A friend of mine posted this cartoon...

...on Facebook the other day with the caption, "I keep wondering what people don't like about the health care plan."

And I feel the same way: What don't people like about the Affordable Care Act? All it does, as far as I can tell, is see that everyone in America is covered (which is the norm in the developed world) and curbs the worst abuses of the insurance industry. How could anybody object to that?

(There's other stuff in there, of course, but no "death panels," no "government takeover of health care," no anything you hear on Fox News.)

So I responded (of course) to her post with, "Good law; horrible messaging." Which I believe is the truth; it's a good law but its proponents have done a horrible job explaining it. (And its opponents have done a masterful job at defining it negatively.)

To which one of her friends wrote, "Have you actually read the complete law?"

Now, a few years ago I would have responded to that and got into some back-and-forth that would have gotten me (and her friend) absolutely nowhere. Instead, I can say to myself, "Hey; I have a blog!"

So here goes.

No, Mr. Abernathy (whoever you are), I haven't actually read the complete law. I get it: it's 2,700 pages long (as Republicans are quick to point out), and, I suppose, I can't say with metaphysical certitude that it's a good law. You're right; you got me.

(In a perfect world, the health care law would have been written in just three words: Medicare for all. But this isn't a perfect world; in fact, there were very powerful forces lobbying against the ACA. There still are. So the law had to be written in such a way that it would pass. And, amazingly, that took 2,700 pages. That's why I always tell people that the ACA was the best health care reform law that could get passed. Nothing more, nothing less.)

But ... I have read a great deal about the law. Even though I haven't read one word of the actual legislation, I feel like I have a pretty good layman's understanding of the Affordable Care Act.

(Full disclosure: I've never read one word of any piece of legislation. In fact, I've never read one word of any contract I've ever signed. I usually just ask a lawyer whom I trust to tell me what's in the document. If I don't understand something I just ask him questions until I do. Lazy? Irresponsible? Perhaps. But so far, I haven't had any problems -- knock on wood.)

But back to the Affordable Care Act. For reasons for which I won't go into here, I've taken a great interest in the subject of health care reform in the last few years. I've read almost everything I could get my hands cursor on. (The two best writers on the subject, I've found, are Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic.)

Now, I know what you're thinking Mr. Abernathy: How do you know what you're reading is the truth? How do you know you're not being fed a load of baloney by the liberal news media. Again, I don't -- not with metaphysical certitude. But .. how do we know anything? How can we trust anything we read or anything anyone tells us? Without getting into a discussion of epistemology, I guess I can only answer that by saying that I use my best judgement.

For example, Mr. Abernathy, I trust my wife. I've known her for over twenty-five years now and she has a pretty good track record. Is it conceivable that she could slip up? Sure. But so far, my judgement of her has been rock-solid.

As for Messrs. Klein and Cohn, I've been reading their blogs for several years now and their information has stood up really well. (And, by the way, they are in no way my only sources for information on the subject.)

So when one of them writes something about health care reform, I find it's pretty reliable. (I've compared what they've written with other writers and they are usually right. And when other writers make mistakes on the subject, they are quick to point them out.)

It's Darwinian, really. I haven't kept up with their blogs because they've been wrong, but because they've been right. I usually stop reading those writers who are wrong.

Now I imagine none of this is very convincing for you, Mr. Abernathy. But that's a very short lesson on how I navigate through all the various information and misinformation that's out there. Did I read the 2,700 page Affordable Care Act? No. Will I read it? No. Do I feel like I understand the issue pretty well? Yes, actually, I do. Will I persuade you to my view of the ACA? Probably not.

So, good luck, Mr. Abernathy (whoever you are). I hope you're happy with the decision by the Supreme Court in June. But -- and I would tell this to all my friends who are opponents of the ACA -- be careful what you wish for. If the statute is indeed struck down, the only people who will benefit will be the CEOs of health insurance companies.