Most people – civilized ones anyway – would agree no person should be condemned to death without a fair trial.
But that is exactly what so many otherwise fair-minded, civilized people are doing with the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare). They’re like a lynch mob in the old West.
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas calls the law a “horror,” among other fearful names.
Many letter-to-editor writers to newspapers, including this one, roundly condemn the ACA long before it’s had its “fair trial.” And, of course, the distortions, misconceptions and even outright lies against the law continue:
It will skyrocket everyone’s insurance-premium costs.
It will bankrupt the country.
It will institute death panels.
It will allow illegal aliens to be on the program.
It will be a government takeover of the health-care system.
On Oct. 1, the ACA got off to a rocky start, to be sure, because of computer-site problems. Of course, the law’s close-minded critics took that as a sure omen the entire ACA is nothing but a big-government, bureaucratic boondoggle.
Some critics of the ACA are sincere and reasonable, and many criticisms might prove to be accurate. Like any innovative program, there are bound to be problems along the way, just as there were when the Medicare program began in 1965. In the 1980s, Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic Rep. Tim O’Neill put their heads together to make Medicare more long-term solvent by increasing the qualifying retirement age, among other fixes. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if those Republicans, so scornful of the ACA, would get together with Democrats (including some skeptical Democrats) to improve the law?
Of course, that kind of cooperation is not going to happen because those who made up their minds to hate the ACA from the get-go (three years ago) will continue to fume about it. What’s interesting is the sheer hand-rubbing glee some of these haters express when there is a glitch (such as the computer problems on start-up day).
Again, some criticisms of ObamaCare may prove to be spot-on. Such sincere criticisms, no doubt, will lead to many improvements in the program. We should listen to and heed the constructive criticisms. Will it, for example, succeed in lowering overall health-care costs, as planned? But in the meantime, the most destructive critics should consider taking a more open-minded attitude, at least until they have positive proof about what a “horror” it is.
In other words, good folks, let’s at least give the ACA a fair chance before condemning it to death.
