This may or not be brief in lieu of the fact that we're in the middle of a move, but I wanted to expound on this idea that has become so central to the general popular debate. As a caveat let me put out a warning that one or two ideas may not be popular amongst more conservative minds so please don't show up at my new door with torches and pitchforks.

When most people have heard the term "legislating morality" it has flowed from the frothy mouths and frantic fingers of liberals reacting to conservative desires such as the criminalization of abortion and gay marriage. The rants are often passionately flavorful, peppered with an "advanced" vocabulary, but when I try to envision the people behind the words I always digress to an image of a thesaurus warehouse full to the rafters with monkeys tearing into the product, literally throwing big words around. But the simians aren't altogether wrong, you see. I think they're partially right in that morality shouldn't be legislated. Should we act morally? Yes, of course. Should we follow the good path and shun the bad? Absolutely. Does making statements in the form of question/answer sets make me cringe to the brink of implosion? I'm not answering the question because I'm on the brink of implosion.


Legislating morality is arrogant, at best and devastating at worst. It is arrogant because it is imposing the personal philosophy of one or many on another or others. It is the intellectual telling the rough neck that he is backwards and his ways are unevolved so the rough neck must be made to be progressive, evolved, sophisticated. It is the deeply religious zealot telling the liberal progressive that his ways are immoral and ungodly so the progressive must be made to conform to what the spiritual deem morally acceptable. There are as many more examples as there are ideologies, beliefs, opinions and tastes.


I will give an example and here I will get straight to the unpopular opinion. I do not agree with gay marriage. I don't agree with homosexuality, period. According to my beliefs it is a moral incongruity. In the words of our dear, dear president, let me be clear. I do not hate, or even dislike homosexuals, I only disagree with homosexuality. I disagree only with the actions, not the [mostly] wonderful people. However, it is also against my beliefs to deny anyone the right to choose. Homosexual marriage does violate what I believe to be the sanctity of marriage, but it doesn't violate the sanctity of my marriage nor anyone elses'. Live and let live, I say.

Long story short, it is the arrogance of our leaders that has lead them to assume they must follow this course. They assume that we need them. They assume that without them the very fabric of our society would come apart at the seams. We don't need to be told to be charitable and forcing us to do so will make us resentful and belligerent and those we're forced to help dependent and corrupt. There is no other logical end. W. Cleon Skousen wrote that the great human secret is this: A man will compel himself to go ever so much farther than he will allow someone else to compel him to go. How ironic that these "progressives" are creating the very atmosphere that can only lead to digression, even our doom.

I just about blew a fuse today. I read the article in The Independent called "The brutal truth about American healthcare" as well as a number of the comments left at the bottom (this is never a good idea for someone harboring even the slightest hint of misanthropy). The British newspaper (yes, I said British) launched an attack on the American health care system using the R.A.M. (Remote Area Medical) forum in Inglewood, California as a backdrop and plot setting. R.A.M., very quickly, is a volunteer non-profit organization that offers free medical care throughout the U.S. and the world.

The very first person quoted in the story had a priceless tale that I will cut and paste here since retyping it would make me frustrated enough to break the keyboard.

"Christine Smith arrived at 3am in the hope of seeing a dentist for the first time since she turned 18. That was almost eight years ago. Her need is obvious and pressing: 17 of her teeth are rotten; some have large visible holes in them. She is living in constant pain and has been unable to eat solid food for several years.
'I had a gastric bypass in 2002, but it went wrong, and stomach acid began rotting my teeth. I've had several jobs since, but none with medical insurance, so I've not been able to see a dentist to get it fixed," she told The Independent. "I've not been able to chew food for as long as I can remember. I've been living on soup, and noodles, and blending meals in a food mixer. I'm in constant pain. Normally, it would cost $5,000 to fix it. So if I have to wait a week to get treated for free, I'll do it. This will change my life.'"

She had a bypass surgery. Did everyone catch that? I hope no one was distracted by the emotional build up to her quote. Bypass surgeries, from what little I understand of them, can cost upward of $40,000. I'm curious how an 18 year old affords an expensive medical procedure, finds out it doesn't work, doesn't go back and have it fixed correctly, and then spends almost a decade watching her body decompose. Now, I'm not upset this girl got help, I'm not a monster. But R.A.M. is a volunteer organization, there is no federal mandate or legislation that requires them to help.


