some Green program or the other the store was promoting. I said “No thanks, I already donate - it’s called taxes.”
Isn’t that much more satisfying! So clean, so neat - no need to worry about who to help or when, the Government does that for me. Removes my individual morality, wants, or needs from the equation entirely. I can see why it’s so appealing.
The conservative mantra has always included “personal responsibility” at it’s core.
The liberal ideology has always said, in effect, “we won’t allow people to die in the streets”, and such.
I think I prefer William Bradford’s sentiment, "There but by the Grace of God … "
FWIW, everyone who has health insurance is already contributing to this man’s care.
That’s kinda where I disagree. I’m not entirely sure anymore whether being of the species Homo sapiens means that you get special status. While my default is that I help other humans, I can see situations where a human is so reprehensible that I should not help them. I wouldn’t say this guy has gone that far for everything, but, when it comes to paying for his daughters to go to college?
He chose to advocate for a healthcare system that has now made him unable to help his daughters the way he would like. And he believes in personal responsibility. And so do I, really. The reason I think we should help out the poor is that I don’t think they’ve done something to deserve being as poor as they are. My entire purpose for being in this world is to try to make it more fair than it is.
And I’m not convinced–to put it mildly–that his daughters couldn’t get by like every other American who doesn’t have their schooling already paid for, anyways.
It’s not the individual charities. It’s charities as a whole. The only ones you know about are the ones that are popular. The popular ones constantly get more money. Breast cancer gets a ton. Colon cancer, a little less. Benzo addiction (my former problem) none at all.
And, yes, I want to remove your choice out of the equation. That adds more chances for you to do the wrong thing. If charities worked, that’d be great. But they don’t. There are people dying of starvation even though we make enough food to feed all of them. People choose all the time by their inaction to kill people who do not deserve to die.
And it’s not even like they actually believe they deserve to die. They just have limited funds and can’t spend it on them. Pool the money, and, all of the sudden, you can divide it out much easier.
But all you are concerned with is your own freedom and your own desires. You admitted it when you claimed that, somehow, paying taxes made up for not contributing to charity. Even though we nowhere near pay enough to handle things by taxes (something you admit by saying that we need charities), you somehow feel that’s enough.
You are making the wrong choice. You are not doing what society wants. You are doing what you want. And, yes, I want to stop that. You do not deserve to be better off than all those poor people you won’t help out.
If I had money, I would donate. I’m a liberal and I believe that EVERY person on this earth (except for rapists and murderers) is worthy of help in their time of need. I’m not religious or anything, but I get very sad when I see a person or animal in need 
So wait, I thought you were arguing that you wanted to have the choice whether to help or not. You want to be able to decide if something is popular with you or not. Right? That’s what you like about charitable giving, the ability to say that you don’t like something so you won’t pay for it. Isn’t that popularity in a nutshell?
For the people who disagree with his political stance and would still donate, would you still donating if you knew for sure he would not be changing his mind on health care?
As BigT noted, not all causes are funded the same. People donate bucketloads of money to United Way and Red Cross not because these organizations represent the most neediest causes in the world, but simply because they have superior name recognition.
Furthermore, even if all charities served everyone equally right now, there is nothing mandating that they do so tomorrow. All the churches that run soup kitchens could decide to exclude all able-bodied men. The food banks could decide that single mothers aren’t “deserving” enough. Church-run homeless shelters could decide to only help born-again, homosexual Christians. A charity assisting with medical bills could decide to only help Harvard-educated liberals whose first name starts with “C”. And all of this would 100% legal. The vagaries of private charity make it an inferior alternative to a tax-funded social safety net.
I’m doing my part to help him out. But not by donating to him-- That’s too small-scale, and wouldn’t make much difference in the big picture. The way I’m helping him is by advocating and voting for a health care system where everyone, including him, would have the coverage they need.
Wow - now THAT is some refreshing and frightening honesty. How dare I not do what society wants.
I wonder where Rush Limbaugh stands on this. I wonder what Rush would have to say to this guy.
I don’t know any more about these people or situation than what you’ve written here, but you seem to be implying that there’s something hypocritical or contradictory going on (please correct me if I’m wrong). I don’t see either–he’s against single payer insurance and asking for donations because he got sick without insurance. That doesn’t mean he’s a hypocrite or is otherwise acting in a manner contrary to his expressed views.
“You’re going to die and it’s all Obama’s fault.”
Well, I don’t think it’s necessary to the basic questions either way.
Charitable giving is the fig-leaf that conservatives hide behind when they’re hand-waving away the inefficiency and injustice of the system we have. If you donate money to this man, you’re helping vindicate that argument. If you’re going to help some random person you don’t know, why not channel that help into the system that should help many people like him, instead of this one guy?
Someone in another thread linked to this article about Caleb Howe, and the Twitter feed at the top looks pretty damning.
I was interested, so I read the original article, which I think is actually interesting and humanizing.
This line in particular is rather poignant now: “I’m just like Ebert, minus the fame, fortune, education, writing talent, and painful disease.”
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Would you approve of a new government program that provided food to people, where the only way to get food would be through the government program (i.e., all restaurants, grocery stores, etc. would be illegal)?
If you wouldn’t approve of that, then obviously you are actively working against people getting food and are scum.