Why Does Obama Want to Limit Charitable Deductions?
by Tom RussoDuring the Tea Party debate, Wolf Blitzer presented to Ron Paul, a hypothetical situation in which an able man chooses to not buy health insurance and then gets very ill. Paul said “that’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks…” Blitzer replied, “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” Paul responded, “No,” and then described how when he was a doctor in the early 60’s before Medicaid, the churches took care of people and that the hospital he worked at never turned anybody away. The full response can be viewed:
To me, that means that if you go uninsured and take those chances, then you’re on charity, and it’s going to be basic – it’s going to get you breathing again, get the bullet out of you, get you stitched up, remove the malignant tumor, whatever. However, forget about cradle-to-grave, premium healthcare. Forget about living in hospitals for days and weeks. Forget about emergency room visits for sniffles and aches. You don’t get that, it’s not a right. To those who question the compassion here, Paul fielded some questions the following day, making the point that while no system can achieve perfection, a free market system is most compassionate system there is. History sustains him.
The status quo, on the other hand, is acting like health care is somewhat of a right and the uninsured get similar coverage and treatment as the insured. You can’t turn anybody away for a sniffle. You can’t send them home without a mountain of paperwork. You have to cover your butt or get sued by somebody that does not even have insurance and ought to be begging instead of demanding.
Now, with these things in mind, consider that we have Obama pushing to limit charitable contributions to non-profit organizations.
Some of these non-profits are feeding or providing health care assistance to those in need. Now, let’s try to make sense of this.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?