On a recent post asking what our readers want to see here at Wheat and Tares, Suzanne Nielsen requested posts about Star Trek. I can do that! We are starting the Star Trek series of posts with a topical discussion about mass murderers and how we can’t dismiss them as monsters. No, we have to see them as they really are — fellow human beings — so we can guard against the attitudes that lead to mass murder.
One thing that science fiction does particularly well is take current issues out of context so we can look at the issue closely without getting bogged down in the details of current events. Once we’ve examined an issue, considered the morality of it, and talked out our thoughts, then we can put the issue back in the present day’s context. The goal is to clarify our thoughts, find common ground, and hope that moves a discussion along to a more productive outcome.
The Star Trek part of this post is The Original Series, Season 1, Episode 14: “The Conscience of the King.” The political part of this post is the Project 2025 Administration’s actions to increase suffering and death among the poorest 10% of Americans, most recently seen in the big tax cut bill that just passed the House. The religious part of this post is the abundance mindset that Christ taught.
Star Trek 1×14: The Conscience of the King
Twenty years before this episode takes place, Kodos was governor of a human colony established on the planet named Tarsus IV. James Kirk was there. The colony had a population of about 8,000. Disaster struck — a fungus infected the food supply, wiping out most of it. Earth sent disaster aid, but the rescue ships wouldn’t arrive in time. People were going to starve to death.
Kodos declared martial law; he called it a Revolution. Was he an elected governor before that moment and eliminated the rest of the government? Or did he overthrow the entire government and assumed the title of Governor? The episode doesn’t say.
Kodos saw himself as a leader in an impossible situation who had to make a life or death decision. Either 8,000 people would starve to death, or he could kill 4,000 people and the remaining food could be rationed out long enough so that the other 4,000 people would survive until the rescue ships came. He would kill half the population to save the other half. Kodos decided who lived and who died. The episode doesn’t tell us exactly what criteria he used, though Spock referred to it as eugenics. Spock described children watching their parents be killed, and said that whole families were destroyed.
Kodos the Executioner, he came to be called. The rescue ships arrived earlier than expected. Those 4,000 people didn’t have to die. The rescuers found a burned body and assumed it was Kodos. It wasn’t. He escaped, changed his identity, and created a whole new life for himself.
Twenty years later, Kodos would defend himself to Captain Kirk by claiming that if the rescue ships hadn’t come early, he would have been hailed as a great hero. Kodos defended himself, and in that defense, we see his humanity. Kodos pushes back on Kirk’s condemnation of his actions. He insists on saying he and Kirk are alike. They’re both leaders, they both understand hard decisions. Kodos meant to save people; what he did was just an error in judgment, not an atrocity.
It’s an understandable argument. There was very little food. People were going to die. Was a quick and painless death a better option than a long, slow starvation? This episode was written by Barry Trivers, who was in his mid-thirties during World War II and was undoubtedly familiar with the Siege of Leningrad and all the atrocities that happen when people are starving to death. Perhaps a quick death was a mercy.
However, as both Spock and Kirk make clear, Kodos’s actions were an atrocity. He took over the government — Kodos says there was a revolution. He was the only one to decide who lived and who died. He was ruthless and merciless. He thought he knew best; he thought he could best judge who would live and who would die. To those he killed, he said: “Your continued existence represents a threat to the well-being of society. Your lives mean slow death to the more valued members of the colony. Therefore, I have no alternative but to sentence you to death. Your execution is so ordered.”
Some lives were more valuable than others. Kodos decided that.
The other behavior that humanizes Kodos was the way he clung to the one good thing in his life that (he believed) was untouched by his atrocity. His daughter was born after he fled Tarsus IV and went into hiding. She was his proof that he was a good man who made just one terrible decision — his daughter was good and that redeemed him in his own eyes. When Kodos finds out that his daughter has been contaminated by his crimes, his spirit breaks and he gives up on life.
Kodos the Executioner was a mass murderer, but he wasn’t an unrecognizable monster. He thought he was doing the right thing; he thought murdering half the colony would save the other half; he thought his daughter was free from the blood stains on his own hands. He was human.
Attitudes and Assumptions That Lead to Mass Suffering and Death
1) Mass murder as a way of defending society.
Let’s start with the way Kodos framed the mass murder as a defensive tactic. “Your continued existence represents a threat to the well-being of society.” That’s what he said before flipping the kill switch. The threat these people represented was the fact that they needed to eat too. They were going to use resources, and Kodos determined that this threatened “the well-being of society.”
The Project 2025 Administration has framed immigrants, both legal and illegal, as people who are a threat because they use resources. Not only are the claims greatly exaggerated or outright falsified (there never was an illegal immigrant crime wave), but everyone uses resources. That’s hardly a crime worthy of death. Billionaires use a lot more of society’s resources than immigrants and poor people do.
2) Dehumanizing the victims.
Casting the soon-to-be victims as less-than-human allows people to feel righteous about commiting an atrocity. Illegal immigrants aren’t like us — the good European descendants. Racism, tribalism, nationalism; anything that sets up one group of people to be the best, and another group of people to be the cause of all the problems is setting the stage for mass murder.
As Kodos said, “Your lives mean slow death to the more valued members of the colony.” Some lives are worth less. This belief is evil, and it leads to evil. History will remember the 2025 Administration (and all the Republicans who support it) as mass murderers. The lives of illegal immigrants are important; the lives of poor people who can’t work full-time at good jobs are important; they are human beings and must be treated as such.
3) Is killing someone as morally culpable as letting them die?
Kodos threw a switch and vaporized people in an antimatter chamber – an echo of the gas chambers of the concentration camps. (This episode aired in 1966, just 21 years after the end of WWII.) He knew exactly who was in there because he chose the people to put there.
The Republicans just passed a bill that cuts Medicaid (among other things) [footnote 1]. When Joe Poor goes to pick up his asthma medication at the pharmacy, he finds out he didn’t submit the paperwork correctly and doesn’t have Medicaid coverage this month. He’s eligible – this is a paperwork snafu. It’s going to take weeks to work out. Phone calls, hours on hold, trying to find the right forms, getting supporting documentation from his work. He reads on a third grade level and this is complicated. He won’t get his asthma medication this month.
If Joe Poor dies of an asthma attack because he doesn’t have his meds, is anyone morally culpable? Is it Trump? Is it all the podcasters and talking heads who have convinced a large portion of society that poor people shouldn’t have health insurance paid for by taxpayers? Is it the authors of the 2025 Project? Is it Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House? Is it every single person who voted for Trump, knowing that Trump wanted to reduce the social safety net?
When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, he made it clear that those who simply refuse to help are morally wrong. When the priest and the Levite passed by the wounded man without helping him, they were wrong. Allowing someone to suffer, or go hungry, or even die, when we could help but choose not to, is wrong.