A national health care plan is not the same thing as charity, no matter what the busy body Brit or the delusional American may think. It angers me to the point of maniacal laughter to hear people cry out about "legislating morality" when talking about gay marriage or abortion but they have no compunction about forcing the entire nation to be charitable toward others. The hypocrisy here actually, and quite literally, gives me a headache. The supporters of socialized medicine shout, almost in unison, that every person has a "right to health". I would like to know what constitution they are reading because it isn't the one I uphold. We are guaranteed the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and let it be here said that the phrase is so simple that only the simple minded can misunderstand it. We should protect every life from being lost due to the actions or inactions of others but if that life is self-destructive (like eating poorly, smoking, spending any free moment in front of the television, and then not purchasing the means by which you can avoid dying because of your own choices) then it is that life's right to end. The quality of life is up to each of us individually.

The answer to the morality question is basic in its logic. It is morally good to help your fellow man. It is morally good to assist those in need of assistance, medical or otherwise. It is not morally good to enforce moral good. History's throat is raw from screaming that forced social-conscientiousness results in the general morale equivalent of mass depression which then leads to uprisings and revolution. Anyone familiar with Latter-Day Saint theology should recognize the idea of "forced righteousness" and the price that was paid to avoid such a fate. The decision on the table goes much deeper than simply providing health care. They are entering our homes in the dead of night and attempting to rob us of our God given gift, the gift of personal choice, responsibility, and subsequent power.

The town halls are heatin' up, folks! The nation is all a twitter about this health care business and I thought I'd throw in my two cents (actually 1.2 cents, after taxes) since I've had my showdown-at-high-noon with government controlled health care. Sit back kiddies and let me paint you a portrait... actually just a little doodle... on a napkin... that has watermelon stains.


It was the summer of 1999 and I was not partying like the year it was. I was in Toronto, Canada serving a full time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and had been out about four months and still in my first area. I had been having abdominal pains all summer but attributed them to humidity combined with the experimental acne medication I was on before my departure. Every night I would curl up in a ball and ride out the storm. It wasn't until I had a particularly bad attack that my companion forced me to go to the emergency room to get checked out. I had never been to an emergency room before that so I thought the three and a half hours of mind-numbing waiting was probably normal. I didn't see a physician right away, they sent me right into the ultra-sound technician who, even after admitting that he wasn't allowed to say anything, diagnosed a gall stone. Well I was less than pleased at the news, but satisfied that there was news, an answer, an enemy.


The next transfer I was sent to metropolitan Toronto to be near "better doctors." The only doctor I saw, however, never admitted me into an examination room. He sat me in his office and from across his desk he told me that his advice was to tough it out and take care of it when I got home... 18 months later. At this point I was eating only saltine crackers and drinking water because anything else doubled me over like a taco shell (which, had I eaten one, would have added new depth to "you are what you eat") and was becoming fairly dainty. My mission president, who had a long and successful career as a hospital administrator behind him, told me the choice was mine, but if I decided to have surgery there was no way I was having it in Canada; evidently he could smell the inadequacy in the nationalized health care.


So back to the factory I went for some recall repairs. I only went as far as Salt Lake City and had my surgery that night. The laparoscopic procedure was so quick and efficient that even after they removed an entire organ from my abdomen I had no need to stay over night. Mere hours after being the personification of the Operation guy (who, ironically, I seem to resemble when I part my hair down the middle) I was on my way to stay with my uncle and aunt for 9 days. In fact I was up and out and all about the next day and only remembered I had had surgery when I laughed hard enough to strain my stitches. But I digress. I was informed later of the surgeon's comment that he had never seen such a diseased organ in someone my age and that had he not removed it when he did the disease would have spread to other organs with disastrous results.


The moral of this story, kids, is that when someone other than yourself holds the decision making power over your health or any other facet of your life then you are unnecessarily enslaved. When you're not responsible for the care of your own body then those are responsible have every [legal] right to dictate what you do with that body. I was profoundly blessed to have had the option to save my own life, but it must be remembered that that option existed by sheer virtue of my status as an American and the coverage of private insurance. I don't want my neighbors looking at my naturally plump body some years down the road and thinking about how part of their 48% tax rate is going toward my triple bypass (I hope I'm healthy enough to avoid that, but my neighbors likely won't know me that well and will just judgementally assume I'm gonna need one). I want to make the decisions for my health and my wife and I to make the health decisions for our own family, not the government. They can have my Snickers when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!



The End.




I can't help but feel like Fletch here when I think about what nationalized health will do to us. Moooon River!