Don’t raise the bridge. Lower the river, divert the water, steamroll the riverbed, and install a bullet train as an “affordable” bridge substitute.
Such grandiose thinking is derailing Obamacare at breakneck speed. Long after it has passed from the American body politic, Obamacare will be remembered as a Smithsonian-grade specimen of what happens when too much government smothers a manageable problem.
Well before the (un)Affordable Care Act became law, Obama complained in August 2009 that “in the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.” Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office forecastlast May that even if Obamacare suddenly became as efficient as Swiss Federal Railways, 31 million Americans still would lack coverage in 2023. So today’s unfolding health-care catastrophe will help — at best — just 15 million people. Given Obamacare’s ten-year outlay of $2.6 trillion, this equals $17,333 annually (or $1,444 per month) per net beneficiary.
Among the American workers whom the Employee Benefit Research Institute surveyed last September, 88 percent were somewhat to extremely satisfied with their health insurance. Why didn’t Obamacare just focus on the other 12 percent?
Atop its recurring inability to set priorities, Team Obama displays staggering managerial incompetence. HealthCare.gov is a $600 million–plus misadventure in computer science. Its dysfunction surely helped limit October’s Obamacare enrollment to just 106,185 participants — including a mere 26,794 in the federal exchanges — just 21.3 percent of Obama’s 500,000 monthly goal.
These sign-up figures include enrollees who have made premium payments and those who have placed Obamacare plans in their online shopping carts, but have yet to buy them. The latter group resembles a restaurant counting reservations as revenue. Such book cooking gets CPAs arrested.
Nevertheless, Obama considers this website novel.
“Just visit HealthCare.gov,” Obama said in the Rose Garden on October 1. “You can compare insurance plans, side by side, the same way you’d shop for a plane ticket on Kayak or a TV on Amazon.”
David Axelrod, Obama’s political guru, claimed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on October 28: “This is the first time in history that you can make an apples-to-apples comparison about health-care plans on line in front of you.”
Obama, Axelrod, and their ilk need to escape their bubble. Websites that long predated Obamacare already help Americans shop for health insurance as if they were buying books or albums. Indeed, if the people who brought us HealthCare.gov had listened to me, they would have saved America millions and spared themselves embarrassment.
“Websites like ehealthinsurance.com could become the cornerstones for a thriving, private, national health-insurance market,” I wrote in February 2010. “This is far more encouraging than Obamacare’s creaky, Washington-driven ‘exchange.’ ” Having prospered since 1997, ehealthinsurance.com is what HealthCare.gov wants to be when it grows up.
Imagine if Obama simply had offered vouchers, or Health Stamps, to America’s uninsured. Let’s say that needy individuals without coverage received $5,000 each to help them purchase insurance. Those with severe conditions could receive additional support. They then would have been encouraged to visit ehealthinsurance.com and similar websites. The uninsured could compare prices and buy whatever plans suited their circumstances. So post-menopausal women need not purchase birth control and maternity coverage, as Obamacare mandates. Childless male 23-year-olds would not be forced to buy pediatric dental insurance, as Obamacare requires.
At roughly 29 percent of Obamacare’s cost, or 71 percent off, this rational approach would have fulfilled Obama’s promise to cover the uninsured. Conservatives would have been pleased to see freedom and choice central to this arrangement. Those who liked their health-care plans could have kept their health-care plans. Period. And ehealthinsurance.com would have let America avoid the humiliation of launching an unworkable website as the whole world was watching.
Obama could have enjoyed all of this. Instead, and ironically, his massive, statist scheme has befouled the reputation of big-government liberalism — perhaps for decades.
— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.