4) Artificial scarcity.
We can afford to let Joe Poor keep his Medicaid coverage. We’re already paying for it. The idea that we can’t afford to fund Medicaid, and must cut food assistance, is invented. We don’t have to give tax cuts to people whose income is over $500,000 per year. We just don’t. Spending on social safety net programs is better for the economy than handing billions to people who are already rich.
Creating artificial scarcity gives some sort of moral grounding for mass murder. The colony on Tarsus IV really did lose most of their food supply to fungus (in the story; obviously it was fiction), but the USA isn’t going to crash and burn if it taxes rich people to fund the social safety net. But if we cut the social safety net, poor people will be hungry. Joe Poor won’t get his asthma medication. Someone who doesn’t have the education and resources to fill out complex government paperwork might die because they can’t go to a doctor.
Rich people have enough money; even without tax cuts, they’ll still be rich. Saying the USA can’t afford Medicaid and food assistance is propaganda.
Jesus taught an abundance mindset. Five loaves and two fishes, combined with faith and concern for the hungry, fed multitudes.
5) Redemption without justice
His daughter’s goodness proves that Kodos isn’t evil. This isn’t a reason that Kodos brought up to Kirk, but it’s the reason he holds closest to his heart. This is what convinces him that he isn’t a bad person. How could someone as heinous as a mass murderer have such a lovely and pure daughter? Surely he redeemed himself by raising his daughter. He didn’t face justice for his crimes. In his mind, that wasn’t necessary because not only were his actions understandable, but his daughter’s goodness proves that his contribution to the universe is good. She redeemed him.
Indeed, there’s a whole post in the fact that his daughter (his redemption) is the one who is taking action to make sure that Kodos NEVER faces justice for his crimes. In the end, he has to face the fact that he wasn’t a good father; his daughter’s goodness didn’t redeem him. He shouldn’t have tried to avoid justice.
How to Hate Without Being a Mass Murderer
I admit that I am not trying very hard to love my enemies. I loathe billionaires and everyone who thinks our society benefits from having billionaires. See this post, this post, this post, and this post. Am I in danger of becoming a mass murderer of billionaires?
No.
I really wish society would tax billionaires out of existence. I think Warren Buffet can live just fine with a personal balance sheet of $900 million instead of the billions he has now. I think it would be hysterically funny if Elon Musk was forced to live on $85,000 per year in an Ohio suburb. But I’ve never once thought we should kidnap billionaires, throw them on a plane, and ship them off to a horrible prison in another country. I would never support a law that cuts off billionaires from medical care.
Kodos tried to say that he and Jim Kirk were alike. And then Kodos tried to say that Kirk had no right to use the word ‘mercy’ and he was no better than Kodos. Kirk recognized that tactic for the smokescreen that it was. Not every hard decision justifies mass murder. Not every hatred leads to mass murder.
Blame Without Dehumanizing
I blame billionaires for a lot of things that are wrong with the USA.
I do not dehumanize billionaires. The fact that I think billionaires are a cancer on society doesn’t make me comparable to the Republican Congressmen who voted in favor of the tax cuts. I can dislike people without trying to harm them, and that distinction is critical. Kodos doesn’t see it, but Kirk saw it.
We have to see the difference between saying a group is causing a problem, and dehumanizing a group. No matter how problematic you think a group of people is, never try to take away their basic human rights. This is where the Republicans go too far.
Questions:
- Kodos the Executioner decided exactly who lived and who died. The proposed changes to Medicaid choose the poorest and sickest to die. What gives a government the right to choose who dies? Does a government have that right?
- Do you believe the “the USA can’t afford it” is artificial scarcity or real scarcity? Why or why not?
- If the USA decided to care for the sick and the poor the way Christ did, do you have faith that we would have the resources?
- Kodos tried to reclaim his humanity by focusing on his daughter, whom he believed to be unaffected by his crimes. Everyone has some moral complexity; no one is entirely evil. Why is it important to realize that even terrible people want to believe they’re fundamentally good people?
- Do you believe any group of people deserves to be treated as subhuman? Or does everyone deserve due process? How do you know someone is really a criminal, or a danger to society, without due process?
[foonote 1] Less money to Medicaid means less people having health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (a nonpartisan office that just works out what things cost) worked out that cutting Medicaid by $860 billion would eliminate health insurance for about 2.3 million people. “The decrease in federal Medicaid and CHIP spending would consist entirely of savings from reduced enrollment.” [Go to https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61377 and click on “View Document” to download the pdf report]. That report is dated May 7, 2025. More recent projections cut more money and estimate that up to 13 million people could lose their Medicaid coverage. That’s a LOT of people.
The Republicans are trying to convince their voter base that Medicaid is full of lazy, healthy young men playing video games all day who need to be forced to work by the threat of losing their Medicaid. The truth is that, of Medicaid recipients under age 65: “92% were working full or part-time (64%), or not working due to caregiving responsibilities (12%), illness or disability (10%), or school attendance (7%) (Figure 1). The remaining 8% of Medicaid adults reported that they are retired, unable to find work, or were not working for another reason.”
Wheat & Tares 
Eligibility as disabled is determined by eligibility for SSI. It’s very difficult to qualify for SSI, and it requires medical records from doctors showing the person is disabled. Without insurance a person doesn’t have access to a doctor to do that so it is a circular problem. There are many people nobody wants to hire, that have not been categorized as disabled by the SSI office.
Additionally, anyone can become disabled at anytime. People who do not have access to medical care are much more likely to become disabled, or to become more disabled. In the end this will increase family bankruptcies, homeless people and more disabled children being abandoned at hospitals. Those kids will go into foster care and the state will provide Medicaid anyway. Emergency room visits will increase, and the total cost of health care for insured people will increase. Medicare and Medicaid costs will increase to cover those costs. No money will be saved but human suffering will increase.
“When the priest and the Levite passed by the wounded man without helping him, they were wrong. Allowing someone to suffer, or go hungry, or even die, when we could help but choose not to, is wrong.”
That sort of simplicity works in a parable meant to teach a single principle. It doesn’t work in a more complex world. In a complex world, you aren’t always choosing between good and bad, but sometimes between different good options.
For example, by one reading of the Good Samaritan parable, I should give money to every panhandler I meet on the street to help them out. However, my money is a scarce resource, and if my choice is between giving (for example) $10 to panhandlers on the street, or giving the same $10 to the local shelter/food pantry, is it wrong for me to forego giving it to the panhandlers and give it to the shelter instead? To their perspective, I’m simply passing them by.
