TEXANNE writes:

Many who support Obamacare, and many who are ambivalent and confused as to whether it will help their own immediate personal situation, think only about “health care” as a basic necessity or even believe it is a “human right” to receive it. Among Christians, many (even bishops!) envision poor, isolated individuals languishing along the roadway — as in the parable of the Good Samaritan — in need of aid, without money or family to enable them to obtain first aid or medication, cruelly ignored or shunned by heartless society. Many Catholics are focusing specifically on the requirement to include payments for contraception and other artificial interventions in human life, as the reason to oppose Obamacare.

However, it has always seemed to me that the fundamental issue is the definition of “health” and “care.” We see the words in our most basic vocabulary (man, woman, marriage, mother, father, life, death) being deconstructed so that we cannot even communicate — and clearly there is no consensus as to the meaning and scope of either “health” or “care.” If it includes contraception, why not artificial insemination? If it includes reconstructive surgery, would not sex-change surgery fall under this category? (Apparently it does in the U.K.)

If we have not considered this issue, perhaps we should take notice of a recent judicial decision in Germany in which a judge ruled that parents do not have the authority to have a child circumcised for religious reasons. As Humpty Dumpty informed Alice, it’s the one who has the power who gets to define words. The government bureaucrats and the reigning “experts” will determine first, what procedures will be paid for, and later, what is good for the masses. They will define health.

         —- Comments —-

James N. writes:

The preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization (1946) defined health as follows:

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

The Left has been functioning with this definition for 66 years. Few understand that the goal of what they call “health care” is NOT to “merely” treat and relieve “disease or infirmity” – they could care less about the diseased and infirm, and, in fact, their schemes always result in less care for those despicable sick people, who probably ate trans-fats and smoked.

The goal is to achieve “complete physical, mental, and social well-being”, which, coincidentally, will require a socialist State run by wise guardians, free from democratic control by those trans-fat eating Wal-Mart shopping white racist Republicans.

1946, Texanne. None of this is new. The war has been raging for two-thirds of a century.

Please follow and like us: