According to MSNBC, Jesus would approve of #Obamacare…

I don’t know what ticks me off more: folks who reflexively impugn people of faith, or folks who deliberately misunderstand/misquote/misrepresent what people have said.

It’s probably a tie.

Which brings me to a recent conversation between MSNBC’s Al Sharpton and political analyst Dr. Victoria DeFrancesco Soto:

“Would Jesus want to turn away people with preexisting conditions? Would Jesus want to see millions upon millions of people who do not have access to affordable health-care go without?

I would aspire to think that the answer is no.”

Hey, Doc Soto! Maybe it’s cause you’re so darn smart, but obviously I have a substantially higher opinion of the Almighty’s brainpower than do you. ‘Cause I’m guessing that Jesus is bright enough to have realized that we could have addressed both problems that you mentioned, WITHOUT razing the entire freakin’ health care system to the ground. 

And He wouldn’t have hidden His solution behind a burgeoning wall of deceit and intimidation, either. Him being God, I feel especially confident about that one…

—

Oh, and about those two examples of yours, and speaking as a longtime insurance guy:

Pre-existing conditions were something that the insurance industry has been addressing right along. However, I think your problem lies with a fundamental misunderstanding of what “insurance” actually is, but maybe not. Maybe you just forgot that insurance is about protecting folks against the unknown, or at least the not completely known. By definition, pre-existing conditions are “knowns”, which is why they are problematic when it comes to insurance.

To put it another way: insurance measures and affixes a price to the difference between the likelihood of something happening and the certainty of something happening. The smaller the difference (meaning: the more likely the potential risks are to occur), the more the coverage costs. And if someone already HAS such-&-such condition, then logically there’s no way to actually insure against them getting it: they’ve already got it. At that point, the difference between the likelihood of something happening and the certainty of something happening is now zero.

How exactly do you “insure” against getting something which you already have?

There are a number of ways to address this, whether through better portability of coverage, or separating coverage from employment, or a host of other options. But one thing is for sure: redefining “insurance” isn’t one of them.

And as far as people who “do not have access to affordable health care”, that’s a complete crock and you know it. People cannot be turned away in Emergency Rooms in the United States, ever. Moreover, we spend billions on free health care for the indigent (Medicaid), and get virtually nothing in return by way of improved health results.

Both of your rhetorical questions are nothing more than discredited talking points, barely rising to the level of pabulum. Honestly, I was hoping for more from someone whose curriculum vitae says you’re supposed to be kinda brainy.

—

Lastly, Michelle Bachman’s words were those of a normal, Bible-believing Christian who believes that only by humbling ourselves before God through prayer will He listen to us:

“God listens to his people and I think if believers humble themselves, confess their sins, and pray, I think God hears from us, hears our hearts and He moves, He moves in miraculous ways,”

Doesn’t mean our prayers will be answered in the way that we hope: only that He will listen. I know that sounds loony-toons to you, but it’s an entirely normal belief for a majority of the country. And mocking Bachmann’s belief with your phony argument (such as it was) is nothing short of pathetic.

—

Speaking of pathetic, according to the newest Obamacare poll, you’ve totally and completely lost this debate.

But keep it up, Doc; you and your buddies aren’t winning any converts with efforts like this. You’re only preaching to an ever-dwindling crowd.