Let’s take it a step farther, using an experience I had about 15-20 years ago. At the time, I worked in Rosslyn, VA. As I walked from my office to the Metro station, there was a woman (who was often there panhandling) with a sign talking about how her children were hungry. I didn’t have any cash on me, but I did have a cheese stick left over from my lunch that I hadn’t eaten that I dropped into her cup. She started yelling at me, and actually continued to yell at me the next couple days as I passed by again. I offered what help I had available, but she rejected it because it wasn’t in the form she wanted. Would that make me wrong to not offer her help in the future?
Applying the same principle to my first example (donating to a shelter instead of directly to people on the street), is it wrong if they refuse to take advantage of where you have donated help, because they want you to donate directly?
As for cuts to things like Medicaid, it’s also not as simple as “denying needy people health care”. For one thing, 2 years ago CNBC reported that there was at least $100 billion in fraud a year (as a conservative estimate) (see https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/09/how-medicare-and-medicaid-fraud-became-a-100b-problem-for-the-us.html).
For another, I know for a fact that there are people put on Medicaid (and related programs) who don’t need it. Why? Because Washington State has done that with my children, even though I make a very comfortable 6-figure salary. With no means testing at all, my oldest was signed up for food stamps, free school lunches, and Medicaid after he was diagnosed with ASD. When our next oldest son was also diagnosed with ASD, he was also signed up for the same services automatically. When we pointed out to the school that our kids didn’t need free lunches, instead of removing them from the program, they added our other 3 kids to the free lunch program. During the pandemic, we received PEBT cards with ~$300/month for each son. (We refused to activate the cards and never used the funds.) How many thousands of dollars in government waste have they devoted (or at least tried to devote) to my children?
Denying my kids Medicaid won’t deny them health care. In fact, I wish they would stop trying to push Medicaid on my kids at every turn, and use those tax dollars more efficiently for those who really need them.
Fascinating comparison. Also put me in mind of this:
Having some difficulty posting when no verify button comes up …
Star Trek, Awesome. To quote from Star trek Picard
Soji: I guess I’m just trying to understand the logic of sacrifice.
Picard: “The logic of sacrifice?” Hmm…I don’t like the sound of that.
Soji: So you think there is no logic? No calculus of life and death?
Picard: I think it depends on if you’re the person holding the knife.
Is there any group that is subhuman. I really really want to say republicans, but Kirk or Picard(and let’s throw in Janeway and Captain Seven) would disagree. So let’s recognize our common humanity, even if we’re a Horta, Synth or Kodos.
Observer,
I have 3 adult children who are disabled. One of them has repeated surgeries that increase our costs even with insurance. I am grateful that he has Medicaid. None of them have been able to work much so far, though we do keep encouraging them to try. No one wants to hire a disabled person. Our autistic kiddo has had some short term success delivering groceries, through an app so he wouldn’t have to get through an interview, however we discouraged his continuing in this work because the cost of a car with maintenance and insurance after his traffic accidents was just more than he brought in working.
Like you we have taken care of their needs best we can with our own modest income. Only the one with the surgeries has been established as disabled on SSI. Perhaps they could be established, but like you, we have valued our independence from the government.
They have serious medical needs and their ability to try to work will go down hill without medical care. I was able to get my husband’s private insurance to include the autistic kiddo after the age of 26. However my husband is 65 and can’t work forever.
I don’t know if the private insurance will consider my kiddo with an autoimmune condition disabled and cover him when he turns 26 this year. He cannot work and being established on SSI can take years of applying, and still fail. I have encouraged him to apply, but he mostly sleeps all day because of the fatigue that goes with his condition. I fear he will no qualify for Medicaid because he cannot work and hasn’t been legally established as disabled. I guess that’s our fault for caring for him independently.
I wish I had six figures to save up for their care. I lay awake nights picturing them homeless and living on the streets with no medical care. They didn’t choose this and neither did we.
Most MedicAid fraud is done by health care providers. One such provider, Centene, is alone responsible for well over 1.3 billion in fraudulent transactions. That adorable tRUMP-loving FL senator, Rick Scott, when running Colombia/HCA, was responsible for 1.7 billion in fraud.
lws329,
If my children need access to those services in the future, I don’t have a problem with the government offering them at that time. Where I have a problem is them *automatically* signing my children up for them without even asking us, and then wasting my tax dollars to expand force those services onto them. Right now, I have the means to more than adequately provide for my children’s health care needs. There is no reason for Washington State to forcibly sign them up for programs that are intended for those who cannot provide for their own needs.
That is waste, and something that the government should be reducing. Those are resources the government is wasting on my children that could go to someone else who really needs those resources. Here in Washington, that’s especially poignant considering we just finished a biannual budgeting legislative session where they are raising taxes (particularly property taxes, which will hurt the poor the most) by about $9 billion to help cover a projected $14 billion shortfall. There isn’t enough to go around right now, and they could be using that money better.
Responding to Observer’s experiences with his kids, I’m in Kansas and have a developmentally disabled daughter. Even though she wasn’t on Medicaid at the time, we were told that students who qualify for Medicaid allow the school to also qualify for extra funding to provide for these students’ needs – and even then, it’s still not enough. While I understand Observer’s objection to his kids being automatically signed up for Medicaid, I also understand why schools are doing all they can to get extra funding – even “well-funded” schools. Talk about being between a rock and hard place….
Allie,
Don’t get me started on the schools “providing” for my kids’ needs. Most of our IEP meetings have boiled down to the school accusing us of bad parenting when we try to explain to them that their own actions trigger our son’s behavior. (Seriously, I provided them with peer-reviewed studies on Pathological Demand Avoidance and Autism, and they flat-out told me to my face that it didn’t exist.) There are days that they make me want to let the whole system burn to the ground and build it anew. 😐 (All 5 of my kids are diagnosed with one or more neurodivergent disorder, and it’s a neverending battle with the school to get them to even acknowledge their needs, let alone provide for them.)
Thank you, Janey, for a wonderful and timely post. The best I’ve read in W&T in a long time.
What makes this Bill before Congress more tragic is the fact that most American members of The Church of Latter-day Saints support Trump and the Republicans in government, thus becoming accomplices in this travesty. What’s more, our Church leaders have “largely remained on the sidelines, declining to speak out against egregious assaults” on the poor and marginalized of American society.
I believe that those who take offense at this post for being political, are trying to assuage their conscience and like the priest and Levite who passed by the wounded man on the side of the road, give weak and legalistic excuses for their lack of caring.
To add a Mormon angle this Star Trek story reminds me of the apologist arguments behind polygamy. It’s been proven that less children in total are born in a polygamous group than if monogamy was practiced. I’ve heard it argued that God wanted more children born to the most stalwart Mormons as opposed to the so-so Mormons. Deciding who fathers children is just as gross to me as deciding who lives and who dies. It’s a bizarre apologist argument but there you have it.
