Let me summarize his "argument" against such a healthcare system:
Universal, publicly funded health care is not compassionate because giving something to someone isn't always the most compassionate thing to do. For example, giving an alcoholic a drink might make them happy, but it's not the right thing to do.Really, folks, that was his argument in a nutshell! It's got to be the stupidest "analogy" I've ever heard of. Take a listen:
Bob, listen very carefully: HEALTH CARE IS NOT ADDICTION. IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN NECESSITY.
Did you notice that giving the alcoholic a drink is what "liberals" would do? Bob doesn't give any facts or evidence to support his assertion, it's just another demonization technique. But I digress...
So why does Bob has such a fear of publicly funded, universal health care? The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized country that does not ensure that all of its citizens have health care coverage. Are Canada, Japan, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Israel, and countless others all wrong on this issue? Furthermore, Americans end up paying more for their health care and getting less treatment then other western nations.
So what, exactly, is the "Christian Perspective" for being against universal, publicly funded health care? My guess, is it's more of a "GOP Perspective" since pharmaceutical companies give more to Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin.
Bob, let me give you a clue: People are rather fed up with paying more and more every year for health insurance premiums while deductibles and co-pays also skyrocket. It's clear that the "competition" between the insurance companies is failing to provide the cost saving efficiencies that the Republicans have promised over the last few decades.
In short, working Americans are tired of getting screwed over.