I'm confounded by the desire of some of our fellow citizens to forfeit their liberties and freedom and place them at the whim of some ruler. When I question these lefties about the reasons for their desire, I get responses like: "Healthcare should be free," "[Healthcare] shouldn't be a for profit industry," or "Europe figured it out a long time ago, we're not as progressive," (they seem oblivious to the current financial climate in Europe). They mocked President G.W. Bush with his "I'm the decider" line, but with the passage of Obama Care they now put into the hands of a Decider their own healthcare, and they're fine with it for reasons like these.
It's odd, because the left usually tantrums about "equality" and things being "unfair." They define "equality" as being equality of results, not equality of opportunity, and this belief fuels their fairness argument: "Wait! You have more than I. There's inequality about! Don your pink T-shirts and sandals, assemble the drum circle, and torch the bong. There's a protest to be had!"
What makes me laugh sinisterly to myself as I listen to the other side is that their definition of equality, their contempt for the 1 percent, and the passage of this bill, are going to detonate into endless anxiety accompanied with cries of unfairness that will echo beyond the horizon. The left, once again, stepped in it and doesn't realize it, and they're tracking it all over the house. They claim to be for the 99 percent, but they just codified a disadvantage to the 99 percent. Obama Care will not affect the rich. The rich will do as they have always done and get what they want because they can afford it – good for them, I say. The rest of us, however, will not be able to do so. We'll need to hope that when we need care, the Health and Human Services Secretary is in a good mood and grants us the care we need, because with 1,051 "Secretary shall," 371 "Secretary may," and 222 "Secretary determine" that live in the law places us at the whim of this Commissar. The 1 percent will ignore it because they can. If you believe in equality as being equal results, you're in for a rough ride, because that will never happen with healthcare.
You also better make sure your side wins the election every four years, and you better make sure that the candidate is not deceptive and is truly in agreement with your beliefs and ideology – please don't delude yourself into thinking you don't have one, you do, whether you admit it or not. If the law remains, election issues will include healthcare minutiae and what the candidate supports and what he or she does not. The anxiety levied on those who are currently wards of the state in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Welfare will spread to the rest of us. Every two or four years, we'll be faced with the possible removal of what we've been forced to become dependant on with no affordable alternative. The eligibility for skin cancer screenings covered in early November may not be in late November. Mammograms for women under 40, regardless of family history, yay or nay...all decided with the election, because the winner chooses the Decider. To place this in starker relief for those either too dim witted or too lazy to even have considered the consequences of forgoing your choice in enacting this asinine law, ask yourself the following: What would Health and Human Services Secretary Sarah Palin "determine" to be covered?
There's more. "It's like treating dandruff by decapitation," said Frank Zappa (I paraphrase) to the Senate when I was young. He was referring to the meddling of big government in the music industry – but it also applies really well to Obamacare. It was an accurate statement then because the government didn't subsidize or fund the music industry but thought enough of itself to meddle in its packaging details, driving up costs to the industry. During the same era, the left had a hissy fit when the government-funded National Endowment for the Arts was going to lose its funding due to questionable art being funded, and the usual yawn-inducing shrieks of "Hitler", "censorship", and "fascist" whined annoyingly from the left. (The left had a problem with the notion of a Decider in this case, because they didn't agree with the decision. We'll hear more of this in years to come no doubt.) The difference between the two cases is that in the latter example, as with healthcare, the government did indeed have standing. It's responsible to us taxpayers for spending our money wisely and, in doing so, must be held accountable for anything that may affect the cost of the object being funded. Now that government is responsible to insure all, it can, must, instruct anyone who would possibly need healthcare (which is everyone) what they can and cannot do that will affect the price and quality of healthcare. The government now has standing to tell you what you can and cannot eat, because, after all, if you get sick, it is responsible for your care, so you better do everything you can to avoid being sick, and the government will help you to do so: no sugary drinks, no salty snacks, no milk shakes, etc. Where does it end? It doesn't. It can and already has been argued that everything you do affects your health (e.g, you must now pay a tax to tan in a tanning bed), which then affects the cost of healthcare, which in turn makes it government's, and the Decider's, business.
So much for getting the government out of our private lives, out of the bedroom, out of the womb, out of the doctor's office. Too late for that. It's locked in now. Pretty soon, when you'd like to make a decision you once had the freedom to make on your own, you'll first have to ask HHS Secretary Palin for permission. You asked for it. You got it. Good and hard. Have a nice day!