My dad had spinal meningitis and he received SS disability. It did not translate to me and my siblings getting free school lunch. The payments stopped promptly when he died. Under my anecdote, the system is perfect. For others it’s not perfect. This sincerely sounds to me like human error in a human system as opposed to fraud but some people see conspiracy theories behind every damn thing.
I tend to favor abundance theory over scarcity theory unless the evidence shows otherwise. I believe there is no scarcity of love and compassion and if someone like JD Vance feels otherwise I truly believe that’s his uninformed choice.
I’m firmly in the camp that the old adage that it’s better that a criminal go free than an innocent be punished is right. YMMV.
It’s not lost on me that Lori Vallow and Rube Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt got their day in court while so many don’t. Cuz privilege.
**There were two sock puppet comments that I threw in moderation. Just FYI. Moderation policy clearly states that we don’t allow sock puppets. The gist of the comments was that they like Star Trek, but don’t like Janey’s politics. Noted.
I just finished Timothy Snyder’s book Bloodlands, so this discussion is extremely salient. The pre-WW2 actions Stalin took in Ukraine and across eastern Europe led to widespread famine in rural communities including cannibalism. Some families killed one child to feed the rest. Parents who were going to die of hunger urged their surviving children to eat them. 2500 people were charged with cannibalism. These events literally occurred during my parents’ lifetimes. They aren’t in some imagined long ago past. My father is the one who got me interested in Star Trek. These famines were caused by Stalin’s actions, stealing the food from these countries to enrich his own regime. He also made it illegal to flee the countries he had taken over because it was seen as a criticism of his regime. The refugees were considered traitors as a result. Those who took the food claimed that these starving peasants (who had raised and harvested the food) were making it all up, that they had enough but were greedy, that they were politically motivated, that they were traitors to the state, that they were greedy and selfish, that they were working for foreign actors. It’s easy to tell lies, and in authoritarian regimes where your safety is contingent on believing propaganda, lies are believed (or people pretend they believe them). It’s much harder to face the truth when lies are comforting and allow you to remain safe even if others are suffering. And of course, Hitler justified killing the “least among us” by referring to them as “useless eaters,” gassing the mentally and physically disabledin roving mobile murder vans. Kids would chant at their peers that they were going to be taken by the murder van, implying they were mentally challenged.
It’s always hard to know what’s true, especially when a system is complex and people are motivated to tell stories that support their prior views. Are there welfare queens or is that a racist story to justify spending cuts so wealthy people get tax cuts? As pointed out by other commenters, most fraud is at the care provider level, and that’s because having healthcare be a “for profit” industry is frankly a terrible system with many unintended consequences. I think there are some things that work better in the private sector, but other things that absolutely become corrupted when they are in the private sector.
Maybe we should make it Christianity’s job to take care of these welfare matters, once again. Then, when welfare matters did not go as we wished, we could either blame Christianity or blame ourselves. I am pretty sure that it was never intended that the US government take over every religion-based activity that man could imagine. [I think lawyers should know that]. It should be no surprise to anyone that religion is shrinking out of existence, since it never does anything useful, and pushes all responsibility off onto civil governments, where it is typically handled very badly and impersonally.
The original post’s writer may never have seen a problem that the government wasn’t the right and best place to find a solution. To the OP’s second question, I’m reminded of something that Margaret Thatcher once said: “When the state does everything for you, it will soon take everything from you.” There’s some truth in that. I’m not opposed to government making life better, but I am concerned about growing and unchecked government power, and about the taxation that would necessarily accompany that growth in power. The argument is made that single payer would be cheaper because insurance costs would go away, but is that right? Even with Medicare, which is single payer, people need Medicare Part B, which has a monthly cost, and many, many people get Part C, which is private insurance. We won’t solve health care here, but we should acknowledge that turning to the government to solve almost all of our problems gives the government great and vast power, and there should be an honest and frank discussion about two things: government power and taxes. A few years ago, California opened their Medicaid to illegal aliens, if I remember correctly, and now their governor, who has to pay for it from state coffers, is finding that this free medical care is bankrupting his state. Or is it?
Georgis
Regarding that Margaret Thatcher quote, I guess we will never know. Because the government does not provide everything for us, has no intention of providing everything for us, so therefore it can never take everything from us. But sure because platitudes.
I live in California and have heard nothing about Medicaid for all causing us to go bankrupt. Google viscerally disagrees with you.
So my question is, are you providing misinformation or disinformation?
Chadwick, maybe I am wrong in what is happening in California, but:
“After promising universal health care, California Gov. Gavin Newsom must reconsider immigrant coverage” (https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/california-gavin-newsom-universal-health-care-immigrants/). CBS, 9 days ago.
“Here is how California Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to address a $12 billion budget shortfall” (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/united-states/here-is-how-california-gov-gavin-newsom-plans-to-address-a-12-billion-budget-shortfall/article_2b7cfff5-2041-5fa6-8011-a95c80672ab1.html). Toronto Star, 9 days ago, with the first line: “California would scale back state Medicaid coverage for immigrants without legal status…”
“As Congress considers cuts, California is forced to borrow $3.5 billion to cover Medicaid costs” (The Independent, 13 March)
“California governor outlines $12 billion deficit and freeze on immigrant health program access” (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/california-governor-proposes-pausing-expansion-of-health-care-to-low-income-immigrants/). Seattle Times, 9 days ago
I’m fine with being wrong, and maybe these news articles are false.
Chadwick, thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
FoxNews: “Newsom proposes freeze on allowing adult illegal immigrants to join California’s Medicaid program” (foxnews.com/politics/newsom-proposes-freeze-allowing-adult-illegal-immigrants-join-californias-medicaid-program). 9 days ago.
CBS: “After promising universal health care, California Gov. Gavin Newsom must reconsider immigrant coverage” (cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/california-gavin-newsom-universal-health-care-immigrants/). 9 days ago.
Seattle Times: “California OKs $2.8B to close Medicaid funding gap after expanding immigrant coverage” (seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/california-oks-2-8b-to-close-medicaid-funding-gap-after-expanding-immigrant-coverage/). 39 days ago.
Toronto Star: “Here is how California Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to address a $12 billion budget shortfall” (thestar.com/news/world/united-states/here-is-how-california-gov-gavin-newsom-plans-to-address-a-12-billion-budget-shortfall/article_2b7cfff5-2041-5fa6-8011-a95c80672ab1.html). First line: “alifornia would scale back state Medicaid coverage for immigrants without legal status…” 9 days ago.
The Independent: “As Congress considers cuts, California is forced to borrow $3.5 billion to cover Medicaid costs” (yahoo.com/news/congress-considers-cuts-california-forced-174954815.html). 71 days ago.
Seattle Times: “California governor outlines $12 billion deficit and freeze on immigrant health program access” (seattletimes.com/business/california-governor-proposes-pausing-expansion-of-health-care-to-low-income-immigrants/). 9 days ago.
