The Next Time You Think Government Has To Do The Church’s Job Of Charity

I often hear defenders of government welfare claim that the government has to provide for the needy because no one else will do it.  Sadly, these people are totally ignorant of just how far government has gone to make it impossible for people to be charitable.  Well, here is proof.  The government is starting to make it illegal to give to the poor and needy:

Obamacare installs new scrutiny, fines for charitable hospitals that treat uninsured people

A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.

Charity for the uninsured is one of the factors that could discourage enrollment in Obamacare, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or else face new taxes themselves from the IRS.

This story is all the proof you need to understand that government not only wants people to be dependent on it, it is willing to make it illegal to try and stop this dependency.  Remember, the government has no authority to fine you unless you break the law.  Therefore, if they are saying they can fine these hospitals for providing free services for the needy, they are saying it is illegal to help the needy.

But you might accept the government story about this not being a fine but a tax.  OK, then you have just proven another “I told you so” accusation in connection to Obamacare.  The Right told you that, if we allowed Obamacare to be seen as a tax, the nature of what government taxes will expand.  That is what this is: a tax for NOT turning people away.  You could look at it as a tax for NOT forcing people to depend on the government.

Sure, Obama calls it a tax to make up for the fact that you are helping people avoid paying for their own insurance, but the only people who will accept that are ignorant fools who do not pay attention.  If you do not buy your own insurance, Obamacare already provides for fines against you.  So the government is already getting paid for those who refuse to buy healthcare.  That makes this fine on charitable hospitals under Obama’s twisted logic a form of DOUBLE TAXATION!  The hospitals are being fined for something that the government is already collecting taxes – from the individual who didn’t buy healthcare.

Once again: this is NOT about helping people, IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL!  And what do we call this sort of control?


This is what happens when you are part of a society that has been so dumbed down that they do not understand reason well enough to even defend the language, let alone their constitution or individual rights and liberty.

18 thoughts on “The Next Time You Think Government Has To Do The Church’s Job Of Charity

  1. You made me think of something that David Hume, the 18th century British philosopher, wrote:

    Those who affirm that virtue is nothing but a conformity to reason; that there are eternal fitnesses and unfitnesses of things, which are the same to every rational being that considers them; that the immutable measures of right and wrong impose an obligation, not only on human creatures, but also on the Deity himself: All these systems concur in the opinion, that morality, like truth, is discerned merely by ideas, and by their juxta-position and comparison. In order, therefore, to judge of these systems, we need only consider, whether it be possible, from reason alone, to distinguish betwixt moral good and evil, or whether there must concur some other principles to enable us to make that distinction.

    If morality had naturally no influence on human passions and actions, it were in vain to take such pains to inculcate it; and nothing would be more fruitless than that multitude of rules and precepts, with which all moralists abound. Philosophy is commonly divided into speculative and practical; and as morality is always comprehended under the latter division, it is supposed to influence our passions and actions, and to go beyond the calm and indolent judgments of the understanding. And this is confirmed by common experience, which informs us, that men are often governed by their duties, and are detered from some actions by the opinion of injustice, and impelled to others by that of obligation.

    Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be derived from reason; and that because reason alone, as we have already proved, can never have any such influence. Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.

    By the standards of Hume’s argument, charity can never be meted out by a government – and I think our government especially is vulnerable to Hume’s logic – because they seek to divorce any sense of morality from their actions while at the same time using morality as a reason or excuse, therefore government aid to the poor is not a moral prerogative but a quest for something else, be it allegiance (dependence) of its citizens or power (control) over them.

    • Utah,

      Question: where does Hume speak against government seizure of charity? I ask because I do not want another argument, I want clarification. By my reading, Hume is making a postmodernist argument: morality is whatever a given person or society “feels” it to be. Or it is defined by custom, but not by reason. Now, I admit, I have not studied Hume very much, but he would seem to be arguing in opposition to Locke. So, I am asking you, can you help me out by clarifying your understanding of Hume’s comment here and how it undercuts government charity?


