Something Worth Rebutting: David Axelrod's Message to the American People

On Friday, August 14th, a good friend of mine received an email from David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President. While unsure how I feel about the President of the United States disseminating mass political email messages to the American People, I have reasoned it incomparable to the poor taste of his appearance on George Lopez’ television show previews or his use of the word “wee wee” during a recent presidential speech on August 20th. Aside from his political modus operandi however, I find myself more perplexed by details of the message itself. In an effort to assure the American People that the President’s health “insurance” reform is not, as the Republicans have insisted, a veiled attempt at more government control, Axelrod inanely generates a list proving just that. The email details eight ways in which the government will regulate the manner in which insurance companies currently operate. Now, we all agree that some form of healthcare change must manifest soon if we are ever expected to emerge from this current system of exorbitant costs and defensive medicine. But what the President and Speaker Pelosi would have the American People believe is that their costly package is the only logical solution. The American People are not biting. If anything they are biting back, blind-siding the Democratic Leadership, in monumentally effective feet of grass roots citizen activism.
So what has the citizenry so restless? There are a number of problems with the President’s plan, a plan which evolves so regularly there now seems a swelling hostility on both sides of the isle. The Progressives’ frustrations aside, much of what has the Conservative camp up in arms can be found within the crux of Axelrod’s email. His message claims that the President’s package would end discrimination against pre-existing conditions. In his words, “Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.” At face value, this makes sense. Most Americans have either experienced this first hand or know someone else who has. That said Democrats have attempted to hijack this problem as a predominately Leftist concern though the reality is this has been an increasing concern among both political parties for some time. While the Right argue the immediate necessity of scaled back federal involvement, Axelrod insists on yet another government mandate. Just force the insurance companies to cover everyone. Problem solved, right? What the President is not saying is that forcing insurance companies to cover anyone at anytime will invariably raise premiums for all those currently insured. To add to the problem, insurance companies that will insure at any time and with more expensive premiums will also then discourage many from seeking coverage until the situation becomes absolutely imperative. This will invariably penalize the responsible insurance carrier who insures his/herself before the onset of an illness by increasing existing premiums to an even greater extent.
Axelrod continues. In the email’s second tenant, he promises an end to exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays. He explains that “Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.” First and foremost I find it preposterous that the President has the audacity to, at this financial juncture, fain any concern whatever for our out-of-pocket expenses. Our national deficit not withstanding, the laundry list of economic realities the Democrats insist upon ignoring is too exhaustive a catalog to detail in this article. Second, Democrats dismiss the reality, or right thereof, that Insurance companies are for-profit business who cannot be expected to operate in an organically free market capacity with even the current burdensome government involvement. Instead of allowing for an environment that fosters free market principals the Left insist upon incapacitating the insurance companies to an even greater extent with more regulation. Invariably, the companies will crumble under the pressure of exorbitant government mandates at which point the Progressives will decry the inadequacies of capitalism. It is what they have done to the oil companies, what they have done to the housing market and what they are attempting to do the automotive industry.

Axelrod goes on to claim that the President’s proposal will end cost-sharing for preventive care. He states that “Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.” It is an inarguable truth that early screening helps save lives. It is not however fact, nor even remotely a budgetary expectation that preventive screenings will save money. The Leftist argument goes that if it saves even one life we ought to do all that we can and from a purely moral standpoint any decent person would agree. But no where in the Constitution does it state that the Nation ought to bankrupt itself for the service of one life, nor would it make any good sense to do so. The Left often confuses the moral obligations of the individual with that of the governing obligations of the state, thus leading them and us down a never-ending rabbit trail of new and evolving government responsibilities. They insist that we cover all people for all problems at all times, utterly disinterested in the economic reality of an eventual insolvency crisis like that which exist in our current Medicare and Postal Programs. The budgetary consequences of the President’s healthcare plan seem lost even on those Democrats in my generation; a group of people currently and consciously paying into a Social Security System so badly in need of money they are very likely not to have access to it their old age.

In addition to the misinformation regarding preventive care costs, the President’s proposal assumes that all citizens would take advantage of regular check-ups and health screenings if only they had affordable access to them. But as it stands today, many insured do have access to fully covered mammograms and other preventive procedures. Does that mean they set the appointments and test for those problems? Most certainly it is does not and there are several more obvious reasons why. Some people do not want to be told to lose 40 pounds as a means for alleviating knee and joint pain. Others tend to ignore frightening realities by avoiding the necessary screenings and still others are simply too lazy to get around to it. Far too often, the Left get caught up in what ought to be rather than what is. Right or wrong, not all citizens care nearly so much about preventing serious illness as the Left would like to believe. To prove that point I need only reference the United States’ some 47 million current smokers. The reality is many costly medical conditions to include diabetes, chronic knee problems and lung cancer are the result of poor personal choices such as overeating, a lack of physical activity and smoking. If people are not interested in improving upon their existing bad habits, a free screening is not likely to miraculously compel interest in a healthier lifestyle. Moreover, using free preventive screenings to unearth all pre-cancerous warning signs would oblige every American to be tested. Unless Liberals are ready to round people up and drag them by gun point to their local clinic, the only exceptional feature of this mandate is going to be it’s price tag on yours’ and my premiums.

President Obama’s blast email is a feeble attempt to dispel the so-called “myths” surrounding his healthcare overhaul. The Democrats would like for the American People to believe that the only difference between the two parties is that one is for change and the other against it. In actuality, the principal divergence lies in the President’s desire for increased government control and the Conservatives’ determination to stand in defense of our founding principals of free market economics and individual liberty. Try as they may, there is no convincing the American People that the town hall protesters are organized mobs, a small faction of the population and not indicative of the national mood. The outrage over our leaders’ arrogance is palpable and the citizen outrage irrefutable. Moreover, endeavoring to dismiss the obvious citizen indignation with accusations of racism and Nazism is not only irresponsible, it is inherently unwise. As our Representatives return to the Hill in September and as President Obama’s word morphing continues, there is no doubt that the citizen activism will continue. If the President is as intelligent as even his opponents deem him to be, he will tune into growing national resentment lest he go down in history as America’s next one-term President.