A perfect
example is the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's genuflection
to his "compassionate conservatism," a marketing device
designed to prove that you can be conservative and compassionate
all at once. In this, he fell into the trap set by the political
left, which is baited with the deceit that only liberals are capable
of compassion. The assertion that conservatives can't be compassionate
is so loopy that it doesn't deserve response.
At any rate,
Bush's efforts to appease the self-anointed compassionate has
turned into a costly, miserable failure that even many of the
recipients of this unprecedented federal largesse--school administrators,
bureaucrats and teachers--hate, with good reason. It has failed
because the whole idea of a Washington-centered, top-down education
system was a disaster to start with. In pushing it, Bush swallowed
whole Hillary Rodham Clinton's it-takes-a-bureaucracy-to-raise-a-child
dogma, and is justly now getting criticized from the right and
the left. Giving Bush-haters the opportunity to say, "Nah,
nah, nah, you stink again."
Which brings
us to today's script: Medicare's new prescription drug program,
which provides the nation's seniors with federally subsidized
prescription drugs.
Republicans
were routinely blasted for not helping seniors pay their huge
prescription drug costs. No doubt seniors, as a group, are most
reliant on pharmaceuticals for good health and are, as a group,
least able to afford them.
Something
had to be done.
Bush overreacted
with a gigantic, budget-crushing Medicare Part D plan, which helps
seniors, rich or poor, pay most of their drug costs. Not good
enough; now after the plan took effect on Jan. 1, his critics
are lashing him again: It doesn't do enough, doesn't pay enough,
is too confusing, leaves out some people, has created a huge bureaucratic
nightmare, offers too many choices, blah and blah.
Traveling
in Florida, I discovered a good example of the "script"
in a front-page "news" story in the Florida Times-Union.
"In the early weeks of the program, the chorus of `we-told-you-so'
has crescendoed as pharmacists and seniors struggle with computer
problems, high drug prices and overwhelmed help lines." In
northeastern Florida, seniors must choose from more than 50 drug
plans, the story said, as if it was some kind of unreasonable
burden.
The lesson?
Damned if you don't offer a drug plan, and damned if you do.
As someone
who waded through the paperwork (for my mother, and as practice
for myself a year from now), I think the criticisms are overwrought.
True, when
you first approach the application process, it all seems overwhelming.
If you try to compare plans in tiny detail to weigh the best balance
of premiums, co-pays, deductibles and coverage, you'll soon be
splitting hairs, if not pulling them out. At this point, my mother
and I decided that we should just pick one. Once we went with
a plan, it was smooth sailing. The paperwork was super-simple,
the benefits good and costs entirely reasonable. And she now is
successfully receiving her medications.
You have
to understand that the enrollment instructions, found in mailings,
brochures and on the Internet, were written in anticipation that
seniors "wouldn't understand." No stone was left unturned,
no explanation overlooked, no option ignored. The more they explained,
the more complicated it appeared. The "complexity" was
the result of good intentions. And the criticism that seniors
have "too many choices" is condescending and stupid,
especially in light of the high value that today's culture puts
on "choice."
So here is
some news for those who demanded a drug program because it is
the compassionate thing to do, and who now are critical of what
has shown up: When you expect to enroll an unprecedented 30 million
people in a program in a matter of months, problems will happen.
Think about it: 30 million people. Reaching them, explaining the
details to them, getting them signed up without mistakes, constructing
the database, making it available to pharmacies all over the country.
I'd like
to see you try.
To criticize
this program a couple of weeks after it started because it isn't
flawless is soaring naivete, the kind that only comes from partisans
and media who believe government should and can solve every problem.