      • Hume was an empiricist, not a post-modernist. I don’t think that he ever was an atheist although he was accused of being one. He influenced many scholars of his time on all ends of the political spectrum – from Adam Smith to Charles Darwin. What I was trying to point out was that while the sponsors for government largess use morality as a reason, they are actually using reason to create a motive for it. Hume says that true reason is but a determination of what is or is not, not the why or motivations of the actions. That rests in morality. Since the “progressives” claim that they are motivated by reason, the claim to be issuing charity as a function of morality is false. It is a stretch, I know…

        • Utah,

          I have to admit, I do not know how I missed Hume while I was in college. Since your original comment, I have been reading about him. I see how influential he has been, and I see why. His thinking is as easy to nail to the wall as a Progressive’s (or jello). I know he is classified as a “empiricist,” but he is also VERY close to being a skeptic (in fact, it appears others have made this connection before).

          Skeptics are fungible individuals, with no solid form in their thinking. For this reason, I see the aspects of Skepticism in Hume as being pro-Progressive/government charity/morality. Pretty much the same way so many different people read Hume and took it as support for the many different and opposing directions in which they ran.

          But, as I said, I have no desire to argue about stupid stuff. I asked, you answered and I’m happy. Thanks 🙂

    • Utah,

      OK, I did a quick-cram on Hume. I can tell now that he and I would have been mortal intellectual enemies. This leaves me still wondering why you cited him and hoping you’ll explain it to me. If not, I promise, I’ll leave it alone.

      • I’m not siding with Hume – while he did have some interesting things to say about economics, he probably did more damage to natural law based philosophy that any modern philosopher. I’m reading him to better understand why there is a branch of thinking – empiricism – that completely discounts the influence of natural laws.

        • Utah,

          AH! Now I see that you and I are on the same page. As you know, once I turn my attention to something, I am a quick study. What I have read of and by Hume in the past hour leads me to the same conclusion you’ve just stated: he is an enemy to Natural Law and, honestly, to right reason. I think the reason so many have declared this man to be “great” is because his work provides the foundation for the post-modernist and nihilist, thus justifying their work.

          Once again, I appreciate the clarification. Thanks.

          • The disconnect to me is that he says that morality does not come from reason and yet I can’t see where he allows that it does come from. He vaguely talks about “beliefs” but never addresses the fact that for a “belief” to motivate an action, it has to be rooted in something. I think his value is in the refutation of his points.

            But he was only 28 when he wrote this…so I’ll cut him a little slack.

            • LOL, OK, cut him some slack. But, from what I am learning, he never let go of this notion. Instead, he seems to have doubled-down on it.

              I think this is why he has been declared “great.” He is a philosophical Obama: he wrote a great deal but said nothing, and what he did say could be taken however the reader wanted to take it.


        • Utah,

          I offer this just as mutual food for thought on Hume:

          “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

          Now, may I posit a thought? According to Hume, could it be that what the Progressives claim to be “reason” is nothing more than their “bending” [my term] of reason to fit their passions? In this case, that passion is that we should have government take care of everyone, thus, according to what I understand Hume to be saying, all “reason” would naturally be associated with and point to the “natural conclusion” or “morality” of this desire?

          At least, this is what I initially saw in the quote you posted and, now that I read more of what Hume wrote, I am convinced you are correct: the man is actually a threat to right reason.

  2. You have to luve all these …”Hume(r)-ist…. Comments so early in the Morning.

    That’s me word “puttering”…… Utah… ;- ))

  3. This is from the LA Times of last year:

    You can’t just feed the homeless outdoors in Philadelphia anymore; you now need a permit.

    In Dallas, you can give away food only with official permission first.

    Laws tightening regulations on aid to the homeless are popping up across the country, according to a recent USA Today report: “Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Oklahoma City and more than 50 other cities have previously adopted some kind of anti-camping or anti-food-sharing laws, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.”

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.