Are you surprised that less than half of our population favors ObamaCare? Isn't providing citizens with subsidized health care a good thing?
The government of our Founding Fathers believed that our federal government's purpose should be limited to protecting our freedoms and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Progressives, starting with Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, believe in expanding and empowering the federal government to regulate human activities by treating human desires as needs, resulting in a government program for every problem.
This would be a lofty goal if our country could afford all of these programs without destroying the U.S. economy and the savings and incomes of its tax-paying citizens.
Progressives, like President Obama, believe in sharing the wealth and cannot say how big the welfare state should be but always say it should be bigger than it currently is.
Is it fair, or even feasible, to require our neighbor who works for a living to be mandated by his government to pay for others' health care, especially if doing so further wounds an economy that is already hemorrhaging?
I'm afraid that the enormous costs of ObamaCare will eventually push our country over the economic precipice beyond which we might not be able to recover.
As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Majority defied
- Missile defense, not talks
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Positive & healthy ...
- ISIS strategy misguided
- Thanks for the coverage
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Russia, not Rice
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Sticker shock
- More answers, please