EDITORIAL: Americans are Generous but not Stupid When It Comes to Obamacare

HNN Staff
EDITORIAL:  Americans are Generous but not Stupid When It Comes to Obamacare

President Obama's surrogates have been stating incessantly that the millions of people who have lost their individual health insurance plans due to Obamacare really ought to be grateful. After all, they maintain, these plans were substandard anyway.  "Trash plans" they call them.

Beyond the arrogance of the federal government telling you that the health insurance policy you could afford is "trash"--with the negative suggestion about the individual who has bought it--a supreme irony is present that the pro-Obama folks are missing by the country mile, namely:

What about many of the policies Obamacare offers to replace the old "trash policies"?  Are they much better?

No.  In fact, the Obamacare policies can be worse.  When single people find themselves only able to buy an Obamacare substitute policy with a $5,000 deductible, well, that probably seems pretty trashy, too. A $5,000 deductible?

As Dean Martin used to sing, "Ain't that a kick in the head?"

This is proof positive that the federal government has no business trying to impose its will on the nation and one-sixth of the national economy through a "We know best" policy on health care insurance.  

Now, is government oversight needed for such a crucially important industry?  

You bet. If enough evidence bubbles to the surface that hospitals or insurance companies are charging too much, then the American people deserve a Congressional committee looking into the matter for us.

But effective oversight is a far easier task for the federal government than managing the entire health care system.  As frustrating as the old system could be, is putting our health into the hands of faraway Washington D.C. bureaucrats the answer?  Surely we know better after the disastrous rollout of Obamacare's website.

If the President were merely an honest liberal with a heart for those who don't have health insurance, he could have proposed an expansion of Medicaid, paid for with a new tax.  Then more of the uninsured could have been absorbed in a gradual way, so as to not overload the system all at once.  

True, the President would have had to persuade enough Americans that it is in the nation's best interest to help poor people and their children to have basic health care coverage, even if that meant a tax increase of some sort.  But at least then the President could actually have meant it when he said that "if you like your own health insurance, you can keep your health insurance."

Robbing Peter to pay Paul has never been a wise approach in a democracy.  The American people are generous and have given trillions over the years to help others, both here and abroad. However, they draw the line at having their own family's basic needs messed over in the process.

In water safety class, lifeguards are taught that, if at all possible, it is best to use the extended pole to help a struggling swimmer, allowing the lifeguard to pull them in from the solid platform of the pool deck.  If the lifeguard dives in haphazardly to save the swimmer, they might be dragged down with them as the swimmer flails about wildly.

President Obama is asking each of us to dive in to save that swimmer.  We want to help, but not at the cost of our own good sense.



Comments powered by Disqus