Medicaid issue not a moral argument
A writer expresses his perplexity over the majority of our nation’s most religious states having resisted the expansion of Medicaid (“Medicaid denial: hypocrisy or irrationality?” Opinion, March 10). The swelling of such government programs is core to his understanding of a Judeo-Christian ethic that we ought to respond compassionately to the needs of the sick and downtrodden. What the writer doesn’t take into account, though, is that a historic biblical morality is demonstrated in the voluntary, practical expressions of love to those in need. Government, by design, is inherently and inescapably coercive in its reach. There is nothing voluntary about citizen compliance.
There are millions of daily acts of love demonstrated to others in need that never receive media ink. And that’s fine, because genuine, voluntary acts of love are typically offered without fanfare. At the heart of this distinction is love expressed voluntarily vs. the involuntary raiding of citizen wallets through government compulsion. Medicaid expansion, despite its desirable objective, is an example of the latter. That is the more likely reason the most religious states don’t expand the program. The intent is to demonstrate love through private, voluntary means while resisting the ever-expanding compulsory “savior” state.
ALAN FOSTER, ACWORTH
Victims deserve more help
The AJC’s Brian Nichols stories (“Courthouse tragedy,” News, March 11) should give us all pause. Nichols, the perpetrator of horrific murders 10 years ago, is now being treated humanely in the Georgia prison system. All his basic needs are being met, including any possible severe medical conditions.
Let’s contrast that with the situation of Christopher Sparkman, a FedEx security guard shot by a suicidal gunman last April. After some 30 surgeries, Sparkman is once again in an induced coma. According to government agencies, he is not disabled, yet he and his wife are destitute. How could an official possibly make that ruling? These contrasting situations should make us all contemplate our social and legal priorities. It is not OK to simply say, “That is the way it is.” We have it backwards. Without question, Sparkman deserves our official help. Nichols deserves nothing.
JIM GRATTAN, GRAYSON
Tax money belongs in public schools
If there are some who want to take their kids out of public schools, that’s OK by me. But why should my tax dollars be going to help them? I support public education, yet this seems to be a way to take my hard-earned money and give it to someone who doesn’t want to work within the system. This is just another example of saying, “We know better than you.” Let them figure out how to educate their child with only the money they have been putting into the system. Then they might have a clue as to why all the education cuts have made it so difficult on schools, and teachers, in the first place.
MICHAEL BUCHANAN, ALPHARETTA
