Well, let me ask you the same question I've asked others: do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure that people who cannot afford it, have access to basic medical care?
Society is an abstract. A construct. It has no obligations. it is a set of statistical parameters enforced by a legal system based on a groupthink.
It has no morals, only a consensus.
Morals are an individual thing, just as moral obligations are. When society removes the ability, the resources, and the freedom to follow my individual moral instincts, I have no choice, I can not exercise my personal judgement to feel obligated morally or not--instead, I become legally obligated, or, if you prefer, compelled. With compulsion any morals go out the window. It doesn't matter how good the thing I am compelled to do, I am still compelled.
If it were to be a moral act, I would have to be able to choose to do so or not do so, as my personal, individual, morals made me feel obligated. Without that choice I cannot 'give', because what I might have given has been taken instead.
If The Almighty wanted humans to be automatons, He could have created us that way. He could have made people creatures which could never even entertain doing other than His will.
He didn't do that; He gave us choice. As such, as an individual with the ability to choose a moral, immoral or no act at all, I can exercise a moral obligation--I can have a moral obligation because that is my choice. Compulsion negates that.
There are more vehicles than ever to get the money together to get little Johnny or Julie that operation they so desperately need. Entire communities of people will open their hearts and wallets, and from donation jars on the local checkout counter to fundraisers in the community to websites that bring people who are willing and able to help together with those who desperately need that help, to hospitals which will give medical care with no cost to the parents (because people have already donated), those who need help can get it. Even kids with cleft palettes (Smile Train) overseas, the sick in a multitude of countries (Medicine sans Frontiers), to a host of others like St. Judes Hospital for Children permit that obligation the individual feels to be fulfilled, whether directly or vicariously.
Forcibly taking money from those who may or may not have it in the name of helping those who allegedly don't is more Robin Hood antics on the part of the Left, and stifles the Liberty necessary for an act of charity to mean anything. Therefore no moral obligation is met by the individual. Only coercion.
As for this whole program, aside from forcing more people into situations often worse than they were in--the same productive people who feel moral obligations to help those who need that help, the point is that people who have or suffer from self-inflicted maladies from poor lifestyle choices seek to extract the money to deal with their problems, often exacerbated by their unrepentant behaviour, from others who have worked hard and led a less libertine existence.
That isn't a moral judgement, but medical fact.
If you aren't using IV drugs, sharing needles, or engaging in homosexual or other promiscuous activities, your chances of having a disease (HIV/AIDS) that will cost between $600,000 and $750,000 in the remaining (up to) 25 years of your lifetime for medical care and pharmaceuticals is greatly reduced. It is readily apparent, that for whatever reason that small percentage of the population (an estimated 1.3 million people) enjoys a disproportional influence among the halls of power in Washington, D.C., and those who might have had difficulty getting insurance because of their high risk lifestyles found a friend in the Democrat Party to make sure medical history was not considered, but have sold this among the general population as something to keep poor children from dying an untimely death from an easily treated childhood disease. Where have we heard that battle cry ("
For the Childrennn!") before?
While this might benefit some poor people who didn't have insurance before, as to the "working poor", well, there are fewer of them, or they are working two jobs now, because of the negative economic impact of the ACA on small business, forcing employers to cut hours to below full time status because they can't afford to shell out another 2K a month for lower wage employees (effectively doubling wages). Those who have bitten the bullet and complied, expanded their businesses less because of reduced capital, or haven't been giving raises they might have because of the added expense, and some have just shut down entirely.
As usual, the unintended consequences raise their ugly heads.
Moral obligation? . I have one--to keep my family fed, keep the lights and heat on, keep them clothed, and see to their needs, first. If that sounds selfish, tough shit. It's no more selfish than the howling of people who would take the food out of my children's mouths to pay for their often avoidable maladies when the whole thing has left me not only unable to pay for insurance for my own family, but will take food off my table to punish me for not buying that insurance.
