<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GOP Lawmaker: If you have pre-existing conditions you may need to move to another state.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://habitablezone.com/2017/05/09/gop-lawmaker-if-you-have-pre-existing-conditions-you-may-need-to-move-to-another-state/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/05/09/gop-lawmaker-if-you-have-pre-existing-conditions-you-may-need-to-move-to-another-state/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:18:10 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: hank</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/05/09/gop-lawmaker-if-you-have-pre-existing-conditions-you-may-need-to-move-to-another-state/#comment-39074</link>
		<dc:creator>hank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2017 17:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=63821#comment-39074</guid>
		<description>It is self-evident and obvious.

People who are in pain, or dying, want medical science to help them and their families, no matter what it costs.

Some people (not all) who can afford their health care don&#039;t want to be taxed to pay for the health care of those who can&#039;t.

Everything else is political and negotiable.  

Look at it this way.  If a ship carrying valuable, perishable cargo finds another vessel with many crew and passengers on fire far out at sea, does it have the obligation to stop and rescue those castaways? Is it under any obligation to interrupt its voyage to bring those survivors to safety?  Should it be compelled to jettison its cargo, if necessary, in order to do so? Is it justified in leaving them there to die in order to fulfill its original mission?

There is no logically correct answer to this.  But there is a morally compelling one.

In the film &quot;Moby Dick&quot; the whaler&lt;em&gt; Rachel&lt;/em&gt;, Captain Gardiner, out of New Bedford, comes alongside the whaler &lt;em&gt;Pequod&lt;/em&gt;, Captain Ahab, of the same home port.  

Gardiner requests Ahab&#039;s assistance in locating one of his boats, with
his son aboard, which had been dragged away after harpooning the White Whale, Moby Dick. The man is desperate, he begs Ahab, offers to pay him whatever he wants, in order for just a chance to save his son.

Although sympathetic to Gardiner, Ahab has his own personal reasons to kill Moby Dick, and refuses to take the time to assist &lt;em&gt;Rachel&lt;/em&gt;.  He determines from Gardiner where his quarry has gone, and orders his men to immediately set sail and course to continue his pursuit.  &lt;em&gt;Pequod&lt;/em&gt;&#039;s crew is aghast, realizing not only that they are violating a primary custom of the sea, but that their own reputation and honor will be forever cursed when they return home.  But Ahab will not be swayed by their entreaties.

As the two ships pull apart, their Captains exchange final words. 

AHAB: God help you, Captain Gardiner.
GARDINER: God forgive you, Captain Ahab.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is self-evident and obvious.</p>
<p>People who are in pain, or dying, want medical science to help them and their families, no matter what it costs.</p>
<p>Some people (not all) who can afford their health care don&#8217;t want to be taxed to pay for the health care of those who can&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Everything else is political and negotiable.  </p>
<p>Look at it this way.  If a ship carrying valuable, perishable cargo finds another vessel with many crew and passengers on fire far out at sea, does it have the obligation to stop and rescue those castaways? Is it under any obligation to interrupt its voyage to bring those survivors to safety?  Should it be compelled to jettison its cargo, if necessary, in order to do so? Is it justified in leaving them there to die in order to fulfill its original mission?</p>
<p>There is no logically correct answer to this.  But there is a morally compelling one.</p>
<p>In the film &#8220;Moby Dick&#8221; the whaler<em> Rachel</em>, Captain Gardiner, out of New Bedford, comes alongside the whaler <em>Pequod</em>, Captain Ahab, of the same home port.  </p>
<p>Gardiner requests Ahab&#8217;s assistance in locating one of his boats, with<br />
his son aboard, which had been dragged away after harpooning the White Whale, Moby Dick. The man is desperate, he begs Ahab, offers to pay him whatever he wants, in order for just a chance to save his son.</p>
<p>Although sympathetic to Gardiner, Ahab has his own personal reasons to kill Moby Dick, and refuses to take the time to assist <em>Rachel</em>.  He determines from Gardiner where his quarry has gone, and orders his men to immediately set sail and course to continue his pursuit.  <em>Pequod</em>&#8216;s crew is aghast, realizing not only that they are violating a primary custom of the sea, but that their own reputation and honor will be forever cursed when they return home.  But Ahab will not be swayed by their entreaties.</p>
<p>As the two ships pull apart, their Captains exchange final words. </p>
<p>AHAB: God help you, Captain Gardiner.<br />
GARDINER: God forgive you, Captain Ahab.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
