Providing health care is "immoral?" Really? Low point even for Fox

Saturday, March 10, 2007 at 05:12 PM

I don't know which Cavuto show it was, or the name of the genius who said it, but I heard a man clearly state on this afternoon's Fux News that it was "immoral" for the U.S. to provide national health care.

Why? Hard to say for sure since it was a multiple person panel, and they were all talking over each other, but from the exchange between the speaker and Wayne Rogers, I gather it has something to do with needing to tax the affluent and rich in order to provide a national health care program.

Now even for Fox with its Cavuto odes to the rich, this is a new low. You have a nation with disintegrating health care and a strtifying economy that leaves millions increasingly poor and unable to afford basic health care. So what's immoral? Not letting people live in that muck, oh no, that's just fine. What's immoral is to try to remedy the problem so that all citizens have access to the real basics of life.

That's right in there with PJ O'Rourke's fear of altruism, folks. Actually, it's right below it.

And boy do I find it (un)funny how clowns like the one who said this never seem to find it "immoral" to fund the military, and to send the military to intervene in other nations as a way of making them safe for American investments. Nope, nothing immoral about spending the money and the blood of the middle class and the poor in order to protect the financial interests of the investor class. Not a thing.

Jesus, it really does demand one of those "What Would Jesus Do" moments, doesn't it?

If anyone knows the name of the clown who said this, please leave a comment for me. I'd like to get in touch with him.