Exactly How Bad Would ObamaCare Have To Be?

Regarding "It's the law" (Wednesday editorial), Chronicle editors advise Republican lawmakers and various labor unions to "get over it", and stop contesting the implementation of ObamaCare.  The rationale put forward is that the Affordable Health Care Act is the law of the land, and that should be the end of the argument.  Unfortunately, what we find with each passing day are more and more terms that are destructive not just to our health care system and economy, but our personal freedoms as well: ObamaCare is predicated on the wholesale confiscation of our medical records by the federal government; it imposes a fine on families who refuse to purchase a policy from the Health Care Cartels; and it mandates that we surrender ourselves to the IRS, an organization fraught with corruption, leaks and incompetence.

 

What the editorial fails to mention as well is that the law is so destructive and unworkable that the Obama administration is cherry-picking the parts to be implemented - likely breaking the law in the process - so as to make the onerous whole a fait accompli.  Nancy Pelosi infamously said that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."  What we have "found" since is a law that is so bad that conservative Republicans, liberal Unions and two thirds of the American people are in agreement that it either needs to be scrapped or substantially modified.

 

This remarkable consensus begs a simple question: How bad would ObamaCare have to be before the Chronicle had the same reservations?

 

Pete Smith

Cypress