On the popular side of the health care question is a fury that has little to do with the law. Its opponents seldom mention the ACA health care provisions, as they claim their fear of a permanent loss of liberty has occurred because of out-of-pocket fees to be required by the ACA. Apparently, they find the high costs of treating the uninsured, of the loss of coverage through the lack of portability, of insufficient coverage for pre-existing conditions that put families at greater concrete risk a better price for liberty than the mandated “socialism” they see in today’s ruling’s open conceptual door.
Law must fit a variety of logical views, balanced on its scales. But weighing the hypothetical unseen, without evidence or empirical support, against the real burdens of families and society, closely tied to economic growth seems to abandon democratic principles–that we all support a common cause, and “the safeguard of the strongest is to live under a government obliged to respect the voice and concerns of the weakest.” (Robert Purvis.)
What was once moral and political principle is now abandoned in the name of freedom and classified as government intrusion. It is a freedom of rights which is absolute, without responsibility or cash value. The contradiction is that those who seek this freedom want to stand on their own, but don’t want to assume any costs to do so.
The truth is, before, government paid the way. Now each of us will be called–required–to pay a fair share. That’s fair. (NYT Pick)