Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama: Government Can Help Us Fulfill Our Moral Obligations

Trying to “retake the upper ground in this month’s healthcare debate,” President Obama, in a “conference call with religious leaders” cast reform as a “moral conviction”:

The one thing that you all share is a moral conviction . . . .  This debate over healthcare goes to the heart of who we are as American people… This is part of an ethical and moral obligation that we look out for one another.  In the wealthiest nation on Earth, we are neglecting to live out that call.

He’s right that we have an ethical obligation to look out for one another, but he’s wrong to suggest that the government must be the agency which helps us fulfill that obligation.  Many people, including yours truly, donate to organizations and institutions which provide medical services to the less fortunate (the issue at hand in the current conversation).  Some doctors, including very conservative ones, waive their fees for patients unable to pay.  Individuals volunteer their time to help in hospitals and clinics at home and abroad.

So, he’s wrong, we are not neglecting that call.  Far from it.  To say as much dismisses the charitable work and liberal giving of millions, if not tens of millions, of Americans.  Given that generosity, when the president accuses his fellow citizens of neglecting that call, Obama believes that for us to truly fulfill our moral obligations to one another, the government must step in.

And that is a very dangerous attitude for a politician to have, particularly in a country with the history and ethos of ours.

(H/t GatewayPundit and Greta’s show on FoxNews–which I had on as background while sorting some stuff on my desk.)

ADDENDUM:  In that conference call, he continued to accuse others of spreading misinformation without detailing precisely what that information was.  It would be more presidential of him to, instead of attacking the supposed purveyors of falsehood, to address the particular falsehood being purveyed.



  1. So, the guy who lets his own brother live in a shack in Kenya is lecturing us to be our brother’s keeper?

    Comment by V the K — August 20, 2009 @ 10:51 am - August 20, 2009

  2. So let’s see; the liberal left is now trying to argue that we should use government to impose morality.

    Is anyone else enjoying the utter explosion of hypocrisy?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 20, 2009 @ 11:10 am - August 20, 2009

  3. And speaking of moral obligations, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has just passed a social statement which will allow congregations whose conscience allows to bless same-sex couples. It is a wonderful, inclusive change. This follows a similar change in the Episcopal church.

    I am grateful that young people who are struggling with their sexuality have better options than I did, which was either the multisex bar scene or reparative therapy. I’m glad they have a place to go which will give them a place to freely discuss their feelings. learn to honor their bodies and discern God’s will–and it’s not any farther than the church down the street.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — August 20, 2009 @ 11:13 am - August 20, 2009

  4. Is this the same moral obligation releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in a fit of false compassion?

    Comment by Ignatius — August 20, 2009 @ 11:14 am - August 20, 2009

  5. Amazing how the left can use religion and government together. One reason I like separation of Church and State is because I don’t want government to tell me what’s moral and dictate their view of morality.
    For some reason their view is always to take more money from me and exempt themselves from the onerous rules they then force upon us.

    Comment by Leah — August 20, 2009 @ 11:31 am - August 20, 2009

  6. Ah, that Obama morality…

    Did you catch this email reprint from The Corner this morning?

    “…This particular character flaw was revealed early in the presidential campaign when Obama tried to deny he advocated defeat of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois, then accused the NRLC of lying when they pointed it out. (The campaign—but not the candidate—later admitted the NRLC was right, but issued no apology.). It’s a pattern: Those who expose Obama’s lies are branded as liars.”

    Best wishes,

    Comment by MFS — August 20, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - August 20, 2009

  7. So charities are the answer to our national health care problems?

    Yesterday you sugested that the problem with our current system is people just don’t know about all of the wonderful choices our system offers.
    Now you suggest the solution is more people need to take Charity.


    Comment by gillie — August 20, 2009 @ 12:19 pm - August 20, 2009

  8. Gillie, please tells us how YOU would fix this national health care problem.

    Comment by Not Always Right — August 20, 2009 @ 12:38 pm - August 20, 2009

  9. Gllie, no, I did not say that charities to our health care problems nor did I say yesterday that better information was the answer.

    I do believe, however, that each are part of the answer.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 20, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - August 20, 2009

  10. Gillie has no answers, NAR.

    And apparently he lacks reading skills. I believe the point of the post is that President Obama’s words only match the actions on the left, where they don’t give near the amounts of conservatives to charity.

    The Government is not a charity, and should not take people’s money to give it to someone else. gillie refuses to see that.

    Comment by The Livewire — August 20, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - August 20, 2009

  11. Now you see why the g-man earned his title of ‘stupidbutt.’ His response is not only unresponsive to the point of the post, but it is as incoherent as Elmer Fudd debating ontological empiricism with Barney Frank.

    Comment by V the K — August 20, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - August 20, 2009

  12. #9
    Of course you didn’t “say” it but you sure as hell “suggest “-imply- it.
    You suggested it because that is part of your belief system (like most belief systems, its not based on facts)

    #8 – this is what I would do:
    1st – reduce variations on care.
    2nd – Change incentives based on quality not simply tests ran
    3rd –adopt a program that gives the public the option to buy into a government program.
    4th Pool risk to defray costs!