I’ll gladly acknowledge that I am in error, and I don’t live in California, but some news articles do seem to suggest that California is suffering financially from expanding Medicaid. California seems to want to deny Medicaid coverage to some people because they can’t afford it, or maybe I am misreading. All the posts started with the standard website beginning.
Observer – Across the hall from my office is a Health and Human Services office. I occasionally talk to the woman who works there. I asked how the proposed HHS staffing cuts were going to work if suddenly Medicaid had a work requirement. Who was going to process all that eligibility paperwork if the federal govt is laying off 20,000 people from HHS? She told me that states determine the eligibility. That isn’t a federal govt responsibility. It sounds like Washington State is eager to get people onto Medicaid. My state (Utah) would rather provide dental services to chickens than help people get on Medicaid. Medicaid eligibility differs by state, as does the sign up process. What you and your children experienced doesn’t have anything to do with the coming cuts to Medicaid.
I tried to get on Medicaid when I was divorced and unemployed, and Utah put up so many barriers that I gave up and just went without health insurance for about a year.
You sidestepped the point of the post, though. Are you fine with the idea of poor, sick people suffering and dying for lack of medical care? Does making it hard for people to get health insurance seem morally reprehensible or morally acceptable?
Thanks for all other Medicaid stories too, from other commenters. It’s always interesting to read about other experiences. lws329 is right that anyone can suddenly find themselves in need of medical care. I certainly never planned to be divorced and unemployed and in need of help! Giving people Medicaid and encouraging them to go to the doctor may prevent more costly visits to an emergency room, as lws329 also points out. Having a large medically uninsured population is its own expense.
My HHS office neighbor spends all of her time looking for waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. She told me that it’s 99% big corporate entities that do the waste, fraud, and abuse. She hasn’t even investigated an individual in more than a year. An individual who is committing ‘fraud’ is getting healthcare even if he isn’t eligible. So the government pays for an MRI or something. One person can’t do much fraud. The big fish are the big companies. I think the best way to combat waste, fraud, and abuse would be to sit down with my office neighbor and ask her what guidelines she (and other investigators) would recommend and where the loopholes are. There are ways to combat waste, fraud, and abuse that don’t start with “let’s kick 13 million people off of Medicaid.”
cmisseri1 – Thank you! And I agree with you about the shameful silence of the Church. Healing the sick and feeding the hungry are moral issues, and churches should be speaking out. Instead, religious morality is restricted to sex and gender now. Jesus spent a whole lot more time helping sick and hungry people than he did worrying about sexual sins.
Chadwick – I have an abundance mentality too. The USA has enough. Every other First World country has universal health coverage (cue responses with anecdotes about the problems). We have enough that if we wanted to make sure all have health care, we could do it.
Hawkgrrl – Thanks for spotting the sock puppets. I just got home from work. I’m glad you brought up starvation and famine. I wanted to address those too, but the post was already quite lengthy. I served my mission in Kyiv, which was a victim of the Holodomir (Starvation) imposed by Lenin. Thirty million people starved to death, and it was all artificial scarcity. Russia took the food. Utterly horrible.
And I want to emphasize this line: “I think there are some things that work better in the private sector, but other things that absolutely become corrupted when they are in the private sector.” I agree completely. Health care and health insurance is corrupted if there is a profit motive. I don’t think the USA is anywhere close to trying a single-payer universal healthcare system, but it would help a lot if health insurance and healthcare providers were forced into a nonprofit structure. I could do a whole post on that. I spent my years as a tax lawyer focusing on tax exempt organizations, and it’s completely doable.
huffkw – I’ve heard that idea before, that churches should help the poor, and not the government. If any church wants to take that over in any kind of organized way, I’m sure the government would be happy to hand off those responsibilities. The Catholics run the biggest food pantry near me. A protestant denomination sponsors a homeless shelter. but it seems churches don’t have the money, time, and staffing to handle all welfare needs.
Georgis – that was kinda funny. You invented a post I didn’t write so you could criticize it. Most of the post is about Star Trek, and about how dangerous it is to dehumanize people. By way of an example, I brought up the cuts to Medicaid that are predicted to take away health care from millions of people. OF COURSE it’s the government that should fix that. It’s the government who is making the changes to remove people from Medicaid. And they’re doing it so they can give tax cuts to people who are already wealthy. Some tax cuts for the middle class, and the working class, but most of the dollars in the trillions in tax cuts will go to wealthy people. Yes, the government should absolutely not rob the poor to benefit the rich. That is absolutely something the government should address, since, you know, they’re the ones taking the action.
Chadwick is right — the government doesn’t provide everything for us, and isn’t expected to. But there are some important things that the govt is best situated to provide.
Star Trek was revolutionary for its time, and each different rendition of Star Trek has taken things further, exploring more issues. The government, over the past 10,000 years, has gone from protecting city states to providing water and sewer, and is now, at least in some parts of the world, tackling health care. The government shouldn’t do everything for us, but it should do things that are so expensive to do on our own, or invite corruption if it is left to private interests. For instance, highways or even space travel. Star Trek shows a society like this where equality is more like access to sewer and water for things like medicine and travel. Try to find episodes where money is discussed, and it’s usually with societies outside the Federation and their problems with it. The science fiction of Star Trek has opened up and inspired a lot of things in our society, like cell phones, computers, and even artificial intelligence (Alexa). It pushed the boundaries of social science as well and ways to look at government, but it seems people haven’t caught that vision yet.
1. I think that a government does have the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. I get the feeling that for democracies, the policies of such are something that a super majority would agree upon. If they didn’t, things would change.
2. USA can’t afford it is artificial scarcity. I recall a huge uproar when an economist being interviewed on Freakonomics mentioned that in a model he ran about UBI shows that 90% of the US population could be supported on UBI, smoke weed, and play Xbox all day. The uproar wasn’t any rebuttal to his model, but more of a “common sense” argument wishing that it wasn’t true.
3. I think that the USA has resources, up until end of life care. I forget the exact numbers, but the US dumps tons of money into the last two weeks of life. Other countries let people go home and die of old age. We don’t. Throwing money at our fear of death from old age is something that needs to change.
4. It’s important to remember that terrible people think they’re good, as a reminder for us to live an examined life. We need to check ourselves.
5. No group deserves to be treated as subhuman. Everyone deserves due process.
Too much government-phobia from many of the commenters. Thatcher was an obsessive government-phobe, and absolute failure of a political leader, whose acolyte Liz Truss aggressively cut taxes only to trigger a massive bond crisis in the UK. She lasted seven weeks as Prime Minister before resigning in disgrace. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security have long been efficiently run programs. They are functional as long as we want them to be. Those looking for waste anecdotes will find them. Those looking for strong statistics showing mass waste won’t find them. The only reason that we’ve run into problems with them is nihilist conservatives and Republicans who have been trying to sabotage the programs (actually for decades) through smarmy starve-the-beast tactics. All in the name of trickle-down voodoo economics which seeks to do nothing more than enrich the rich and blame the poor.
