“Free healthcare! I love free healthcare!”
This is the rallying cry of all those who have been joyful at the Supreme Court modifying Obamacare so they could find it Constitutional. But is healthcare free?
Can Mr. Obama, simply because he is so great (after all, he did promise the oceans would fall —that global warming would cease— the day he was elected), speak a word and cause a fully staffed hospital to rise from the ground at no cost to anyone? Only if he’s greater than Christ —and while many people appear to think he is, in fact, greater than Jesus of Nazareth (even among many people who call themselves Christians), he isn’t. So let’s begin by leaving this particular lie, “free health care,” behind, and dealing with reality.
How, then, is health care to be paid for? Through taxes. And if I can’t pay enough taxes to pay for my own healthcare? Then the government must tax others at some higher rate to pay for it. In other words, “free health care,” quickly becomes, “tax the rich so the poor can have health care they don’t pay for.”
What is it called when I look on something someone else has, and I desire it for myself? It’s called envy. So the first point to make about “free health care,” is it’s driven by envy, not by any real concern for “poor people.”
So this, then, is the first leg of the worldview of Obamacare, and those who support this law: Envy. Envy, of course, is a first cousin to greed, and greed is driving much of this conversation, as well.
Now, if I must tax someone who is wealthy more than someone who is not in order to support “free health care for the poor,” then I must, of necessity, tax those who have more a higher rate of taxes. They can afford it, right? After all, if you’re a rich fat cat, you can afford to give more. Even a lot of the Nation’s wealthiest people say they should be taxed more than they are now. They even use ridiculous comparisons to their secretaries, who don’t make enough to hire fancy tax lawyers to structure their income so they minimize their taxes, to make the point.
But taxing different people at different rates is, in fact, an abomination in the Scriptures. It is treating a rich person differently before the law than a poor person. If a poor person murdered someone, and they were caught red handed in the act, and then they were let off free simply because they were poor, would you agree with the verdict? No, you wouldn’t —but somehow Americans have gotten it into their minds that treating a rich person differently than a poor person before the law is okay, so long as it goes against the rich person.
This is the second leg of the worldview of Obamacare, and those who support it: Injustice.
Now, let’s turn to the final leg of the worldview of Obamacare. The National Park Service puts signs up everywhere which say, “don’t feed the animals.” You will find these signs at the beach, and in zoos, and all over the place. Why? Because we recognize that feeding animals with tidbits from our lunches eventually makes them dependent on those tidbits from our lunches.
If we recognize this about animals, why don’t we recognize this about ourselves? If giving animals something for nothing warps their ability to take care of themselves, why doesn’t giving humans something for nothing warp our ability to take care of ourselves? In reality, it does.
In fact, giving people something for nothing across a long period of years produces sloth. This, then, is the third leg of the worldview of Obamacare and those who support it: Sloth.
Envy (and it’s cousin greed), injustice, and sloth. Here we have the ultimate underpinnings of the worldivew of Obamacare, and the world Obamacare represents. You thought it was all about caring about people? No, it’s not.
It’s about controlling them.
For what can you do with an envious, unjust, and slothful group of people you call a nation?
You enslave them.