Replies

Opposition to Romney does not necessarily imply support for Obama.

Perhaps not strictly, but in the case of the bishops, who (for the umpteenth freaking time) collectively love Obamacare and his brand of “social justice”, it’s a real stretch — and oh how they love to stretch — to argue otherwise.

I circled back to this conversation because I wanted to point out how, I, too, expressed similar misgivings about Romney being no alternative to Obama as regards socialized medicine. In fact, it's clear that they're teammates on sort of Marxist relay race from hell, where Romney made the first lap on Romneycare and Obama crossed the finish line with Obamacare. And we the people have been presented with a choice that apparently takes undoing that accomplishment off the table.

I think it's diabolical how the argument has been framed, and how we must settle for "ABO" and be satisfied if that means being forced to buy two thousand dollars worth of compulsory medical insurance whether we want or not, under penalty of law, each and every year of our existence.

Please forgive me for repeating that only one Bishop made any meaningful attempt to argue that socialized medicine in general and obamacare in particular aren't the Almighty's obvious will for mankind, opposed only by rich white guys. That was Bishop Nickless, literally a voice in the wilderness of Sioux City, IA.

The Chief Priest, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, is repeatedly and unrepentingly on the record as declaring that The Church "has been advocating for universal healthcare for nearly a hundred years.". His opposition to the mandates is, presumably, based upon the financial and moral burden that would be placed upon the church as a major healthcare and social services provider. He is otherwise strongly in favor of making you, me, and everyone else of submit to Obamacare, as long as the church gets a waiver on abortion and contraception.