Obamacare and the Woe of the Modern Liberal

[deacon blues]

Great op/ed on the failure of the Obama administration and liberals in general to recognize that Obamacare is simply unpopular with Americans. From the Las Vegas Review-Journal by Sherman Frederick:

Do you ever wonder what mindless, do-gooder ObamaCare fairy godparents tell themselves when faced with the consistent polling that shows Americans hate it, hate it, hate it?

Weirdly, they blame their patron saint. For all the political capital President Barack Obama burned to get the law passed, they finger him for failing to sell the magically delicious parts of ObamaCare to citizens who don't have sense enough to fall on bended knee.

Ah, the woe of the modern liberal at work: They strive to do good on behalf of the beasts in the field, yet they feel soooo underappreciated in their efforts to run an efficient plantation.

If this president, touted as the best orator of the television era, can't sell his health care plan by now -- his solicitor general certainly blew the pitch to the U.S. Supreme Court -- then maybe we should consider the possibility that people are smarter than politicians think. Perhaps the unpopularity of ObamaCare stems not from people failing to understand it, but from people understanding it and judging it a bad deal.

That's a better answer than "Obama did a lousy job selling it," isn't it? But the weaker argument never seems to go away.

Consider Albert R. Hunt in his "Letter From Washington," published in the International Herald Tribune last week. I'm not singling out Mr. Hunt. He's just the latest liberal writer to try to cook this mush.

He slams the White House because it "failed to rally public support behind its signature achievement," ObamaCare.

He then goes on to say one anonymous "prominent supporter" thinks "the White House committed political malpractice by not explaining to the public that popular provisions in the bill were linked to the mandate."

Huh? The plan is only unpopular because the parts of the plan that are really "popular" (whatever those are) haven't been properly linked to the mandate by the president?

The stuff in ObamaCare you think you hate is really the good stuff.

And, there will come a day, ObamaCare devotees promise, when the president meets us on that beautiful shore in the sweet by and by. Then he will make us understand. Then the veil lifts and all God's dumb creatures will see the magnificence of ObamaCare as it really is.

Gone will be our fears that the basic design of ObamaCare pricks the sensibilities of American liberty and the Constitution.

Gone will be the worry of trading in an excellent (but not perfect) health care delivery system for a bastardized, Canada-lite system that eventually delivers timely care only to those who know somebody with pull in the government. (Canadians know what I'm talking about.) Excellence will be reserved only for those willing to pay extra.

And as for those studies that underline the financial dangers of ObamaCare, like the one last week from Charles Blahous, well, all our doubts will be eased on that front as well when the president finds it within himself to explain the mysteries of ObamaCare.

TBut until then, let us remember that Mr. Blahous is only one of two public trustees of Medicare and Social Security. He kinda, sorta knows a thing or two about this subject, and his study finds ObamaCare significantly worsens the federal government's fiscal outlook.

Best case, Blahous says, ObamaCare increases federal spending by $1.16 trillion and ups the deficit by $346 billion between now and 2021. Worst case (some say the most likely case), ObamaCare jacks up spending $1.24 trillion and adds $527 billion to the deficit.

But, hey, we need not worry about those details because, according to mindless do-gooder ObamaCare fairy godparents, it's just a matter of time before the Big Giant Head in the White House makes us understand.

To which the people say: "We're ready, Lord. Mandate us to believe."