OBAMACARE

For those of us in the Conservative camp, it is no secret that President Obama’s sense of urgency has had a great deal to do with his awareness that any amount of scrutiny would likely obliterate his ambitious and disturbingly socialistic healthcare agenda. Where the president lacks awareness however, is in his appreciation of the spirit of a free people. Even the least educated American understands freedom in its most basic form. While not all Americans might be able to offer, in text book clarity, the definitions of freedom and liberty, most every American can discern the withholding of them.

President Obama’s healthcare objectives appear, in their most superficial descriptions, as echoing charity, love of neighbor and good will toward men. Once dissected however, their true impact suggests a plan far different than the reform proposal being peddled by the President in his never-ending torrent of town halls and campaign style press conferences. Frustrated by the recent and broad sweeping naiveté of so many Americans’ belief in an altruistic, wholly self-sacrificial President Obama, I do accept as true that as the sheath is removed over the course of the August recess, Americans from coast to coast will begin to sense the power-hungry, big government stench of the proposed overhaul.

Inside the walls of Congress, real debate over President Obama’s healthcare reform has been scant at best and one-sided in the most generous of descriptions. In contrast, Americans the country round have begun to engage in rigorous debate regarding the sweeping implications of such an alteration in our current healthcare system. Undeniably, many who support the plan do so out of concern for the uninsured around them, an element not at all lost on the President who is regularly heard and seen exploiting that compassion for the sake of his personal objectives. What few realize however, is the massive government augmentation that would most certainly manifest as a result of such a shift in how our healthcare is delivered. What even fewer grasp is the commensurate diminishment of personal liberty that would accompany such a growth in government. This basic principal of government size is something that our Founding Fathers understood well. As described by Mark Levin in his highly acclaimed book, “Liberty and Tyranny,”

“For the Conservative, the lesson comes back to man’s imperfection. Even good men are capable of bad things. The disgrace of slavery is a disgrace of the human condition – as is all tyranny. Man’s institutions, like man himself, are imperfect. They can be used for good or bad, and they have been used for both. Therefore, diffusing authority among many imperfect men – by enumerating federal power, separating power within the federal government, and sharing power with the states, isolates and limits tyranny. “

The founders understood the necessity of a small national government for they witnessed, first hand, the peril of the alternative. President Obama’ plan for more government control might have seduced portions of the population for a time, but give the American people time to contemplate the particulars, time to reason the personal impact of his proposal and there is no doubt, if this is the American I know and love, that his agenda will meet a fateful end.