This week, in “Does Obamacare Penalize Marriage and Kids?” which discusses the likelihood that the implementation of health insurance policies in accordance with section 1401 conceivably makes it more financially rewarding to live with someone rather than marry someone if you have children, and “What Did You THINK would happen?” discussing how the financial peril our change in philosophy that discourages group health insurance policies injures consumers, we can see that there is a real issue out there about RIGHT and WRONG.
Even yesterday, when discussing Syria, the President used his, “It’s the right thing to do,” line. To me, that line typifies the arrogance of our President and symbolizes the weakness in his Administration.
Syria is a gift to those like me who desperately want people to get beyond politics as we move forward with Obamacare and consider changes in the implementation and structure of the law. It’s a gift, because by using his same old, “THE RIGHT THING TO DO,” justification, it is much clearer that such claims stem from the President’s arrogance rather than an indication of a “moral” cause. By realizing that “THE RIGHT THING TO DO,” is a tell, the President’s selling line, perhaps we can become wiser citizens.
It’s a great line that has worked well in persuading the American people. When the President wheels out his “Right thing to do,” mantra, he by implication is asserting that people who view a particular matter differently necessarily desire the WRONG thing to do.
But when the President says that attacking Syria is the right thing to do, can he seriously consider that those who oppose attacking Syria are doing the wrong thing? I think even the most insanely religiously loyal fans of the President can at least CONSIDER that perhaps the President is merely trying to sell using his classic line.
There are noble reasons for believing that attacking a country is the WRONG THING TO DO, even after that country has used chemical weapons. First, we don’t know that this will stop the supply of chemical weapons which likely are coming from outside Syria, where we’ll be bombing. Second, though claiming this will be a limited action, the President agreed that if the matter escalated, the US would support with troops such escalation. Third, there are those who believe that the President’s action will make things worse by provoking more atrocities and tumult in the world. There are many other “Syria” views on both sides. Importantly, if nothing else, the moral high ground the President claims in saying it’s the RIGHT THING and implying that those who advocate no war are WRONG, at least is seriously questionable.
This is a good thing for those of us who have been sold on the President’s trademark MORAL JUSTIFICATION for what he wants to do. As more mature consumers of the Obama-sell, perhaps this will better address the discord around Obamacare, also sold as “THE RIGHT THING TO DO.”
To date, the President’s arrogance in claiming justification based on his view of the “RIGHT THING,” is a familiar claim and a familiar phrase used to sell and then justify a host of his problematic actions, including giving amnesty to young illegals, and Obamacare. Suddenly, realizing that attacking Syria may not be “right” and at least those opposing Syria may not be “wrong,” we can better understand that maybe the President used those words with Obamacare with the same purpose, to sell us on Obamacare.
It’s a great phrase, “The Right thing to do,” because it not only indicates that dissenters are wrong, but that they’re not upright and moral people. But with the experience of Syria, so fresh in our minds, reconsider whether Obamacare was truly the “RIGHT THING TO DO.”
Ask yourself some pointed questions?
1-Do you believe that those who oppose Obamacare necessarily opposed health care reform? A: It might be tempting, but no, this isn’t true. For myself, I opposed Obamacare because it quite simply fails to address the key factors I believe have destroyed our health care system, run away health care costs that are chased by insurance companies charging more to individuals to cover these runaway costs.
2-Do you believe that those who oppose Obamacare don’t care about the poor? A: Obamacare does nothing for the poorest. Unemployed individuals in those states that didn’t adopt a Medicaid expansion are facing unchanged condition, and in some cases will end up worse since payments to hospitals for indigents under Obamacare goes down. Those people find themselves ineligible for both private insurance that they cannot afford and public insurance (unless they were already eligible for public insurance in their resident states).
3-Did you think that Obamacare would bring the cost of health insurance down for everybody? A: We know it will not. We also know it was not intended to by simply reading the provision on the change in ratio for young people from 5:1 pre Obamacare to 3:1 post Obamacare (search posts like, “Are You Safe From Higher Premiums under Obamacare if You’re Fat? For Now.”)
4-Do you think the President was honest about Obamacare when he sold you on its “rightness”? A: Is it right to omit the fact that you’re going to be charging some people more in order to charge other people less? Is it right to have an individual mandate charging you if you’re not insured? Is it right to imply that having an insurance policy that is bronze, covering 60 percent of covered costs will protect you from bankruptcy if you become sick? In short, were the President’s omissions, the matters he didn’t discuss significant in terms of your understanding what Obamacare would mean?
5-Do you think that people still support Obamacare because the Republicans have become too extremist in their verbiage and proposals for the American people and seem to want to make things worse or because it seems like it will actually relieve the problem it was supposed to address, get the uninsured insured so that they will have access to health care? A: For me, it is the former. The Republicans are worse than the Democrats from their narrow views about women to their hypocritical views of “entitlement” programs, because, actually VA benefits are entitlements too and they wouldn’t dare propose doing away with them.
So, what is the “RIGHT THING TO DO”? That is for us to discern. What is important for politicians to do is to fully inform citizens, not to sell. The sell on both sides is a lie and leaves us supporting policies and actions we wish we hadn’t. It’s not unpatriotic NOT to support Obamacare, any more than it’s unpatriotic not to support attacking Syria. It’s not wrong to advocate changing Obamacare any more than it’s wrong to advocate changing the stance on Syria.
It’s not even wrong to advocate a single-payer system for health insurance for all citizens, much like the VA or Medicare, rather than advocating for a marketplace where laws get passed based on the lobbying efforts of pharmaceutical, insurance and physician groups at the expense of consumers.
