The Obama administration once gave us "man-caused disasters" for acts of terrorism and "workplace violence" for the Fort Hood shootings. Now it has trumped those past linguistic contortions by changing words to mask the Obamacare disaster.
The president and his advisors apparently knew long ago that millions of the insured would face cancellations or premium hikes once Obamacare would be fully implemented. Yet to get the 906-page bill passed, they had to convince the public of the very opposite scenario. So they repeated ironclad guarantees that no one would lose their coverage or doctors -- "period!"
Now the administration explains the deception by going after both the ethics of the insurers and the intelligence of the previously insured. That task required language to be altered. The newly canceled health plans are suddenly rebranded by the administration as "subpar." Only in autumn 2013 is the supposedly unaware public told that, years ago, "bad apple" insurance companies sold them "substandard" plans.
According to Obama, millions of Americans were once ignorant or uninformed, and thus will soon be pleased about their cancellations: "So the majority of folks will end up being better off. Of course, because the website's not working right, they don't necessarily know it."
By that logic, the legions of Obama supporters who desperately sought and won exemptions from Obamacare are not "better off" now, but those stuck with it will be?
The president was not through reinventing history. If Obama spoke untruths on more than 20 occasions in selling Obamacare, he also made a post-facto attempt to sneak a qualifier into his serial false promises: "What we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
But there is no record that Obama or his lieutenants had ever publicly said such a thing. The president's attempt to airbrush history is similar to the commandments on the barn wall in George Orwell's "Animal Farm." One day the commandment "All Animals are Equal" mysteriously appears rewritten with a new qualifier beside it, as if it had been there all along: "All animals are equal -- but some animals are more equal than others."
The New York Times -- which not long ago gave us the new term "white Hispanic" to de-emphasize the minority status of George Zimmerman in the Travyon Martin case -- is also guilty of Obamacare-speak. The Times rebranded Obama's untruths about Obamacare by simply declaring that Obama "clearly misspoke." Does the Times think a real estate agent "misspeaks" when he sells a two-bedroom house by falsely assuring that it is a three-bedroom home?