What’s wrong with “Obamacare”?
Please. Pause. As always, the Intramuralist attempts to stand as a beacon of respect. You, my friends, have done an excellent job at modeling your diversity of opinion without succumbing to the temptation of disrespect. Far too many intelligent people continue to justify disrespectful articulation when the moment serves them well. As best as possible, we strive not to fall so infamously far.
It is no secret that the Intramuralist is no fan of the Patient Affordable Care Act. Having read the entire legislation prior to its passage, we found multiple enactments, which were are not only prone to government overreach but also social concern. When healthcare is proposed as a “one size fits all model,” the underlying reality is that as the model evolves and impure motive sets in, perceived economic drains on the system will be extracted. If we can ensure continued care for 100 at the same price as the one-time surgery of 1, why would we choose the 1? Funds are not limitless. Hence, economically, it makes more sense to care for the 100. It’s the survival of the fittest. It’s natural selection. Is it moral? Of course not. But when a person actually reads the legislation, the embedded motive of moral behavior is ambiguous.
Do not allow me to suggest that I believe the creators of this law were motivated by impure motive. I do believe, however, that as the law evolves, the exponentially increased potential for impurity exists, as money and power never fail to pollute policy. At some point in time — with the wrong people in charge — I believe Obamacare will be a dire, iniquitous law.
Allow me, no less, to return to my original question: what’s wrong with this law? Perhaps you even question the basis for my question. Here is the reason for my current pondering:
According to Politico and The Wall Street Journal, congressional leaders have been holding closed-door discussions regarding how to exempt themselves from the law. When Politico broke the story last week, the conversations collapsed — obviously because of the complete lack of positive publicity.
Reports are that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initiated the discussions, although he denies such an account; he says he simply wants the law to be “workable for everyone.” The loophole in Reid’s claim is that when the law was being crafted in 2009, Democrats repeatedly attempted to exempt themselves and/or their key aides.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) had authored an amendment approved by the Senate Finance Committee that compelled Congress to partake, but yet, when brought to the floor by Sen. Reid, the bill’s language had been altered, exempting congressional aides and party leaders.
If this law is good, why are those who know what’s in it wanting to avoid it?
Oh, wait… I return to my original concerns about the bill…
Never mind the broken promises. Never mind the poor P.R. Never mind that when the town hall meetings got too tough, the town hall meetings were shut down.
Never mind that some Republicans seemed simply obstructionists. Never mind that the legislation only passed through a partisan measure designed for the budget reconciliation process. Never mind that premiums are now increasing and options for keeping existent care are decreasing.
This original, approximate 2000 page legislation was approved and opposed by those who never read it. They never read it, yet they want to be exempt.
Hence, I ask again: what’s wrong with “Obamacare”?
Respectfully…
AR