    What will follow is lower costs for all Americans.
    We as a country spend more resources on health care than anyone else in the world.
    High costs = higher unemployment – Our current health care system is a drag on job growth
    High costs = lower pay – Our current health care system treats health insurance as part if the benefit package therefore lower pay
    Something has to change.

    So, what’s your fix?

    (Besides yelling “Heil Hitler” at Jewish People have you seen that? Isn’t interesting how the woman seems more interesting in being Anti-Obama than anti-health reform? Hmmmm….theres a post idea dan! )

    Comment by gillie — August 20, 2009 @ 3:35 pm - August 20, 2009

  13. gillie — is that the DEMOCRAT constituent of Barney Frank you are referring to?


    Comment by GayPatriot — August 20, 2009 @ 3:46 pm - August 20, 2009

  14. #12

    So you wouldn’t change state and federal government mandates which have driven up costs?

    4th Pool risk to defray costs!

    Well that’s brilliant. Why didn’t anybody think of that before?

    3rd –adopt a program that gives the public the option to buy into a government program.

    So when people pour into a “free” program, who’s gonna pay for it?

    We as a country spend more resources on health care than anyone else in the world.

    Who needs quality health care anyway. Maybe we can drink the water we piss in just like other countries do too.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 20, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - August 20, 2009

  15. What will follow is lower costs for all Americans.


    Analysis of the Obama plan states in fact that it will RAISE health care costs, not lower them.

    What we have to realize here is that, for gillie and the Obama Party members and voters, their costs will go down because right now they are responsible for paying their own bills. Under Obamacare, they won’t have to pay premiums, and, since none of them pay taxes, they won’t have to pay increased costs either.

    We as a country spend more resources on health care than anyone else in the world.

    Therefore, since Honduras spends less than we do, their health care system is superior to ours.

    Go ahead and check yourself into a Honduran hospital, gillie. You might learn something about a concept known as “you get what you pay for”.

    High costs = higher unemployment – Our current health care system is a drag on job growth

    LOL… we’ve shown above, since Obama’s plan will increase costs even more, Obama’s plan will cause more job loss.

    Also, gillie, what makes this argument particularly stupid on your part is that Obama’s alleged “plan” is to require businesses to keep paying for health coverage, impose higher and higher coverage mandates (which cost more money), and then impose a punitive tax on employers who don’t provide health benefits — all of which RAISE health care costs for businesses.

    Unless, of course, the ignorant fool’s plan is to get rid of private insurance and force us all onto government care. Is that what you’re trying to say, gillie?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 20, 2009 @ 4:42 pm - August 20, 2009

  16. “dumbass”

    I would follow up with ol’ “stay classy” bit in your case it just wouldn’t work.
    You would have had to have some class first to “stay classy”

    No ideas from the right on how to fix our HC system?

    Got it.

    Comment by gillie — August 20, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - August 20, 2009

  17. gillie’s our resident whack-a-mole.

    He gets beat down and runs away from here here, here and my favourites here and here. But just like his idols, he believes if you repeat lies often enough they’ll be believed.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 20, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - August 20, 2009

  18. #17 – LW, isn’t that also the definition of insanity? You know, repeating an action over and over again, expecting a different result each time.

    Sort of like the Democrat party’s response to domestic issues.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 20, 2009 @ 11:49 pm - August 20, 2009

  19. healthcare… is part of an ethical and moral obligation that we look out for one another.

    By government force? By enslaving one another? No thank you.

    So charities are the answer to our national health care problems? Please.

    Yes, please! Charities are not only vastly more efficient then government, they are also moral. They don’t enslave people. They are one part of the answer. Other parts include:
    – tort reform and the abolishment of ALL government so-called “health care” programs – two measure that would make medical costs in general drop like a rock;
    – the lifting of regulatory barriers-to-entry in insurance markets, encouraging increased competition.
    – your own savings
    – your friends, family, church, etc.

    Oh, I forgot – gillie doesn’t have those last couple things.

    Pool risk to defray costs!

    Yeah! It’s called, INSURANCE. The way it works is, people pay a small premium VOLUNTARILY for coverage in the event of disaster. We definitely need more of that. But gillie, your Dear Leader has proposed in effect to destroy or prevent it – starting by making it involuntary, thus enslaving and exploiting human beings.

    No ideas from the right on how to fix our HC system?

    Tons of ideas from the right, gillie. Ideas that would actually work, unlike yours. But in order to push your sick, perverted and immoral leftism, you must of course pretend that those ideas don’t exist. So you do.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 1:06 am - August 21, 2009

  20. P.S. I love it when lefties say things like “We have to fight those evil insurance companies. Instead, let’s pool risk to defray costs!” They make such asses of themselves. All they are doing is proposing to create their own, new insurance company. Which is precisely what they should do, if they know so much about it – and precisely what their Dear Leader wants to STOP them from doing, by putting up ever more regulatory barriers.

    It reminds of that South Park episode where the pot-smoking hippies tried to tell Stan and Kyle something like, “No more businesses! We need a way for people to, like, make stuff and trade with each other and pay each other.” In other words: Businesses. 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 1:16 am - August 21, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.