The above is quite a mouthful, and you lost me with the loss of dependents thing, but moving right along, do you believe any form of taxation, the proceeds of which are used for redistributive purposes, is immoral?
Why would you retreat to an obscure political talking point?
The middle class just got hammered with a 1% of AGI or $95 per month (whichever is higher) surtax for non-coverage. Rather than pay the tax, they removed dependents from their tax return. Those dependency exemptions were granted according to the ability to pay concept. Other taxpayers, who aren't covered by their employers, thus, don't receive the same tax benefits for healthcare, were forced to eat the higher tax bill.
Meanwhile the upper middle and upper classes are left to their own devices because they receive tax-free healthcare compensation from their employers.
Wealth is being distributed from the middle fifth to the bottom fifth. Does that seem like an effective method of spreading the wealth around? Only the brain-dead American electorate could cheerlead something so patently stupid. Only clueless Americans could allow elected officials to plea federal poverty, when we have more than enough money to solve the problem, if only we'll stop binge spending of counter-productive programs that make us less filthy-rich.
Obamacare is surely one of the greatest failures in our history. We could buy healthcare for everyone, but we don't. We could easily empower everyone to buy their own healthcare, but we don't. Instead, we vote for civic malfeasance and moral debauchery on an increasingly grand scale.
Well you have a point about employee based plans, and the system should certainly be more means tested, but I think you missed the moral hazard aspect - that those who are not insured, when they have a real need, burden the system typically as freeloaders, at taxpayer and the expense of those who have insurance, because some of the premiums are then diverted to offset some of the free loader expense that the care giver organizations are saddled with. What is conservative or moral about that, in anyone's universe?
Just because someone does something amoral doesn't mean a non-judgmental response by society is amoral. That is to say, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone can afford health insurance but doesn't purchase it, then falls ill and we all have to pay for it, well, the moral principle of
helping someone survive is more important than their irresponsible, immoral behaviour. I suppose this idea completely boils down to ideology, but, you know..
