Jim Winkler, the General Secretary of the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, appears to be bucking for the title “King of the Non-Sequitur.” In his weekly newsletter column, he let us know that he’s in favor of health care for all, and against lots of other things that have nothing to do with what he’s for:
We believe health care is a human right. We affirm the interconnectedness of Creation.
The “interconnectedness of Creation,” whatever that is exactly, tells us nothing about what is and what is not a human right.
We reject the notion that the profits of health-insurance companies should come before health care for our people.
Actually, I suspect that Winkler is against the entire idea of private insurance, preferring a single-payer government program, but since “profits” are evil, it makes a better contrast.
We reject the notion that we as a nation can only afford to cover just 16 million of the 46 million people without health insurance.
The figure of 48 million (which has crept up from 43 to 47 to 48 with virtually no actual evidence to support any of those numbers) is a myth. The bulk of such people are young adults who don’t believe they need it, people who make high enough incomes that they don’t need insurance, and non-citizens and illegal immigrants (who cannot be denied emergency room care despite their legal status). Covering 16 million may, in fact, be too many–according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the number of “chronically uninsured Americans” is between 8 and 13 million. That’s too many, but it requires a solution far less radical than what Winkler favors.
We reject the notion that we as a nation can afford to carry on two wars, but we cannot afford to provide health care for our people.
These two items have nothing to do with one another, and there’s nothing that says that if we weren’t in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’d be putting that money toward health care.
We reject the notion that we as a nation can afford to maintain more than 700 military bases and installations around the world, but we cannot afford to provide health care for our people.
If we closed all of those bases, it still wouldn’t pay for even half of the total proposed cost of Obamacare. Not that it matters, because neither isolationists nor pacifists run the United States, so most of those bases are going to stay open.
We reject the notion that multi-million dollar executive compensation packages must be protected at the expense of health care for our people.
See what I mean about non-sequiturs? What does one of these things have to do with the other? Does Winkler really think that if the government should confiscate every dollar made by executives in America? And if the government tried to do that, does he really think that any of these packages would be available for confiscation within weeks of the feds announcing they were going to do so?
We reject the notion that predatory lenders can make payday loans with interest rates of more than 300% per year at the expense of health care for poor people.
I’m not in favor of such loans, wouldn’t mind if they were outlawed, but have to wonder–what do they have to do with denying health care to poor people?
We reject the notion that the estate tax for millionaires should be repealed at the expense of health care for our people.
The administration wants to raise the estate tax rather than repeal it, which would add $6 billion a year to federal coffers, thus covering less than 1% of even the lowest estimate of the yearly cost of Obamacare. As for repealing it, Winkler is talking about a possibility, for the foreseeable future, that is roughly on a par with the restoration of the Romanov dynasty.
We reject the notion that trillions should be spent on bank bailouts at the expense of health care for our people.
Bank bailout money is being repaid, if slowly. If he wants to complain about bailouts, he might mention instead the tens of billions thrown down a rathole to bail out the UAW auto companies.
This series of disconnected items makes for a great parlor game, however. For instance:
We reject the notion that McDonald’s should get paid for their hamburgers at the expense of health care for our people.
We reject the notion that people should be allowed to go on vacations to Ecuador at the expense of health care for our people.
We reject the notion that fireworks should be shot off on the Fourth of July at the expense of health care for our people.
We reject the notion that government officials should be paid at the expense of health care for our people.
We reject the notion that anyone should see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen at the expense of health care for our people.
We reject the notion that anyone should feed pets at the expense of health care for our people.
We reject the notion that anyone should give to the United Methodist Church at the expense of health care for our people.
See? It’s fun. Feel free to give it a try in the comments.
June 29, 2009 at 11:28 pm
[...] ObamaCare ….. BarakCare …. BarackCare — Rush Limbaugh — Moveon.org This Has What to Do with That? – reformedpastor.wordpress.com 06/30/2009 Jim Winkler, the General Secretary of the General Board [...]
June 30, 2009 at 10:28 am
I’ll try:
We reject the notion that we should grow brussel sprouts at the expense of health care for our people.
June 30, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Well, now. Have you ever been “chronically uninsured”? Have you ever had to choose between paying for food and a doctor’s bill? I know that there has been an advertising campaign in the States showcasing so called horror stories of Canadians who had to go to the States for health care, but consider this: What proportion of our population do you think these folk represent? Why is it better to be triaged by the state of your wallet (or your insurance), than by how sick you are? What do you think the solution is?
