David Harsanyi

The White House says it has a "messaging" problem when it comes to health care reform -- as in a "you're-not-buying-our-message" problem. And this week's news, to say the least, was no help.

You'll remember that one of the most common and potent rationales for passing reform was the claim that insurance companies routinely deny coverage to innocent Americans with pre-existing conditions.

Obamacare features a $5 billion program designed to stem this profit-ridden epidemic. And to ensure vibrant participation -- by both those legitimately in need and those who couldn't quite grasp the theory behind "insurance" -- 65 percent of premiums are subsidized by taxpayers.

But as The Wall Street Journal reported this week, even with generous inducements, since July only 8,000 people -- rather than the White House's projected 375,000 -- have signed up for a national program that is theoretically going to add another 400,000 citizens in each upcoming year.

Perhaps advocates confused their own dismal view of American ingenuity with reality. But I'm not worried. If this administration excels at anything, it's giving away stuff. No messaging problem there. And the Department of Health and Human Services has promised to cut premiums by 20 percent more and enhance benefits to encourage enrollment.

In other words, we have another $5 billion relentlessly searching for a problem.

You'll also remember that President Barack Obama promised Obamacare was going to immediately alleviate some of the pain of rising premiums for businesses. This week, we learned that 111 waivers had already been granted by the administration to those threatening to drop coverage for tens of thousands of employees they can no longer afford to cover. Others across the country, such as AARP (sweet schadenfreude) and Boeing, were forced to raise their premiums, in part because of Obamacare.

Sixteen of the waivers, you won't be surprised to learn, were granted to union-based plans, which confirms that the sleaze-addled bill became a sleaze-addled law. Why, after all, should a few chosen companies be granted dispensation while others subsidize them?

The administration argues that these waivers are necessary only until reform takes effect in 2014, at which time workers will enjoy a wide range of approved options. Now, clearly anyone gullible enough to believe that a giant invasive regulatory scheme is going to spur competition and choice is already working for the administration. But even if we were to suspend our disbelief, how does any of that comport with the president's claim that we can all keep our insurance if we like it? (Answer: not well.)

David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of "The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy." Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.