I did something dumb yesterday – I posted something political on Facebook that I had heard in passing and didn't have the source for and couldn't prove was true. I got called on it and retracted. At least I got a little credit for a graceful retraction.
as the topic was Obamacare, and as I had followed my retraction by
reiterating my opinion that Obamacare is not all about insuring the
uninsured, I was asked to explain what I think Obamacare is about.
And because I opened Pandora's box here and put my foot in my mouth
already (how about all those mixed metaphors), I feel like I need
to give them an answer now, even though I regret bringing up my
opinion at all because it's not a topic I am thoroughly informed on.
I'll preface this with the hopefully very clear statement that I am
NOT thoroughly informed on this topic, and that this IS just my
opinion. But I still think my opinion has some validity.
I base my opinion on the comments – some of them really nasty –
that I got from friends back when Obamacare was first being debated
and I voiced my opposition. From the remarks my friends made to me
and their insinuations about me, my motives, my attitudes toward
poor and rich people, etc. (and remember, these were my friends,
people who should have known me better), I surmised that a good
number of people believe that the problems in the nation's
healthcare system all boil down to greed. There are rich, greedy people
running the various parts of the healthcare system who care more
about making money than they do about the welfare of the sick in the
country – particularly the sick and poor.
I'm not even going to argue that there isn't an element of truth to
that. I don't doubt that greed is a factor. But I will argue, as I
did then, that I don't think it's the whole story. I'm not even
convinced it's the biggest part of the story.
than that, though, my friends seemed to believe that the only
solution, or at least the best solution, was to take healthcare out
of the hands of greedy, rich people and put it in the hands of the
government. And that
I disagree with whole-heartedly. First of all, I don't think we
have the money to pay for everyone's healthcare. Second, even if we
had the money, I don't believe the government can deliver healthcare
effectively. And third, even if it could, I think that is a
over-reach of what the government should
this, I think, is the heart of the difference in my thinking and
that of my Obamacare-supporting friends: they trust the government
more than they trust business; as for me, I don't trust either of
them. But “big business” is at least controlled by the market, to a great
degree, and by government regulation where the natural workings of
the market aren't enough. However, goverment taking over here will
quickly get too big to be controlled well by anything, I fear.
what do I think is the “real” purpose behind Obamacare? I don't
think it's just to get healthcare to those with no access; there are
other ways to do that (although the Republican opponents at the time
were quite negligent in bringing out any good alternatives). I think
it is to give the government control over a part of the
economy that people think is too important to leave to the “neutral”
control of natural market forces. And while I understand how people
want somebody trustworthy to have that control, I am quite certain
the government is not
that trustworthy somebody.
think the whole national conversation might have a chance of getting
somewhere if liberals truly understood and acknowledged that
conservatives are not trying to support Corrupt Big Business, but
are trying to prevent more Corrupt Big Government. (And they're certainly not trying to oppress the Innocent Poor, either.)
now I'm bracing myself for the attacks. Be kind, friends. I have a
miserable cold still – and you are
supposed to be my friends,
after all. ;)