So attractive is the notion. Change. Clever, one word political directive.

What is missing is the complicated, curiously undisclosed, direction of the notioned “change”.

I offer a quote from Edmund Burke ( 1729-1797, political theorist and philosopher).  It is a forewarning to future generations, generations such as ours. 

“I knew that there is a manifest marked distinction, which ill men, with ill designs, or weak men incapable of any design, will constantly be confounding, that is, a marked distinction between Change and Reformation.  The former alters the substance of the objects themselves; and gets rid of all their essential good, as well as of all the accidental evil annexed to them.”

“Change is novelty; and whether it is to operate any one of the effects of reformation at all, or whether it may not contradict the very principle upon which reformation is desired, cannot be certainly known beforehand.  Reform is, not a change in the substance, or in the primary modification of the object, but a direct application of a remedy to the grievance complained of.  So far as that is removed, all is sure. It stops there; and if it fails, the substance which underwent the operation, at the very worst, is but where it was.”

Change. Forward.  Warnings from Burke to future generations of the dangers associated with such seemingly harmless and positive political rhetoric and tactics.  “Change” is Obamacare.  And, using Burke’s phraseology, the substance which underwent the change will NOT be, for the very worst, but where it was.  The health insurance industry and the medical industry will forever be altered. 

What is important here is that nothing is new, here. A familiar political tactic.  No need to read the bill, for they were merely after change, not reformation.  Change as it pertains to the destruction of the health insurance industry was the goal, not good legislation.

James Longstreet