Now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act\/\u201dObamacare\u201d has been ruled mostly constitutional and the Intramuralist\u2019s analysis of the law itself has ceased, allow me to share my most significant, resulting concern…<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The process to enact the law was fully partisan.\u00a0 The sad reality is that this is an observation we ignore if we agree with the bill \u2014 with most bills.\u00a0 But then again, this isn\u2019t what concerns me most.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The process was divisive.\u00a0 Due to the fact that the process was pushed from a partisan perspective, divisiveness was rampant.\u00a0 One of my current, chief apprehensions about Pres. Obama is whether or not he\u2019s a uniter or divider.\u00a0 Then again, this also isn\u2019t what concerns me most.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The process (notice there is <\/em>much<\/em><\/strong> about the process)<\/em> was manipulated, full of favors, negotiated behind closed doors, and rushed through Congress without congressmen reading the bill.\u00a0 There is much in that observation that causes this semi-humble current events blogger to shake my head, wondering how so many seemingly ethical people can be comfortable with that.\u00a0 But no, this still isn\u2019t what concerns me most.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It also isn\u2019t the content.\u00a0 The advocates\u2019 primary talking point for the last few months has been:\u00a0 \u201cthe bill\u2019s not perfect, but it\u2019s a good start.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 Allow me to acknowledge there is some \u2018good stuff\u2019 in there; but allow me to also acknowledge there\u2019s some \u2018bad stuff\u2019 in there.\u00a0 Ignorance of that fact does not make this law wise nor even comparable to \u201cperfect.\u201d\u00a0 Then again, the specifics of what\u2019s embedded within the legislation are known to very few.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I\u2019m also not most concerned about the new taxes.\u00a0 I know, I know… \u00a0Even after the Supreme Court ruled the only way the mandated purchase can be constitutional is because it\u2019s a tax, the White House Press Sec. said Friday (after<\/strong> the ruling)<\/em> that it\u2019s not<\/em><\/strong> a tax; \u201cit\u2019s a penalty.\u201d\u00a0 Geepers.\u00a0 The Supreme Court ruled a “penalty” is unconstitutional; a tax \u2014 regardless of wisdom \u2014 is legal.\u00a0 Still, the flurry of rhetorical contradiction is not my greatest concern.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Additionally, I\u2019m not significantly concerned about some pundits\u2019 reactions.\u00a0 For example…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Democratic National Committee Executive Director Patrick Gaspard, tweeting almost immediately after the ruling:\u00a0 “It’s constitutional. B—–s.”<\/em>\u00a0 Note that his \u201cB\u201d word rhymes with \u201cwitches.\u201d\u00a0 Nice.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Am I concerned about significant inflation and debt?\u00a0 Of course… but not most.\u00a0 Economically speaking, if coverage is mandated, specific services are required, and coverage is now free for many, someone has to pay for that.\u00a0 Will it be the government, thus sinking into deeper debt?\u00a0 Or will it be you and me?\u00a0 What will be the effect on small business?\u00a0 Small business now has 2 choices:\u00a0 hire less than 50 people (so providing coverage isn\u2019t mandated)<\/em> or significantly raise the price of goods and services.\u00a0 One amounts to fewer jobs \u2014 the other, higher inflation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Am I most concerned about larger government? \u00a0Where inefficiency expands and individual liberty potentially diminishes? \u00a0Not exactly.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ok, ok… what concerns me most?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Time and time again, our country passionately works to care for the least of these.\u00a0 I believe that is our calling, as a nation, but even more so as individuals.\u00a0 Ironically, however, time and time again, our justification for caring for those \u2018least\u2019 totally omits that this is what the God of the universe has long exhorted us to do.\u00a0 The call comes not from a party nor any president.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Repeatedly, policy is advocated where we omit any recognition of a divine creator.\u00a0 We pat ourselves repeatedly for doing what\u2019s supposedly good and compassionate without acknowledging it was God who mandated the calling.\u00a0 With healthcare, we can boast, \u201cFinally!\u00a0 We are taking care of the least of these!\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 But God has been historically clear; any nation that refuses to acknowledge him \u2014 what he\u2019s done and what he still calls us to do \u2014 ceases to exist.\u00a0 Don\u2019t take my word for it.\u00a0 Study it.\u00a0 Countries who negate their reliance on God are at some point utterly ruined and destroyed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I believe in individually and corporately caring for the least of these.\u00a0 I believe in being fiscally responsible.\u00a0 And I believe in acknowledging God as the one who called us to do both.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Respectfully,<\/p>\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act\/\u201dObamacare\u201d has been ruled mostly constitutional and the Intramuralist\u2019s analysis of the law itself has ceased, allow me to share my most significant, resulting concern… The process to enact the law was fully partisan.\u00a0 The sad reality is that this is an observation we ignore if … <\/p>\n