June 30, 2009 at 3:29 pm
That’s a fair question. I think that a solution that sees the government as insurer of last resort (as opposed to only resort–see the latest post) is a good one. I also think that no one should be forced into a government-run system, particularly those who because of either income or age don’t believe they need health insurance.
As for your first two questions: yes, I have been chronically uninsured. While I was in seminary, my wife and I had no way to pay for our daughter’s pre-natal care and delivery. We were only able to do it with the help of Catholic Social Services, which also suggests another route for obtaining care in at least some situations.
As for choosing between food and doctor’s bills, I have long suspected that was a myth. In the U.S., the presence of various programs to provide food for those in need of it means that no one goes without it unless they refuse the help that is offered by either state or private resources. That’s not to minimize the financial difficulties poor people have, only to say that they don’t really have to choose between eating and seeing a doctor.
June 30, 2009 at 8:32 pm
We reject having a big ol’ slice of Mrs. Fischler’s Apple Brown Betty at the expense of health care for our people.
June 30, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Well, I’ll have to agree to disagree with you. Both my parents (I think – they didn’t talk about it much) and my in laws suffered catastrophic debt because of serious illness suffered before we had universal medicare here. Everyone needs health insurance – you never know what might happen tomorrow.
If you had been living in Canada you wouldn’t have had to pay a dime. How is having to go from charity to charity in order to afford health care better than having your taxes pay for everyone’s health care? I’ve had many conversations with Americans about this and I just don’t get it.
The food/doctor’s bills thing might be a myth. I have a friend in California who has a cronically ill daughter and is chronically ill herself. They have basic health insurance, but are still being hounded by bill collectors because they can only afford to pay $10 a month or so to each bill collector. Her daughter has a nerve disease that causes her constant pain. She desperately needs physio therapy, and can’t get it unless some therapist takes pity on her. Tell me, how is this better than having everyone in the country pay a bit through their taxes, and having everyone covered?
July 1, 2009 at 8:30 pm
“We reject the notion that we as a nation can only afford to cover just 16 million of the 46 million people without health insurance.”
Tell us, Mr Winkler, just how many of those people do not have health insurance (a) because they feel they don’t need it (i.e, 20 – 30 years old, good health) or (b) because they’re illegal aliens? I won’t ignore (c) becaue they have had some disease or other that insurance companies won’t touch.
Kate makes a good point: “If you had been living in Canada you wouldn’t have had to pay a dime.”
On the other hand, you would have had to wait up to three years for a routine operation. Or come here one weekend and get it done on your dime.
“We believe health care is a human right.” This is from the school of “everything’s a right that we say is, and therefore, the rest of society should give it to us free”.
If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it’s free.
Almost everything Mr Winkler said is composed of an antecedent and a consequent totally unconnected with the first. He’s one of the “logic-challenged”.
The problem has two edges (like the proverbial sword). Health care didn’t use to be expensive. I remember hearing about the time when the local doctor would actually come to your house (I’m not making this up!), and leave later with a couple of chickens or apple pies.
Then, somewhere along the line, John Edwards and his ilk came along, making vast personal fortunes suing doctors in carefuly-chosen venues. They reaped millions in class-action suits, of which they got more than half, and the members of the class were lucky to get $15 each.
Without tort reform there will be no health care reform. The path we’re on now is going to insure that the best and brightest, who may have become doctors, will go into more lucrative fields, like science, research, or finance. Add to that “affirmative action” programs, and we’ll soon see physicians at the bottom of the prestige scale.
July 1, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“On the other hand, you would have had to wait up to three years for a routine operation. Or come here one weekend and get it done on your dime.”
Do you actually have a reference for that? I suspect not. And what about your citizens who don’t “have a dime”? Is their health, or their children’s health, any less important than the wealthy person’s health?
July 2, 2009 at 8:30 am
” will go into more lucrative fields, like science, research, or finance.”
LOL. Finance maybe. But someone’s a little naive about the average salaries of researchers in the sciences.
And John Edwards killed the house call? Wow.
(Kinda funny to argue in one sentence that it was just fine when doctors were paid with chickens and then argue in another that they’re going to be paid too little if we reform health care. Heh.)
The good old days: Never actually as good as people remember.