"I am disgusted at the way that some people can be so intolerant, it disgusts me."
- Carrie Prejean, former Ms. California USA at the Values Voters Conference
Imagine the following scenario: Two guys walk into a bank. One of them announces that "this is a hold-up", and begins to rob the bank. A security guard, assuming that both of the guys are robbing the bank together, pulls out his gun, and shoots them, critically injuring both of them.
They are both incapacitated, and bleeding on the floor. The robbery has been halted, and one, maybe two, criminals need medical attention, or they will die.
What should happen next?
Most rational people will say that the suspects should be arrested and a police escort should take them to the emergency room.
After all, in our court system, the guy who was clearly robbing the bank is innocent until he has his day in court. There is no room for "judge, jury, executioner" in our society.
Even the less compassionate amongst us will recognize that there is some ambiguity in this scenario. Were there two bank robbers? Or only one? If we withhold medical treatment from the scoff-law, do we also withhold it from his suspected partner, who may very well be innocent?
The point of this scenario is to point out that most rational Americans will recognize that just because someone has broken the law, even if they got critically injured while doing so, it is immoral to simply let the criminals die bleeding out on the floor.
Yet folks like Senator Joe Wilson of South Carolina are so incensed about the potential that illegal immigrants might get health care that he feels compelled to blurt out "You Lie!" during Obama's speech?
What's wrong with giving a human being, regardless of nationality, regardless of race, class, gender, income or any other criteria other than the fact that they are a human being, quality health care when they need it?
The controversy and fury that has arisen over "illegals" getting health care are blown way out of proportion and make no sense when examined in a rational sense.
Consider this exchange on the Bill Maher show:
Bill Maher: "The reason that the guy yelled you lie! was that, illegals, he thought, might be getting some of this health care money... OK, so we already had in the bill-- it was very explicit-- that we're not going to allow illegals to get health care. Now he doesn't want them to even be able to buy health care with their own money. What do Republicans want a bleeding Mexican to do?"
Jeffery Toobin: "I think Republicans should have the courage of their convictions and ban illegals from buying food. Because, why should they benefit from being in this country? It's the next logical conclusion!"
Why is it OK to give someone medical care if they were shot while stealing from a bank, but not OK to give an illegal immigrant health care when they paid for it out of their own pocket?
Maybe conservatives like Ms. Prejean should stop being disgusted at the supposed intolerance of the people on the left, and begin getting disgusted at the plank of hypocrisy blinding the right. The more hypocritical issues like these are as visible in comparative analysis, the more it appears that the reason to withhold the ability for illegals to buy medical care (or to interrupt the President's speech) isn't that they've broken the law, it's that they are from a different country or of a different race.
In France or Britain or Canada, if you walk into a hospital, you're not going to be asked for proof of citizenship before you are given health care. This is because these countries believe that having access to a hospital or a doctor is a basic human right in an elevated society, much like having access to basic food, water, or air. It's only in America where it is even considered a "debate" to discuss whether we should allow illegals to buy
their own health care.
This is a national embarrassment and I'm amazed that the people who also tend to think they hold the moral high ground don't think the same way.