Americans are Wary of ObamaCare

Personal Freedom and Prosperity 110: The Rule of Law

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, the enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

Americans are Wary of ObamaCare

The ObamaCare law commands that every American have health insurance. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ bureaucrats have prescribed gold, silver and bronze policies. Fearing IRS scrutiny and penalties, many Americans have signed up for ObamaCare. Of course, the fact that our citizens recognize Obamacare is the law does not mean it is a good law, a fair law, and efficacious.

A recent Washington Post-ABC poll suggests the public does not believe ObamaCare is good and efficacious:

  • By a two-to-one margin, more people think the quality of care they receive is getting worse rather than better under Obamacare (29 percent to 14 percent). A majority says the quality has stayed the same.

  • By a two-to-one margin, more people think the nation’s health care system is getting worse, not better (44 percent to 24 percent). Less than a third say the quality of U.S. health care is about the same.

  • Nearly half of Americans say their personal health care costs are increasing under Obamacare (47 percent). Just 8 percent report decreases.

  • A strong majority say the overall costs of the U.S. health care system are increasing (58 percent). Just 11 percent see decreases.

Most likely, these opinions express anticipated loss of quality and increased prices. With reason, Americans distrust the utopian promises of the President and his administration. Americans sense a breach of a moral and legal order – the Rule of Law.

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, the enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

Harmfully, the entire course of action that is ObamaCare violates the philosophy of a moral legal order.

First, the administration offered more patients and money to the medical industries – insurance, pharmaceuticals, doctors, hospitals, states and more. In return the medical industries supported the law.

  • Next, Reid and Pelosi abused the procedural process, and in addition bought the vote of many politicians – please, recall the Louisiana Purchase.

  • Few legislators had any idea what was being passed – remember Pelosi’s infamous "… we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

  • Throughout the legislative and bureaucratic process, deliberate, false promises were made: “You keep your doctor and your hospital.”

  • Then, came the exceptions, delays and waivers by Secretary Sebelius and the bureaucracy that favored distinct businesses and groups.

With reason, most of our public distrusts the federal government, and it’s mainly because the Rule of Law has been abrogated.

As Ron Fournier of the National Journal concluded:

Now the White House has to show that a massive new marketplace, overseen by a distrusted federal government, can shrink the pool of uninsured without enraging the majority of people who are relatively happy with their status quo. This is the hard part that Obama glossed over when he disingenuously promised voters that they could keep their doctor and insurance plans if they liked them. Rather than honestly explain the complicated law and ask for patience and shared sacrifice, the president dissembled.

Related Content