I am appalled that when conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans talk about cutting waste, they barely ever seem to talk about the Department of Defense, the biggest waster of tax-payer money of them all. Ah, but Republican voters are ignorant of the outside world and easily spooked by stories of terrorists and dark-skinned gangs and criminals. The subtle utterance of Iran, Yemen, Hamas, MS-13 and immigrants will send them into a hysterical frenzy. Add “they’re coming for your guns” and they will stop at nothing to demand that they’re representatives spend a bottomless pit of money on pointless, overpriced security measures.
At the end of the day, transparent and accountable governments in the developed world created the middle class. They have functioned as a crucial backbone of the economy especially at local levels. Ruralia depends heavily on government programs. And yet the white folks in ruralia vote overwhelmingly for the people who are going to hurt them the most. I’m all in favor in subjecting government programs to proper auditing and reducing waste. But that is not what is happening. Instead it is outright nihilistic sabotage and all sorts of made-up claims of fraud. What will result? The rich-poor gap will only grow. The poor will get poorer and conservatives will continue to shout at them, “pull yourselves up by your boot straps, stop being poor!”
“I think it would be hysterically funny if Elon Musk was forced to live on $85,000 per year in an Ohio suburb.”
Take a listen to the song “Call Me Rose” by Bruce Cockburn. Eloquent on this very underlying point (using hypothetical example of Richard Nixon v. Elon Musk). Phenomenal.
@observer
I had an interesting experience this week.
I went into the city and along the way, I went to Magnolia Bakery and picked out three cupcakes for myself. On the way home, as I was coming down the subway steps, I saw an old woman in a wheelchair. She asked me for money. I gently said, no, I couldn’t give her money, but I asked her if she’d like a cupcake. She told me she had no teeth, but would love a cupcake, so I reached into the box and brought out a beautiful cupcake. Her eyes lit up and she said, “Is it Red Velvet?” I said yes and handed it to her. As I turned to leave, she told me to have a wonderful day, and then said, “because I’m going to have a wonderful day because of the cupcake.”
I pondered that through the week and decided that that opportunity went well because (1) I didn’t give leftovers, I gave equally and respectfully. My whole exchange was not as someone who had and who was giving to someone beneath, but as friends. As equals.
(2) It also went well because I asked and listened. I didn’t just plop a cupcake in her lap, we had a dialogue and her answer mattered.
(3) Poor people are allowed to have opinions and tastes. They are allowed to not like certain foods. They are not required to show thanks for something they are not thankful for. They are also allowed to enjoy cupcakes instead of broccoli from time to time.
(4) I think above all else, those who can give, whether governments or people, should show respect, care, kindness, thoughfulness, and love for those who are in need. Our government seems to show disdain, an agita that they even have to help these people. Giving the bare minimum not so those at the bottom can be equals but always to keep them in their place.
The Good Samaritan did all of the positive things. He did not, however, have to actually be the one to nurse the injured back to health. But he provided the means generously for that to happen.
Great post Janey, with much to chew on, and a long overdue Star Trek framing. Thank you.
As I remember the episode in question, much of the plot centers around Kirk’s pursuit of a vendetta against Kodos (Kirk was one of the few remaining eyewitnesses of Kodos’ atrocities) with Ahab-like singlemindedness, while Spock attempts to moderate Kirk’s bloodlust with logic and reason. As we learn from the episode’s conclusion, mass murderers may still be capable of some humanity, but those who seek to bring them to justice are also capable of going too far and are in danger of losing their sense of humanity. In other words, people are complicated.
I recall way back in the Obama years, when what would become the ACA was being debated, the right-wing critics asserted (falsely) that the government was going to start convening “death panels”, where government bureaucrats would get to decide who was deserving of life-saving care and who would be better off left to die, so as not to drain resources prolonging the inevitable. It was fear-mongering, of course, and supplanted with the ACA passing. But now in 2025, it’s tragically ironic that death panels are closer to reality in America than ever, and the political right (including large swaths of Latter-day Saints) are leading the charge.
Jack Hughes, we already have death panels. They are called insurance companies and they have panels deciding who gets to really have the treatment the doctor ordered and who gets to die. They make the feared government panels where there is no financial motive to let you die look kind by comparison. For profit medical care, with for profit insurance is what makes America have the most expensive and least effective health care in the developed countries.
Instereo – I love that description of Star Trek! It is such a hopeful and idealistic future. It started airing in 1966, part of the way through JFK’s moonshot. There was a lot of excitement in the 1960s (also turmoil) about the potential humanity had. I loved Star Trek’s assumption that earth solved hunger and inequality, and put all that energy into exploration.
jader3d – good comments. All the expenses incurred for the final two weeks of life are a uniquely American thing. I heard an anecdote – a nurse who worked in the ER said people who are badly injured will sometimes say out loud that they hope they die quickly so as not to leave their family with a huge medical bill. That’s just … that’s just … words fail me.
Brad D – yeah, we could sure save a lot of money if the military could get by with three fewer fighter planes. Now that it looks like the USA is grumpy about NATO, why do we need the biggest and best military in the world? That’s only a semi-serious thought. But the current political climate doesn’t encourage the USA to be the world’s policeman anymore. Yet the DoD budget is untouchable.
There isn’t widespread waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal workforce. There just isn’t. Some, of course, any huge workforce has some issues, just like in the private sector. There is a lot of waste, fraud and abuse when private actors help themselves to the public funds, like the aforementioned Medicaid fraud. And there is legalized waste, in the form of tax cuts for the rich. The fact that it’s legal doesn’t change the fact that it’s a waste of government resources to cut taxes for the mega-wealthy.
And this line made me laugh, but not in a happy way: “The poor will get poorer and conservatives will continue to shout at them, “pull yourselves up by your boot straps, stop being poor!” Yeah, that is definitely the conservative attitude towards poverty. It isn’t kind or compassionate.
bookwormandapple – thank you for that story. Your observations were beautiful too. Truly, the poor should be treated with dignity and kindness. They are human beings, no different from anyone else.
Jack Hughes – I rewatched the episode just before writing this post, and I believe you may be mistaken about how Kirk handles the investigation. Ensign Riley, whose parents were killed by Kodos, is the one with the vendetta. Kirk is (understandably) intense, but also very cautious about making sure that Kodos is the actual Kodos. Spock believes it’s Kodos, and Kirk is in the place of telling Spock that they need to weigh the evidence more carefully, which is a funny reversal of their roles. In my opinion, the episode showcased Kirk’s leadership ability, in that he was able to remain calm and levelheaded, despite what must have been a traumatic memory.
