freestuffIncredulous people often ask opponents of what is variously being called “Obamacare” and the “Affordable Care Act” why anyone could possibly be opposed to providing healthcare for those who need it and cannot afford it? Their impression is that to oppose makes one comparable to Stalin, Hitler, or Idi Amin. Such a one obviously despises puppies, unicorns, rainbows, bacon, butter and love.

Something should be done to address the extreme high cost of obtaining healthcare. It’s just that ACA in it’s present form, is not it.

What, after all, may be observed in all this discourse that would lead one to believe that a healthcare system most of us can’t afford can be made affordable by simply requiring the same people who couldn’t afford healthcare insurance and services in the first place to pay for them anyway? Add to that the costs of a burgeoning federal bureaucratic, tax-supported machine that will oversee. What in this scenario actually lowers the cost of healthcare services? “The rich”, you say? If so, I hope you mean the top 5% who own most of the country. Because the rest of us, in what we used to call “the middle class”, fare little better, if at all, than the ones in the lowest income bracket. We are simply playing a “shell game” whereby we will fund big government and profitable insurance companies to keep paying for healthcare that still costs too much.

Where is it written that in order to address this issue we must socialize medicine and in order to do that we must strengthen and empower our already bloated, intrusive, and inefficient federal government with even more power to reach deeper into our pockets and into our privacy?

I don’t know what the answer is, but I know what it ain’t! It seems to me that what we have here is an oligarchy running a monopoly. There is not enough free-enterprise in this system.

If I go to get my brakes fixed, I will ask in advance, what the parts and services will cost before I approve services. I have choices. But when I seek to obtain medical care I don’t typically have that option. I will have no idea what this is gonna cost, and whatever they tell me it is, after the fact, I’m just gonna have to pay it. It won’t matter how ridiculously expensive it is likely to be.

Call me a cynic, but I believe wherever you see the flow of large amounts of cash, you will see selfishness, greed, and corruption. Our founders knew this about us and separated and balanced the powers of government to account for it. It seems to take forever to get a consensus and move forward with much of what we intend, but it’s due to the necessary checks-and-balances of our unique and brilliant system of government.

If we have built into our governing all this accountability, what has made us think that we can cut loose an enormous percentage of the populace with entitlement privilege paid for by others and not require of them at least an accountability to the whole? You know, a contribution and participation in their own well-being? Why will no one speak of personal responsibility? Does it really seem fair to you that a healthy non-smoking working 27-year-old should pay more for his healthcare (every month whether he needs it or not) as an unemployed 450 lb. sedentary smoker with terrible nutritional habits (who, in fact, will likely pay nothing)? It is one thing for a citizen to open his heart to freely help his neighbor who cannot help himself, it is quite another to institutionalize with government a class of people who will always receive and a class who will always be required to give. Such things ruin men. We can raise the debt ceiling high enough to bury us forever, but no amount of money we borrow from our great-grandchildren can fix this simply because we “meant well.” Able-bodied people must be a part of the solution of helping those who simply can’t help themselves. We have to distinguish the difference!

There will never be a true solution to these complicated problems that does not include personal, individual, responsibility and accountability. True, the rich should pay “their fair share” and the medical industry can be held accountable, but the free recipients can also do their part in what Habitat for Humanity calls “sweat equity.” Everything we get should cost us something. There is no “free lunch.” Somebody has to pay for everything. Being a part of effecting one’s own well-being builds individuals and society.


« »