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.

About these ads