I read this article in this week's Lancet, which I felt is very much helpful
in understanding the complexity of the health care issue surrounding Obamacare.
One can see where Republican way of conservative stand comes from, i.e.
"Freedom over Liberty."

I thought this article helped me understand the complexity of the issue
in different, (very unique, the only American) historical perspective,
which I would like to share with friends
in case they haven't read it yet.

"Presidents Clinton and Obama, strenuous advocates for extending health coverage,
focused too much on the economics of healthcare.
Instead, they should have made health a moral issue,
a legitimate entitlement and expectation for the people of a wealthy country."

First of all, I like to thank that he considers us a "wealthy country".
However, I just wonder if we are really wealthy.

So many people don't have any health insurance.
For middle or lower class families without medical insurance,
if they visit an emergency room or stay in the hospital for a day,
they risk getting bankrupt due to the medical bills.
Is that a wealthy country?
I would say it is a "wealthy medical enterprises" rather than being a wealthy country.
Who makes all the money from the exorbitant medical care bills?
Are they happened to be the Republicans and their clients,
the big corporations of insurance, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare outfits?

If one is sick and can't find a proper medical care, does "Liberty or Freedom" mean anything to him?
For a sick person, liberty and freedom don't mean a damn thing.
Yes, availability of medical care to everyone is definitely a moral issue.

Another example of "American paradox," I believe,
would be the controversy surrounding gun control.
Other countries around the world other than USA don't have any issue
with gun control, but we do.

As a small fish in the big pond, I'll just swim in the system.