The world is asking the Americans: What are you doing to
yourselves? This is not the first time it happened; I remember a similar
episode in the Nineteen Sixties following the assassinations that took down
prominent figures from John Kennedy to Martin Luther King. The world is asking
the same question once more – oddly enough – not because America has
again become a killing field for the insane, but because it has become a place
that is governed by the insane.
The insanity of the Congress is evident to everyone, but
that's only because its effect is apparent to any onlooker. What is hidden from
view is the reason why members of the Congress behave the way they do, and how
they got to be like that in the first place. Looking into the matter, we
realize that the Congress is not an isolated case, but a part of a larger
pattern that engulfs the entire American culture. And the place to look for
clues as to what turned America into what it is today, would be the material
that is pouring out the chattering classes, and splashed all over the print
media and the audio-visuals.
To this end, we have two recent articles we can look into;
both published in the Wall Street Journal on November 7, 2013. The first is a
Journal editorial that comes under the title: “Edie Sundby's Choice” and the
subtitle: “The ObamaCare lessons in a cancer patient's canceled insurance.” The
first thing that strikes you as you read this piece strikes early – in fact, it
does so in the first paragraph. It is that the authors rely on this one case to
make a general statement by talking about “Mrs. Sundby and millions like her,”
and by turning the discussion into a verbal war between liberals and
conservatives, calling ObamaCare a product of “liberal planners,” and adding
that this is how those liberals intended the plan to work.
They go on to describe the problem that Mrs. Sundby is
facing, and what happened since she went public with it. They take exception
with the fact that the White House took pain to describe its position on the
matter; a position that should surprise no one. In fact, you can tell how sound
that position is by the amount of venom that the editorial spews to attack it.
This is what it says: “Dan Pfeiffer sent out a tweet linking to a left-wing
website that blamed the policy loss on UnitedHealthcare. The White House
default is always to blame the insurers. But UnitedHealthcare only fled the
state because ObamaCare's exchanges are meant to steal their customers.” What?
These so-called conservatives call stealing customers what the forces of the
marketplace do when competition is introduced? Do they know what they are
talking about?
And before you have the time to ask: “Who designed this
wonderful system?” you remember what the editorial was saying earlier. It was
saying that this was the intent of the liberals. But why would the liberals
rely on the forces of marketplace competition to make their plan work? Well,
guess what, my friend! The editorial does not shy away from telling you why.
This is what it says: “This is by design because ObamaCare's planners want to
reduce costs and to equalize coverage.” Oh how awful! How anti-conservative?
Can you believe it? The White House wants to reduce cost and equalize coverage!
Unite, ye conservatives of the Republic and take up arms because what we have
on our hands is: war, war, war.
The second article was written by Carl Schramm under the
title: “How ObamaCare Rips Off the 'Young Healthies'” and the subtitle: “If
universal coverage is the goal, inexpensive, simple catastrophic health plans
will do.” Schramm is a university professor who was once president of a health
insurance company. His beef is about the provision in ObamaCare that allows
“parents to keep 'children' ages 21 to 26 on their family policies.” He says
this is an unnecessary and a deceptive ripoff of the 'young healthies.'”
What strikes you most about this article is that the author
does not make a point before dishing out a preamble to introduce another
preamble that denigrates ObamaCare before he gets to make the point. And so,
this is how he describes his beef in detail: “This part of the Act was not
engineered in response to any noticeable interest group. Instead, political
considerations are responsible for the provision – which is unnecessary and
deceptive.”
He goes on in that same vein: “The first consideration is
that young adults facing chronic unemployment – thanks to government policies
that have retarded economic growth … Understanding that this is what the
economic 'new normal' looks like, the Obama administration sought to avoid a
potential political storm...” Only after all this, does he make the point that
the young need medical care less than the old, thus concludes that the young
and their parents are made to pay for the old who will be using the system more
often.
Hey Carl! The young will someday become old, and those who
aren't born yet will be paying to take care of them. This is what insurance is
all about. You don't seem to understand this simple concept which is probably
why you're out of the insurance business. I don't think you'll make a good
professor either, so I suggest that you go back to the business of selling
something. I have a suggestion for you: go door to door selling rugs. You
seem talented enough to do this.