Universal Health Care Part I

When the reward for diligence is servitude, what will be the incentive to strive? When man's struggles for success are bought with blood, sweat and tears and he arrives at the finish line only to find a smiling jailer with shackles tailor-made for wrist and ankle, will he fall to his knees and shout with elation? Will he even start the race knowing what awaits him? When the juggernauts tire of persecution, who will push the millstone? When Peter quits, who exactly will Paul turn too?

Examples are plentiful, just pick up a paper and read what plans are being made to herald this and the next generation of Americans. Here is the example I chose to pick: Clinton May Garnish Wages to Achieve Universal Health Care.

I am going to take snippets of the article here, but you can read the entire article above.
Clinton on Sunday described universal health care as "a core Democratic value and a moral principle, and I'm absolutely going to do everything I can to achieve that."

Let's take a look at the statement above and determine what it means. First there is the statement that universal health care is a “core Democratic value”. Democracy (From demos and -cracy) is defined by my Little and Ives Complete Standard Universal Dictionary as – a. A form of government in which all classes, including the lowest, have a voice in government, directly or through their chosen representatives.

From the definition it is difficult to tie universal health care to the word democracy in a strict relationship. More likely Mrs. Clinton is artfully using a bit of verbal misdirection. The word democracy has been used synonymously and incorrectly, by most politicians regardless of the letters following their names, with “American Government”. If this is the case and Mrs. Clinton is using democracy as a substitution for “American Government” and calling universal health care one of its core values, it could easily be used as emotional ammunition if a logical line of questioning were introduced. This line of thought is further supported by the second part of her statement calling universal health care a “moral principle”. Therefore if universal health care is a core American value and a moral principle on top of that, dissenters can immediately be labeled as anti-American, morally bankrupt and dismissed out of hand. Or perhaps she really meant a core democratic value connected directly to her political affiliation and a “moral principle”, then by inference her political party's stance is moral, the opposition is not.

If we remove the middle portion of the statement, we are left with - universal health care is a moral principle...

And that my friend is a philosophical question that will have to wait because I am out of time.