We can all agree that there are worthy objectives written into the Obamacare legislation. Insurance companies cannot terminate your health coverage if you fall ill or lose your job. The elderly in need and children in poverty must be accounted for. These are, indisputably, noble and pressing goals.
However, each of these ends can be achieved within the private sector through targeted legislation. There is no need for a colossal overhaul of our current healthcare system, followed by the federal government taking it hostage. "Federal government" and "efficiency" are two concepts that simply do not mix. Even a state-by-state solution, as Mitt Romney suggested, would run far more effectively than a sweeping federal hijack. Each state could choose whether healthcare reform is necessary for them and, if so, how to cater and specialize it to the needs of their unique state. Lumping all fifty states together - when Texas and Hawaii could not be more glaringly opposite - is, simply, absurd.
President Obama is a "big picture" kind of guy. He wants to be the income redistributor, the guy who gives everybody "free" health coverage. So, what he will never understand - never - is that the federal government is simply not capable of running the nation's healthcare system. It simply cannot do it. And we have irrefutable proof: the chaos that is ensuing now that the highly touted Obamacare legislation has finally been unveiled.
With the impending implementation of Obamacare, the federal government will account for over 50% of U.S. GDP. Does this sound like a free market that has been founded on and prospered from capitalist opportunities? Or does this sound like a socialist system that is swiftly encroaching?