ObamaCare enrollment was pumped up at gunpoint
I’ve always thought the spectacle of Obama and his humanoids touting enrollment figures for a program people are forced by law to participate in was a bit bizarre. Or, to put it another way, since people are marched into ObamaCare under the threat of punitive fines, and people are generally inclined to comply with laws even before they get hit with penalties for disobedience, isn’t it remarkable that enrollment is as low as it is?
It’s low even before discarding 15 or 20 percent of those “enrollments” as junk data, and further accounting for the sizable number of people who are dropping out of ObamaCare after open enrollment ended. (How do I know that number is sizable? Because the Most Transparent Administration in History adamantly refuses to report it.)
But there we were, on the eve of the VA and Bergdahl scandal hydrogen bombs detonating, watching Obama celebrate the success of what Senator Ted Cruz cleverly dubbed “the Broken Window theory of ObamaCare” – a little academic double entendre, for those who know their Bastiat:
Fresh evidence for the coercive nature of ObamaCare – and its near-total lack of competitive appeal to free citizens – arrives via a poll conducted by the Obama-linked Enroll America organization, which could not have been happy to see the results related by the Weekly Standard:
The poll asked those who bought Obamacare-compliant insurance to list the reasons why they bought it, offering 15 potential responses. The first and third most-common responses were (first) “It’s the law” (36 percent) and (third) “I didn’t want to pay the fine” (34 percent). Comparatively, only 23 percent picked “I wanted insurance for my family,” and only 19 percent picked “I could afford a plan.”
The fine was even more important in ensnaring the young, who are forced to pay artificially inflated premiums under Obamacare. The poll writes, “Avoiding the fine was more important to young adults (18-29),” as 42 percent of them gave that as a reason for enrolling. The mandate also “mattered more to Latinos,” as 41 percent of Latinos “say a reason they enrolled was because ‘it’s the law.’”
In all, the poll writes, “Individuals enrolled for many reasons, particularly the law/fine.” It adds, “As many as 40% indicate they might not have enrolled without the mandate.”
Jeffrey Anderson at the Standard asks the important question: “Is it really appropriate for the president of the United States to brag about having gotten millions of Americans to buy a product when the most common reason they gave for buying it was that they were compelled by his signature legislation to do so?”
That’s an interesting way to put it, because no, it is not appropriate for any American to celebrate the effectiveness of such a coercive policy. It’s a celebration of tyranny and control. The government, by definition, has a monopoly on coercive force, and a corresponding responsibility to use it sparingly and responsibly, not to compel obedience to the agenda of the Ruling Class, no matter how brilliant and compassionate they believe their agenda to be. It’s even worse when that belief is proven spectacularly false, as was the case with ObamaCare. But of course, if ObamaCare worked, it would not be necessary to march people into it at gunpoint… or amass gigantic slush funds to cover up its failure, as Anderson warns.
When forty percent of the participants say they wouldn’t have enrolled unless they were forced to do so, you’re not talking about a “success” for Barack Obama – you’re describing a defeat of the American people. We shouldn’t be losing battles against a government that should be subordinate to its citizens. We shouldn’t be using government power to beat each other into submission, instead of carefully safeguarding universal rights. And it’s ridiculous to describe ObamaCare with the language of “rights,” when so many of its participants fervently wish for the right to escape from it.
Update: Whoops! Better knock another 2 million off that ObamaCare enrollment number! The Associated Press reports that the computer system our genius President blew over a billion dollars to create managed to introduce “data discrepancies” in about twenty-five percent of enrollments, “creating a huge paperwork jam for the feds and exposing some consumers to repayment demands, or possibly even loss of coverage, if they got too generous a subsidy.”