An episode of a Christian talk show insinuated that, if you retain traditional health insurance or what still passes for it under the Obama regime rather than one of these cost sharing programs harped about during the advertisements, you aren't trusting in God.
Furthermore, it is pointed out, if you retain traditional insurance, you are sending your money to a large corporation rather than assisting fellow believers.
So long as I get the services I contracted for in a satisfactory manner, what do I care if a corporation is large?
The broadcasters claimed that insurance allows for control over people's lives.
Instead, believers would be better off if oversight over medical affairs were transferred to the church.
But what is to prevent the church from exercising increased control over people's lives or from allocating access to healthcare in a preferential manner?
For example, would ecclesiastical medicine be dispersed to the truly ill or to the missionary couple with the saddest sob story with so many children that you can't help bring to mind the old nursery rhyme about the old woman that lived in the shoe?
During the 1990ís, Christian broadcasters would dedicate entire episodes of their programs shilling for a telecommunications provider with the angle that if you remained with these companies you where as complicit with these companies in the part they played in furthering the agendas of pornography and homosexuality.
Despite such grandiose moralizing, the thing was that this service was a pain in the backside to use when you needed it the most.
Do you really want the same thing to happen to you in terms of securing essential medical services?
Frederick Meekins is an independent theologian and social critic. Frederick holds a BS in Political Science/History, a MA in Apologetics/Christian Philosophy from Trinity Theological Seminary, and a PhD. in Christian Apologetics from Newburgh Theological Seminary.