By Charles C. W.
Cooke
Friday, November 08, 2013
When, on October 21, Barack Obama stepped sanguinely up
onto the Rose Garden podium and steadied himself to address the nation, few
Americans expected to see bravado. Despite his topic being the calamitous
rollout of his signature law, however, bravado is precisely what they got.
The president, it was quickly observed, appeared not to
have noticed that his plan wasn’t working. Instead, he resembled an unflappable
salesman, insisting indignantly that his product was good, enthusiastically
repeating the telephone number for his sales team, and knocking his competitors
for the inferiority of their offerings. Given the scale of the disaster at
hand, his pose was something of a shock.
Widespread criticism of the president’s tone did little
to diminish his spirits, and before long Valerie Jarrett had put out a trial
balloon, imprudently claiming that “nothing in Obamacare forces people out of
their health plans” because “no change is required unless insurance companies
change existing plans.” We were in it for the long haul.
Jarrett’s sick joke, as her colleagues’ similar output
made clear, was not an over-exuberant Hail Mary — a nice attempt that would be
quickly squashed and hastily deleted — but instead an early draft of what has
now become the central mendacity of the government’s official stance: that
whatever failures Obamacare has suffered thus far are the fault of capitalist
wreckers playing games with people’s lives, and not with the design of the law.
It is one thing to hear the likes of Valerie Jarrett and
Jay Carney run with the claim that the behavior of America’s insurance
companies is in no way related to federal law, but quite another to hear it
from a man who does not owe his living to the lie. It was thus with some
amazement that I read Juan Williams’s Fox News column this week and realized
that the claim is gaining currency outside of the White House. Parroting the
administration’s intellection almost verbatim, Williams instructed his readers that
they “should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been
providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health
care.” The government, he continued obediently, did “not ‘force’ insurance
companies to cancel their own substandard policies,” but “the insurance
companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies
up to code.”
This, I am afraid, is the logic of banana republics, not
of free nations built explicitly on what Thomas Jefferson termed a “homage of
reason,” and it is an unutterable disgrace that Williams is indulging it from
the outside. When the system works as it should, governments attempt such
longshot excuses only to distance themselves from accountability, and those
whose job it is to enforce that accountability routinely expose the endeavor.
Williams is apparently happily unaware of his role. By pretending that there is
a generally agreed-upon definition of a “minimum basic standard of health
care,” and steadfastly ignoring that millions upon millions of people in the
United States were quite happy with the products that insurance companies
offered, he isn’t speaking truth to power but playing the administration’s
game, which is to blame the law-abiding for following the law and hope that
nobody notices. What price that stopping buck, eh?
As Williams is apparently unwilling to say it, I shall do
it for him: Of course the government “forced” insurance companies to cancel
their existing plans. Why? Because the government made them illegal. The reason
that providers are no longer offering products that they previously sold is
that they are no longer allowed to. They are prohibited from doing so on pain
of what we have so witlessly been told over and over Is. The. Law. The variable
here, remember, is not the insurance companies, but Obamacare. And the basic
difference between the pre-Obamacare days and the post-Obamacare days is that
the ostensibly “substandard policies” that Williams so derides were not illegal
before, whereas they are illegal now. This should be so obvious as not to need
saying, but if insurance companies were to bring their policies up to the new
“code,” as Williams enjoins them to do, they wouldn’t be the existing policies
anymore — they would be different policies, for which, we were told back when
the law was but a glint in the technocrats’ eyes, there would be no need.
The policy debate that is currently raging is whether the
government should have made these changes to the law, not whether it did. And
yet with his ceaseless circular reasoning, Williams is indulging the
administration in its attempt to ignore that debate completely and helping it
to pretend that Obamacare was simply a minor tweaking of basic regulations.
Inevitably, the gymnastics required to pretend that Obamacare is not
responsible for the changes contained within Obamacare eventually prove too
tough for anybody, and by the end of his paean, Williams, too, is forced into
self-parody. “Your insurance company must cover what are called ‘essential
health benefits,’” he notes admiringly. And then he asks a rhetorical question:
“What are ‘essential health benefits?’”
His answer?
They are clearly defined on HealthCare.gov.
Well, fancy that.
The idea that the state may set new rules and then credibly
blame the population for following them is not only logically absurd, but is
also an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to set in a nation whose
institutions presuppose democratic accountability. If the government were to
set new press standards that required all newspaper columns to conform to new
rules or be censored, and journalists cried out in dissent, would it be
reasonable for the administration to insist that the real fault lay with those
unwilling or unable to adjust their writing to meet the new standards? Or would
it be flagrantly obvious that the difference was that we had new press
standards that weren’t there before?
If the government asserted that certain popular guns
would be henceforth “substandard” and passed new “codes” requiring those guns
to be changed or be outlawed — and then brazenly pretended not only that those
guns hadn’t been “banned” but that their owners and manufacturers were to blame
for refusing to “bring them up to code”? Would that convince anybody? One hopes
not.
To listen to Williams and his friends in the White House,
one gets the impression that Obamacare’s central provisions are not so much the
controversial determinations of a group of flawed and accountable lawmakers but
instead a set of transcendent truths, delivered from on high and beyond the
realm of criticism, rectification, or repeal. Suffice it to say that such
notions have no good place in a free country, belonging instead to that species
of leader whose perfect edicts ostensibly fail only because they have been
subverted by the unwilling.
This is to say that while one expects politicians to sell
their designs in the language of inevitability and their failures as the
product of sabotage, one does not expect these maneuvers to be indulged by the
supposedly skeptical watchmen in the press corps. When the state says that 2
plus 2 is 5, we rely upon the Juan Williamses of the world to stand up and
observe that it damn well is not. That he has instead taken to winking at the
security in the press room and slipping that extra 1 under the table is
disquieting indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment