Fear, Trembling, and Trepidation
On a post below I referred to a prudential judgment made with biblical “fear and trembling” regarding the health bill’s non-funding of abortion.
Today’s Washington Post views the financial aspects of the bill with the more secular-sounding “trepidation:”
For some on the left or the right, the smart betting might be clear. For us, and we suspect for many thoughtful Americans, the decision is not so easy. We believe stronger and more principled presidential leadership could have delivered a bill that was paid for from the start, rather than one that relies on budgetary gimmicks in the short term — and, for the long term, on presidents and congresses mustering greater courage than the incumbents have displayed. But if legislators are asked to cast an up-or-down vote in the next few days, our advice would be to vote yes. With trepidation, we would say that the benefits of acting outweigh the risks.
The rest is here.
Fr. Imbelli,
I find it disturbing that so many in the Catholic debate on this bill seem to think that the only things objectionable about it are provisions for abortion funding and the more questionable stratagems employed for enacting it into law. This bill originates in this administration’s deeply immodest view of government, and proposes a vast extension of the reach of the state, with untold consequences for many aspects of human life outside of healthcare. How can one even “tentatively, with trepidation” endorse a bill that even Obama is scarcely able to describe, let alone defend? At the very least, it adds to the already unconscionable burden of debt upon future generations (the administration’s lies to the contrary notwithstanding).
The political class gave us abortion-on-demand. I have no doubt they will one day attempt to solve the problem of rising health-care costs by giving us euthanasia-on-command. The power ceded to government by this bill is a step in that direction.
Regards from a former student.
I find it disturbing that so many in the Catholic debate on this bill seem to think that the only things objectionable about it are provisions for abortion funding and the more questionable stratagems employed for enacting it into law.
Mike,
It is not surprising, since the USCCB set the terms of the Catholic debate. The chief concern from the beginning has been abortion. The USCCB was, until the last few weeks, quite supportive of what conservatives describe as a “government takeover of health care.”
Mike Walsh,
How good to hear from you. Thank you for adding your voice: it’s new and welcome!
Mike–
Yes, welcome and don’t be a stranger.
Do you mind if I steal your “deeply immodest view of government” description of the administration? I’m having trouble getting it out of my head.
Robert Reich was feeling some trepidation today, too, about cost containment. He says “the pending House bill (that will go to the Senate for a “reconcilation” vote) does not repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurers, nor does it contain a public insurance option. It thereby will allow health insurers to continue to consolidate into even larger entities, gain as much market power as they can, and charge ever higher prices. Yet Americans will be required to buy health insurance from them.”
He supports the bill, though barely, but says this problem needs to be fixed before 2014. http://robertreich.org/