I remember the fearmongering about the “death panels” when the ACA/Obamacare was being passed. And now instead we have health insurance executives denying claims to increase their profits. It’s surreal that we now have “death panels” created out of a profit motive. Anna hit the nail on the head.
Been a few years since I saw the episode. Star Trek does love it’s Shakespeare. So what my memory remembers is Kirk wanting to smooch(and more) the daughter. So who knows what he was thinking with. And I looked this line up, ” All this power. Surging and throbbing, yet under control. Are you like that, Captain?”
Of course the blond kissable daughter is crazy, ending up with a one way ticket to that planet from, “Dagger of the Mind”–Tantalus V.(or similar) Apparently in the future, despite the abundance, the mentally ill still receive shoddy treatment.
Original Question:
“If the USA decided to care for the sick and the poor the way Christ did, do you have faith that we would have the resources?”
My Response:
No, that’s magical thinking. It’s similar to a bishop saying, “If you pay your tithing, the Lord will provide financially.” But even Jesus offered practical financial advice, as in Luke 14:28:
“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?”
As a registered nurse, I found parts of this article difficult to read. I have a lot of thoughts on the U.S. healthcare system and this particular bill. But one area where I agree with Republicans is the proposal that those who want access to Medicare should be willing to work part-time—at least 80 hours a month—or contribute through volunteering. There are more flexible options than ever for volunteering, including online opportunities. I know people who tutor underserved students in reading and math from home. That’s a meaningful contribution to society, and I’m fully in favor of allowing volunteer hours to count toward eligibility for taxpayer-funded Medicare.
Polling shows that 60% to 80% of Americans support work or volunteer requirements for able-bodied adults receiving public benefits. If someone opposes that, I think the burden is on them to explain why. Of course, people who are truly disabled deserve a robust safety net. But in reality, our disability system often becomes a form of long-term unemployment. Worse, the structure of disability benefits creates a perverse incentive: if recipients try to work—even minimally—they risk losing all support. I know many disabled individuals who are capable of doing some work, but they avoid formal employment and instead work under the table out of fear of losing their SSDI. This is not compassionate policy—it’s economic entrapment. We need a system that encourages and rewards the effort to re-engage with work, not one that punishes it with a benefits cliff.
Now, let’s talk about Medicare vs. Medicare Advantage. Medicare is generally good. Medicare Advantage, however, is a scam. Both Wall Street Journal (right-leaning) and ProPublica (left-leaning) have published exposés showing how these programs systematically deny care while padding the profits of private insurers. Medicare Advantage should be abolished.
The Inflation Reduction Act, which allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices, is a major win. Rolling that back would be malpractice.
One thing I don’t see mentioned enough in these discussions is the widespread abuse in programs like Medicaid. A perfect example is what some call “Mediscam.” Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine recently explained this (May 7 column), and here’s a brief summary:
The setup: The federal government pays about 60% of Medicaid costs; states pay the rest.
The maneuver: A state raises payment to hospitals from, say, $1,000 to $1,030. The federal government now covers $618 instead of $600.
The state then taxes the hospital $25, effectively getting that money back.
Result: the hospital is slightly better off, the state pays less, and the federal government pays more—unknowingly.
This scheme is legal and widespread—used in 49 states. It’s technically regulated, but many view it as legalized manipulation of the system. Critics argue we should just have the federal government fund a larger share directly, rather than incentivizing this kind of financial shell game. However, if Congress ends provider taxes without replacing the lost funds, states would face enormous Medicaid shortfalls. A 2020 GAO report estimated that states use this tactic to get about 5% more federal funding than they’re technically owed.
So yes, we need to care for the sick and the poor. But we also need to be honest, realistic, and rigorous in how we fund and structure that care. Faith and compassion are essential—but so are good policy and sound economics.
I wanted to share a must-read article that appeared this week on KUER, produced by the Utah Investigative Journalism Project:
How a Rural Hospital’s Medicaid Windfall Could Cost Utah Millions
https://www.kuer.org/health/2025-05-20/how-a-rural-hospitals-medicaid-windfall-could-cost-utah-millions
Beaver Valley Hospital, a city-owned facility in Beaver, Utah, has quietly acquired 44 nursing homes across the state since 2014. Collectively, these facilities are now receiving $700 million annually in Medicaid funding.
I’ve worked in and treated patients from many of these homes. Far too many are understaffed, unsanitary, and provide appallingly poor care. This article highlights not just those conditions but also the systemic issues and apparent financial exploitation surrounding them. It’s an eye-opening look at the scale of waste, fraud, and abuse embedded in parts of Utah’s Medicaid system.
Here are a few key excerpts:
On misuse of funds:
“Public hospitals acquiring nursing homes to unlock extra federal dollars, then using the money on unrelated capital projects, all with minimal oversight.”
On staffing levels:
“Medicaid upper-payment limit facilities had an average overall staffing rating of 2.73, significantly lower than the 4.05 average at non-program nursing homes.”
(This rating, on a 1-to-5 scale, reflects the number of nursing hours provided per resident, adjusted for patient needs.)
On ethical concerns:
“It’s money laundering, you know, when you look at it,” Hatcher said. “And it’s definitely harming the elderly and disabled residents of nursing homes.”
If you care about elder care, Medicaid integrity, or responsible governance, this article is absolutely worth your time.
Sound economics? Most waste, fraud, and abuse is done by private contractors and tRUMP has disabled the watchdogs that search for this. Witness the destruction by DOGE of these levels of analysis in favor of his Federal contracts, you know the contract that made him a billionaire. There is absolutely no reason that health care should not be available for everyone except that the Rethuglicans have been opposed to every single law which benefits the middle and working classes. Opposed to SSI. Opposed to SNAP. Opposed to Medicare. Opposed to Medicaid. Opposed to student loan forgiveness. Opposed to ADA. Opposed to veterans healthcare. Opposed to DEI (the prime beneficiary of which is White WOMEN). Opposed to female bodily autonomy. Opposed to pre-existing condition ban. Opposed to labor unions. Opposed to the minimum wage. Opposed to preserving the environment. Opposed to removing harmful chemicals from our environment. Opposed to car fuel consumption savings. Opposed to helping those with Black Lung disease. Opposed to making business clean. up the environmental pollution they caused. Opposed to providing medicines to children in Africa with malaria, HIV, and other chronic illness. Opposed to Headstart. Opposed to science. Opposed to facts (since they have a well-known Liberal bias). ETC, ETC, ETC.
