MORMON MITT, THE HYPOCRITE

Politicians have to bend the truth sometimes, or else they might not win elections.  We all accept this unfortunate reality; that's the way the system works.  Politicians can, and indeed sometimes do, accomplish good things; so, if the ultimate results are good, we should be lenient about their countering lies with, well, lies of their own.  It sometimes goes too far; and Mitt Romney is a classic example of this.  I know of no other major American politician who has professed diametrically opposite opinions on a whole range of issues--abortion, health care, gay marriage, etc--simply for expedience, simply to get elected.

A recent example, from an interview on the news program Sixty Minutes (September 23rd, 2012) is so egregious that it makes one wonder if he--like King James of England, who did not protest the execution of his mother, Mary Stuart, so that he could more easily become king--would do just about anything to gain access to power.  

This is what he said, in reference to the millions of Americans who have no health insurance:

"Well, we do provide care for people who don't have health insurance.  If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die.  We pick them up in an ambulance and give them care.  And different states have different ways of providing that care."

Never mind that in 2010 when asked on TV  whether he believes in universal health care, he replied, "Oh, sure."  He cited that people who can afford to pay should not have access to free care.

In 2006, he said, "By law, emergency care cannot be withheld.  Why pay for something you can get free?  Of course, while it maybe free for them, everyone else ends up paying the bill, either by higher insurance premiums or taxes."  In other words, emergency care is not cost-effective. 

As someone who accomplished universal health care in Massachusetts, Romney knows this.  It is shameless of him to pretend otherwise.

One gets the idea from his September 23rd quote that he is advocating a two-tier system; health care coverage for the majority of Americans, and no insurance for at least 30 million others.  He is indicating that emergency room treatment is an efficient alternative for those without coverage.  After all,  Good Romney is concerned about all Americans--let's forget what Bad Romney said about the 47% of us who are "moochers."

The substitution of emergency-room care for primary care increases cost as it does human suffering.  It is not a good alternative, as Mr. Romney is very well aawre.

Emergency treatment is only free to those who have no assets.  The uninsured know that they can lose most or even all of what they have by an uncovered stay at the hospital.  It is even worse for them--insurances usually make deals with hospitals about how much they will be for a given service.  The uninsured get the full bill, often considerably higher than the bill an insurance company would receive.  Therefore, many delay treatment until a dire emergency forces them to go to the hospital.  Strokes caused by untreated high blood pressure, for instance, could have been prevented by earlier intervention, thus avoiding so much misery and expense.

Hospitals have charity funds to cover some of the expenses incurred by those on the brink of financial ruin due to unpaid hospital bills, but the system is not working, as amply illustrated by the article, "Hospitals Flout Charity Aid Law," New York Times, February 12, 2012.

I will give a example.  My wife is a doctor; her secretary and family lived in a small apartment while she worked as a medical secretary at my wife's office. She had lived in a moderate house before my wife hired her.  Her creditors seized the house because she could not pay her emergency room bill.  (Her family was uninsured at that time.)  Never mind that her stay in the hospital was caused by an accidental drug-induced coma, due to medical error.  She is a simple woman and did not know anything about lawyers.  After being forced to euthanize her two cats in order to be able to stay with friends in an apartment that did not allow pets, she began a new life without assets.  She eventually quit her job at my wife's office due to health reasons, and has now become what Romney would probably refer to (when speaking to rich donors) as "trailer trash."

It is obvious that lack of health care ruins lives, ruins health and increases costs.  Romney knows this.  Lying about it, though, just might help him get elected.

I am referring to him as Mormon Mitt the Hypocrite out of respect for Mormons, not to denigrate them.  True, their dogmas--as all religious dogmas taught as "Gospel Truth"--appear strange to me; a welcome  emphasis on morality, however, is certainly not lacking in Mormonism, and deserves respect.  Romney's willful abandonment of the uninsured is a prime example of a parallel abandonment of all that is good in Mormonism.  You don't believe me?  Then read these two quotes from the latest edition of the so-called Mormon Manual, (Teachings of the President of the Church, 2012.)

The following excerpt is from Chapter Two of the manual:

The Gospel teaches us to have charity for all and to love our fellows.  The Savior said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind; this is the first great commandment .And the second is like onto it, Thous shall love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The manual continues:

Let us evidence by our love, by our faith, that we do keep that great commandment that was like unto the first great commandment, "Thou shall love they neighbor as thyself."

Romney stands condemned by his own religion.  To him "neighbors" are only his family and friends, not the rest of us.  Practicing "Love They Neighbor" in this way reduces it to tribalism; the commandment is nothing if not all-inclusive. To knowingly flout this law in order to gain access to power is, according to the teachings of all the great religions, including Mormonism, nothing short of blasphemy.