Get PJ Media on your Apple

ObamaCare as a Moral Clunker

The moral arguments against Obama's health plan are overwhelming and need to take center stage.

by
Tom Blumer

Bio

August 7, 2009 - 12:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Slowly but surely, the nation is waking up to the likelihood that the unwieldy state-run health care concoction known as ObamaCare will not achieve the cost savings the president and his supporters have promised.

That’s a nice development, but it’s not enough. In fact, at some point — and I believe we are there — it becomes a distraction.

Though a relevant consideration, cost is among the least of ObamaCare’s problems. Leading the argument against ObamaCare with cost considerations sells the American people short and betrays a moral insecurity that, if not addressed, will cause some future form of ObamaCare to sneak in — if not now, in the not very distant future.

ObamaCare’s supporters would love opponents to stay focused on cost, because, despite plentiful help from the Congressional Budget Office debunking the administration’s weak claims, the absence or presence of potential savings is not directly provable. As long as the focus remains on cost, important points about fundamental human rights that would be stripped away and handed over to the tender mercies of the state won’t get heard. That must change.

The moral insecurity emanating from ObamaCare’s Washington-based opposition (vs. many of us in the heartland, who see evil’s attempt to visit itself upon us for what it is) seems to revolve around two bogus ideas.

The first is that Obama and the statists in Congress somehow occupy the moral high ground because they promise to “insure” everybody.

But ObamaCare isn’t about insurance. If it were, every American would be insured shortly after it takes effect. But the CBO estimates that even when implemented, only 16 million more Americans would be insured, barely a third of the alleged total of uninsured. ObamaCare, as Investor’s Business Daily and many other editorialists have noted, is really about (eventually) eliminating insurance and devolving the entire system into a single-payer arrangement — something Obama himself enthusiastically supported in 2003 before he became concerned with electoral viability.

Health care should first and foremost be about whether those who need treatment get treatment. And guess what? In this country, those who need treatment not only almost always get treated, but they also almost always get treated timely. It is against the law for hospitals to turn away patients requiring emergency medical treatment regardless of whether they can afford to pay.

Yes, there are many who are not insured and who cannot afford medical care. And yes, they often delay doing something about very real medical problems until they become more serious. That is a real problem. But the answer, while elusive, most certainly should not involve jeopardizing the viability of everyone else’s medical coverage and access to care, as ObamaCare indisputably does.

Click here to view the 144 legacy comments

Comments are closed.