Like we have been saying for years, compassion without discernment is vanity

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Sunday, February 12. 2012

Like we have been saying for years, compassion without discernment is vanity

Why are we even calling it “Health Insurance”?

ObamaCare is designed to become a government-controlled Welfare program for all, with insurance companies as back offices, check-paying services for a one-size-fits-all government program. Leviathan is always hungry. Freedom and free choice is the cost.

Are there really tons of folks out there who want the federal government in charge of their own medical care? Who really wanted this, except for government? And government employees are exempt from it, which just goes to show...

The politicization of medical help has only just begun. It's a feature, not a bug.

As an aside, recall that the Church supported Obamacare. Compassion, of course. Compassion without discernment is just vanity and foolishness.

Posted by The News Junkie in Our Essays, Politics, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 13:08 | Comments (5) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Sneaking contraceptives into the list of health care services that are a fundamental "right" of every American and that must be provided by the government is a first step. If contraceptives are a fundamental "need" for basic health care, what's to stop the federal government from insisting that your diet, physical activity, toothpaste and virtually every other universally purchased good or service is not "critical" to one's good health and therefore falls under the umbrella of what can be regulated by the government and provided to all by taxing those who are (or were) actually willing to work for what they want?

According to the new mantra of the Left, Obama is denying me my new Mercedes Benz. I need a new set of wheels to get to work and of all the options available, I want to drive a Benz. Alas, I can't afford one. Therefore - according to the Left - if Obama doesn't pay for my new Benz, he's denying me the "right" to have one. After all, there are multiple options available for people to avoid pregnancy - including at least one free one. My not paying for your steak dinner is not denying you a steak dinner. Given a willing seller of steak dinners, only YOU can deny yourself that dinner by choosing some other good or service that you prefer instead.

#1 Mike M on 2012-02-12 17:09 (Reply)

I work for a company that was bought out by a Catholic "Ministry" and their hypocrisy is unbelievable. While I can agree with their stand on abortion , I strongly disagree with their other "principles". When a woman decides on a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy to stop further pregnancies, who are they to say they won't pay for a routine surgical procedure? The employees of my company didn't ask for the nuns but we got them anyway. We also didn't ask for paycuts either but we got them, too. At orientation, "Sister" talked about social justice and how we all have to share and sacrifice, I wanted to ask her if the Pope was going to sell the Vatican and live in a shack in Mississippi.

#2 noname on 2012-02-12 17:19 (Reply)

Compassion without discernment is masturbatory self-congratulation.

#3 John on 2012-02-13 07:47 (Reply)

Last night on Fox News (I think it was Chris Wallace) asked the Obama administration's representative where Obama gets the authority to order a private entity like and insurance company to provide free services.

The reply was that the authority is granted by the Affordable Care Act.

I thought this was a rather stunning claim, since if that is the case, why can't insurers be ordered to provide all services "for free?"

Wallace's questions were good, but didn't go nearly far enough. He didn't ask about the math.

If it costs a woman $600 or so a year to buy birth control pills how exactly does this have no cost impact on insurers? Their answer is that providing birth control will save insurers money by preventing pregnancies that the insurer would otherwise have to pay for. BUT, do they imagine that these women will never choose to become pregnant? Then the insurer pays for birth control and pregnancies. So how exactly do they save money? Seems like an obvious question to me, but no one seems to be asking it.

#4 lhf on 2012-02-13 08:00 (Reply)

So this loon from the Obama administration says that a law shoved down our throats is the basis for a law shoved down our throats...and Wallace lets it go.....even Fox News is soaked in liberal BS!

#5 John Wilson on 2012-03-06 10:48 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, February 12. 2012

Like we have been saying for years, compassion without discernment is vanity