Hard-working Americans might wonder, “Why bother?”
By Charles C. W. Cooke
President Obama is rather fond of
presenting himself as a champion of the people — the only choice for the
average citizens who, through “no fault of their own” and having
“played by the rules,” are screwed over by a bleak and unjust system.
Heroic language was a mainstay during his campaigns of 2008 and 2012,
and it continues to be deployed today. “Millions of Americans who work
hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a
financial system that do the same,” argued Obama during the State of the
Union in 2012. “It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom.
No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs. An America built to last
insists on responsibility from everybody.” Through an ill-disguised
desire to “fundamentally transform” the place, he would be the man to
build that America.
Among those whom the president has explicitly
deemed to be losing out “through no fault of their own” are illegal
immigrants who were brought here as children, federal workers who were
furloughed during the recent government shutdown, and “homeowners facing
foreclosure.” Oddly enough, however, he has yet to mention the millions
of responsible and admirable Americans who for years purchased health
insurance on the individual market and who are now being thrown off
their plans — through no fault of their own, of course, but by him and his central political achievement.
These are the 5 million — and counting — self-reliant types who
have not merely suffered the indignity of being forcefully deprived of
plans with which they were largely happy, but have also been forced to
sit helplessly by while a parade of imperious, preening elites explained
to them with barely concealed disdain that their choices could no
longer be tolerated by the state. “I am completely happy with my plan,”
Margaret Davis of California lamented last week in a widely published letter
to Senator Dianne Feinstein. Perhaps you are, Margaret. But the
president is not, and in modern America that is all that matters. Now,
for the same catastrophic plan, Davis faces an 88 percent increase in
her premiums — and less coverage. Is this “fair”?
Either
way, it is now abundantly clear that this was the plan all along, and
those who remained wedded to the outmoded ideal that they were
well-placed to determine which products worked best for themselves and
their families were regarded as but collateral damage. A second NBC
investigative report, published last Friday evening to a chorus of
howls, revealed
beyond reasonable doubt that the White House deliberately made the
rules “too stringent to allow many to keep their policies” and that,
despite the fact that “the administration was warned three years ago
that regulations would have exactly that effect,” the president pressed
ahead anyway.
Obamacare has always been just one more presidential
speech away from popularity. If people could just be taught to act
against their interests, the theory went, they would submit with relish.
In fact, the opposite has happened. At one level, one cannot help but
feel sorry for the Obama voter who griped
that, while she wanted people to have health insurance, she didn’t
realize she “would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”
Why would she? The president promised her that the law wouldn’t affect
her, that it would probably cut her rates, and that it was designed only
to help the indigent and punish the free-riders while leaving the
self-sufficient alone. Nobody said anything about losers.
Likewise, one can muster some pity for Lori Gottlieb, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, who related on the New York Times’
op-ed page that her armchair-progressive friends’ response to the
$5,400 rate hike with which she had been slammed was to assure her that
the collective was now better off. “Has Obamacare made it un-P.C. to be
concerned by a serious burden on my family’s well-being?” Gottlieb asked
rhetorically, before concluding reluctantly that the “self-employed
middle class is being sacrificed at the altar of politically correct
rhetoric, with nobody helping to ensure our health, fiscal or
otherwise.”
Gottlieb concluded that her lefty friends reacted in
this aloof manner “because it’s trendy to cheer for the underdog.” Maybe
so. But only in part is this the reason. Another reason is that America
has briefly fallen foul to the dangerous notion that “experts” are to
be trusted to run a republic and, too, that politicians who are known to
be radicals should be taken at their word. President Obama is a man who
talks the talk of personal responsibility but walks the walk of
redistribution and control. Until now, the words and not the actions
have drawn the attention of the majority. It will be a difficult habit
to change, even when the evidence is blatant.
To those of us who have been critics of Obamacare since the
outset, it has come as no surprise that its architects care little for
the practical consequences of their remaking. The truth has always been
that the law was intended not only to insure those who lack coverage but
also to force insurance products to conform to what the president and
his team believe they should be. Acting as if he were citing
something absolute — as opposed to merely the subjective view of his
administration — the president has railed against what he calls
“substandard” insurance while his acolytes talk of “blowing up” the
market. Jacobins abound. The bourgeoisie should be trembling.
It
is bad enough that self-employed and individually insured Americans are
being dictated to from a faraway city. After all, there is neither a
moral nor legal provision in the United States Constitution that allows
the executive to decide what free men should choose to buy. And yet it
gets worse when one acknowledges that the services that the government
wishes to foist upon the individual market are generally inferior.
“President Obama will soon become the country’s biggest purveyor of
second-rate coverage,” doctor and former FDA official Scott Gottlieb (no
relation to Lori) wrote in the New York Post. “Many of the
policies sold in the exchanges are ‘narrow network’ plans with very
limited choice of doctors.” Hard workers could be forgiven for looking
at their efforts and wondering, “Why bother?”
One of the things
that has distinguished America from the social democracies of Europe is
that its safety net was just that: a net into which one might fall but
in which one would not be enveloped. In Europe, one is pushed into
interaction with the government as a matter of course — and even
encouraged to engage. In America, there was traditionally help if you
really needed it, but you had to be old or poor or disabled first.
Obamacare changes that, interfering in the lives of the millions of
Americans who had no intention of getting involved with the state and
saying breezily to the self-sustaining middle class that there is no
escape from the insidious meddling of a corpulent Uncle Sam — even if
they do work hard and play by the rules every day. I agree with the
president: America’s hard workers do “deserve a government and a
financial system” that is responsive to their sacrifice, their
conscientiousness, and their sense of duty. But I’m afraid that this
isn’t it.
No comments:
Post a Comment