#Obamacare: Smug liberal explains why those who lose their plans must sacrifice

Spread the wealth
”… I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” – BO, 10-12-08

I’ve seen a lot of “shut up and like it!” diatribes from liberals over this last few weeks, but this one takes the cake. Far leftist Paul Waldman at the reliably liberal American Prospect writes (bolded emphasis added by me):

Apparently, there was a meeting of the editors atΒ TheΒ New York TimesΒ op-ed page in which someone said, “You know how every time someone does a story about one of these Obamacare ‘victims’ whose insurance companies are cancelling their plans, itΒ turns outΒ they could do really well on the exchange, but no one bothers to check? We should get one of them to write an op-ed, but not bother to ask what options they’ll have.” And then someone else responded, “Right, don’t bother with the fact-checking. But we need a new twist. What if we find someone who’ll complain that the problem with Obamacare is that other people care too much about poor people and the uninsured, while what they ought to be doing is spending more time liking her Facebook post about her possibly increased premiums?” The editors looked at each other and said, “That’s gold. Gold!”

AndΒ thisΒ was the result. Written by Lori Gottlieb, a Los Angeles psychotherapist and author, it relates how she got a cancellation letter from Anthem Blue Cross and was offered a plan for $5,400 more a year, then had a frustrating phone call with the company. Did she go to the CaliforniaΒ health exchangeΒ and find out what sorts of deals would be available to her? Apparently not. She took Anthem at their wordβ€”you can always trust insurance companies, after all!β€”then took to Facebook, where she “vented about the call and wrote that the president should be protecting the middle class, not making our lives substantially harder.”

And here’s where our story takes a shocking turn. Instead of expressing what she felt was the appropriate sympathy, those 1,037 people on Facebook she thought were her friends but turned out just to be “friends” had the nerve to point out that the Affordable Care Act will help millions of previously uninsured and uninsurable people get coverage. Gottlieb was disgusted with these people she termed the “smug insureds.” And none of them even “liked” her post!

[…]

How terribly smug, to think that the fate of millions of poor people who will now get insurance is as important as the suffering of this one person who might have to pay more for comprehensive coverage, and also happens to have access toΒ TheΒ New York TimesΒ where she can air her grievances! If only it weren’t so “trendy to cheer for the underdog.”

Got that? It doesn’t matter that you liked your plan. It doesn’t matter that it was one you could afford. It doesn’t matter that you wanted to keep your same physician, same coverage. Β Doesn’t matter that Obama lied. You are “one person” and your wants and needs are not as “important” as the “needs” of the many, even though many of “the many” haven’t signed up yet, even though many of the “many” are opting for MEDICAID instead of another coverage option. Β YOU MUST SACRIFICE FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

Ann Althouse explains:

Gottlieb got seriously burned, but had she really never noticed this form of liberal disciplining before? It’s funny to act surprised that these people are suddenly “such humanitarians,” but she’s experiencing heightened awareness because $5,400 is so specific and real, and she, in her personal anger, made the mistake of thinking her “friends” (Facebook friends) were people of empathyΒ toward individual others. But sober observation should have taught her that left-liberals expect individual self-sacrifice for the good of the group.

Oh, yes, liberals looove sacrifice as long as they aren’t the ones having to do it. Β And they’re quite ok with theft, too, as long as it’s done by Uncle Sam.

Spread the wealth! It’s patriotic, didn’t ya know? :-w

(Via Memeorandum)

Comments are closed.