For? Transferring wealth from the workers to billionaires because…
State-level Medicaid fraud is deeply embedded in the system, as I mentioned earlier with the term “Mediscam.” Waste and overcharging have been systemic issues, made worse by George Bush’s expansion of privatized plans under the Medicaid umbrella. I also linked to the KUER article, which outlines what amounts to money laundering by a municipal hospital system.
Waste, fraud, and abuse have been rampant long before the Department of Government Oversight (DOGE), and DOGE has done little to address it. The GAO has documented extensive issues for years. The challenge is that these kickbacks often benefit well-connected constituencies, making reform politically difficult.
I’m trying to express some nuance here, because I’ve noticed that advocates for universal or single-payer healthcare often hesitate to confront these abuses. They fear that acknowledging them might hand ammunition to right-wing critics who invoke “death panels.” But ignoring corruption doesn’t help the cause—it undermines it. At the same time, I don’t think hyperbole or framing everything through the lens of billionaire-bashing furthers the conversation.
You’re raising a wide range of important points—on unions, abortion, the minimum wage, and more—many of which I agree with. I believe it’s entirely possible to oppose tax cuts for billionaires while also demanding accountability and reform in our healthcare system.
*made worse by George Bush’s expansion of privatized plans under the Medicare umbrella (a.k.a. Medicare Advantage).
Case in point: Earlier this year, I walked into Smith’s and saw an A-frame sign advertising, “Enroll in our plan and get up to $200/month in free groceries!”
These kinds of giveaways and incentives (e.g. freee transportation, gift cards, housing assistance, gym memberships, over-the-counter drugs) highlight a serious principal-agent problem. Private insurers lure people into plans that benefit their own bottom line, then exploit the system by upcoding diagnoses and using aggressive ICD code optimization to overbill—ultimately draining taxpayer funds.
I have been trying not to comment because I do not understand your health system but her goes
. Compared to universal healthcare America costs much more. Twice as much per person as Australia, and a larger proportion of gdp. So if you had Australian universal healthcare you would save money. I tried to download comparisons but couldn’t. Having a country wide universal systems also allows head office to compare performance of doctors/ hospitals/ states .to ensure no fraud. Part of our universal system is that a company that wants to sell a drug here has to justify its cost and negotiate a price. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme then subsidises the difference to what the customer pays.
An example my wife, a month ago caught covid. After we did a test we phoned our doctor who texted through a prescription for an anti viral. We went to the chemist, paid $6.90 and got the drug which had a price of $1140 still showing.
The government also get into preventive procedures like colonoskipies to detect and prevent future medical expenses.
Our universal healthcare is more effective because we live 5 years longer on average. There are always ways to improve. In the last election the government said it would spend more on such improvements.
With political will it can be done, perhaps there will be such a backlash against trump and the maga republicans that might be the time.
Can I also say Israel’s abuse of the Palestinians which America funds must be stopped. It is evil, to starve, men, women, and children and then bomb them as well.
Since everyone is going on about hospitals and fraud, wasn’t there a previous post on Quentin L. Cook. If he’s a character on Star Trek, perhaps he’s Romulan.
And since I can’t stay on topic, I will quote Mon Mothma from that other franchise ” I believe we are in crisis. The distance between what is said and what is known to be true has become an abyss. Of all the things at risk, the loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous. The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil.”
Why is it important to realize that even terrible people want to believe they’re fundamentally good people? What makes the Empire so scary in Andor, is the ISB(space gestapo) believe they’re the good guys. If it benefits the empire (and in Star Trek the Romulan Star Empire), then it’s good.
My comments were not sock puppeting, just an objection to using a Star Trek episode to launch a partisan narrative. Moderation does not remove posts for using partisan slurs, yet the mere suggestion that the OP has twisted a Star Trek episode into a narrow political placard is unacceptable and removed as sock puppetry.
In the Star Trek episode the damage is done. The writers are referring to historic events – Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot – and real mass exterminations that actually occurred. It’s about dealing with the real perpetrators. It’s not about dealing with imagined perpetrators. In real life all of the perpetrators got away with their crimes.
What is clear to me from history (and this Star Trek episode) is that financial hardship has been a catalyst for mass exterminations. I come away with a greater concern for our national debt level. The collapse of the German mark was a direct cause of the Holocaust. If the dollar similarly collapses history will repeat itself. Whoever is in charge at that time will be the Koros responsible for the Holocaust that follows.
Martin, I don’t know if your removed post was a sock puppet because I can’t see it, but you’re right that the OP was “using a Star Trek episode to launch a partisan narrative.” Why do I say partisan? Because the Democratic governor of California, he who can do no wrong, is also pulling back on medicaid’s open enrollment of unauthorized immigrants, and no one is accusing him of mass murder, or of Joe Poor’s death because he can’t get enrolled and therefore can’t get his medicine. Both Dems and Repubs have created this monster. Why is Newsom pulling back? Probably because he’s realized that the richest state in the union can’t pay the bills–at least that is what the articles I cited seem to suggest. I agree that we need to do better in health care in our country, but we have to be able to candidly talk about cost. Our national debt is getting dangerously high. The Ancien Régime fell in France, arguably, because the kingdom could no longer finance its debt. I’m for honest and candid discussion of these serious issues. I don’t know what the answer is, but I think that resources are limited, as California seems to be experiencing.
Good God I feel like Regina George over here in California watching georgis and other red states be so obsessed with me. I’m apparently a big deal and the apex predator. Hashtag mean girls musical.
News flash: Fox News does not write articles they write entertainment pieces. It says so right on their website.
The reality is that we all pay for those that fall ill one way or another. Whether we want to give everyone the dignity of health insurance so they can patronize their local urgent care, or whether we want to wait until they have no choice and end up in the ER with sepsis and bills even I couldn’t pay, is the choice we face. On the record, I’m for the former. It seems our MAGA commentators prefer the latter. Because the cruelty is the point.
I’m so unbelievably sick and tired of prosperity gospel and shaming the less fortunate. It’s disgusting and it only stops if we make it stop. You can call me a liberal nag but I will not stop. Are we great yet? Jesus is embarrassed.
Now that I’ve had a good night sleep, I’ll add the following:
The tech and biotech industries in California attract talent by providing stock. How stock compensation gets taxed depends on its value. When California sets its budget it has to project its tax revenue including future stock prices. That’s not easy in normal times let alone when the president manipulates markets with inconsistent tariff policies. As a result California is constantly reviewing budgets. California is not going bankrupt. California funds red states.
California is an innovator and early adopter. Californias strict car emissions and green energy standards eventually become the nationwide norm. Being a first adopter is expensive and messy and means that you fail sometimes. We will get universal healthcare wrong until we get it right. But immigrants are here doing jobs most Americans won’t do. They deserve healthcare. States that simply do nothing but criticize and point fingers don’t help.
Our state is not perfect. But given the options in 2025, I’m happy.