As with most of us I have friends that lean toward the conservative side of politics and friends who lean toward the progressive side. Some lean heavily, others not quite so heavily - on both sides of the "equation".
It would be expected that somewhere between the two viewpoints there would be some common ground that could be shared. But, I find it somewhat curious that the differences are almost binary. Very little, if any, common ground seems to exist.
This curiosity is nowhere more prevalently witnessed than with the subject of "Obamacare".
From progressives I most often hear that criticism of Obama's policies is due to racism. And, most fervently when discussing Obamacare. And, we can see this opinion proffered by the media. I guess progressives just believe what the media and the government tells them. No thought or questioning required. I know of no policy these days that has a racial component - it's a good policy or it isn't. A person's race never enters the fray. We can disagree on the goodness or not of a policy, but never is it about race. It's about content and the content's effect.
Now, I know of no one who wishes to see anyone go without proper medical care. But, I and my conservative friends looked at Obamacare as a "train wreck awaiting its destination". And, of course, our feeling had nothing to do with racism. It was pure logic. Let me explain.
The problem that Obamacare was supposed to fix was that there were some 30 million people without healthcare insurance. The population of the United States, at that time, was upwards from 300 million people. Any manager, even one who is not very good, knows that fixing a 10% problem with a 100% solution is never a wise move. Usually, this is a recipe for disaster.
With everyone compelled, by law, to obtain insurance, the additional premiums, we were told by the government and the media, would drive the costs of insurance down. Well, nobody on the conservative side believed this for a minute - for 2 main reasons.
First, the initial penalty for not getting insurance was far less than the cost of the insurance, itself. So, we figured, most who couldn't afford it to begin with would opt for the lesser cost; i.e., the penalty. Therefore, the myth of increased numbers driving down premiums was just that, a myth.
Second, the provision that mandated that pre-insurance conditions had to be covered by new insurance would drive the costs toward the heavens. It absolutely had to, we conservatives argued. If that weren't the case more people would have already obtained insurance - which they hadn't.
Now, as to the affordability of the Affordable Healthcare Act, this had to be not the case. Not only for the 2 reasons given above, but, there was an added issue. For a goodly number of people gaining insurance through Obamacare they were able to do so only with government subsidies. This, of course, meant that the taxpayer was the one affording the health care insurance for those who would not or could not pay the premiums. So much for true affordability.
Then, as it became known that some 20,000+ pages of rules and regulations were needed (and now exist) to implement Obamacare, the heads of us conservatives "exploded". These rules and regulations have never been voted on, approved by Congress or any law making entity, and, what's more, no one except the authors knew what the rules were. This had to be "Trouble In River City" on steroids.
With all the above, it wasn't too difficult to foretell the future for Obamacare. It would crash, spin, and burn. And, we shared our thoughts and our logic with our progressive friends. Their retort: We were only saying these things because we didn't like the president due to his race.
Does the health care system in America need fixing? Absolutely. But, Obamacare, isn't the fix we need or deserve.
Now, the article which gives an insight into our prognostications on the subject.