By Jonah Goldberg

Published: Saturday, March 9, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Updated: Saturday, March 9, 2013

“What we've learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health care system to be run.”

That was Gary Cohen, director of the Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. He was talking about the apparently surprising need to halt enrollments in a program designed as a temporary bridge for people with pre-existing conditions who couldn't wait to be covered by ObamaCare when it fully kicks in next year. The program was allocated $5 billion but some estimate it would take $40 billion to fund the effort.

Such surprises are becoming routine. The New York Times has reported that many small and midsize firms might be opting out of ObamaCare entirely. “The new health care law created powerful incentives for smaller employers to self-insure,” Deborah J. Chollet of Mathematica Policy Research told the paper. “This trend could destabilize small-group insurance markets and erode protections provided by the Affordable Care Act.”

It turns out that ObamaCare actually makes self-insurance less of a gamble because you can always throw workers on public exchanges without penalty. Naturally, the administration's response is to look for ways to tighten the ratchet and make self-insurance harder. It's a typical response. The shortcomings of a wildly ambitious law only justify more regulatory strong-arming.

As Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes, The New York Times never paused to ask why it's OK that “a design flaw in the law somehow empowers” regulators to punish private employers. But this is typical of so much press coverage of ObamaCare; it's a given that it is the government's job to make sure the law is seen as successful, no matter what.

Although it's true that we collectively spent a lot of time shouting about ObamaCare, we spent precious little time actually debating it. Most of the media covered the discussion as if it were a spectator sport, with the Democrats the hometown favorite. And much of the remainder seemed to assume that health care reporting amounted to explaining why ObamaCare was a good idea. The facade of objectivity was often maintained by citing carefully crafted CBO projections that reflected political assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Reality is teaching the propeller-heads a lesson. Despite President Obama's promise that his plan would not add “one dime” to the deficit, the Government Accountability Office announced last week that it would more likely add 62,000,000,000,000 dimes (or $6.2 trillion) over 75 years.

Obama also promised that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Estimates for how many Americans will lose their existing plans vary. The CBO says 5 million to 20 million. The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. says about 30 percent of employers will push workers onto the public system.

And while the president rode to re-election hyping a mythical GOP “war on women,” incentives to drop spouses from employee coverage under his plan will only increase, a particular concern for mothers with small kids.

The good news is that if they keep their coverage, it will cover birth control pills.

Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of National Review Online, is the author of “The Tyranny of Clichés.”

1. NHL insider: Penguins’ Shero seems ready to move Letang
2. Mistrial declared in fatal shooting
3. Secretary hired in Charleroi
4. Mitch’s steals Fayette County win over Dunbar
5. It’s beginning to sound a lot like summer again on Plum Street
6. CLO brings ‘other’ Phantom to town
7. Conrad, Phillips share Daily News Softball Coach of Year honors
8. Crews working on roads in Mt. Pleasant Township
9. Penguins notebook: Pens talking with Dupuis’ reps
10. Former Pirate speaks at Kiwanis meeting
11. Area vice squad on alert

There are currently no comments for this story.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.