When President Barack Obama began to be dogged by endless replays of his “If you like your health care, you can keep it” sound bite, his loyalists insisted the president’s words had been misinterpreted. The fault likely lies with the president himself. What he clearly meant to say was, “Whether or not you like our health care, we’ll make you keep it.”

That’s the unmistakable message sent when the White House issued a veto threat last week for a bill sponsored by Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy that would allow Americans to maintain through 2018 health insurance policies that don’t meet Obamacare’s absurdly expansive coverage mandates.

These mandates are a key driver of health care costs. The economics at work are simple: The more services that must be covered by insurance, the higher the cost of the plans. When the law requires — as Obamacare does — coverage for substance-abuse treatment even if you’re a teetotaler or for maternity care even if you’re a single man, costs inevitably end up higher than they would be on a free market.

This misstep is indicative of a broader intellectual pathology on the American Left: the refusal to countenance economic tradeoffs. The progressive approach to insurance coverage is simple: More is better. It overlooks, however, corresponding reality: More is pricier.

One of the controlling rationales of Obamacare was supposed to be driving down health care costs, a noble goal. Yet the coverage mandates cut in precisely the opposite direction. Obama has responded to by dismissing more modest plans as “substandard” products. If the products were so deficient, we’re curious as to why millions of Americans freely chose them.

In an age of customization, Obama offers one-size-fits-all health care. It’s a visibly retrograde position. There are only two options for determining the scope of coverage: Decisions can be made freely by consumers — who are best positioned to strike the right balance between costs and benefits — or they can be dictated by government. Without the ability to factor in the circumstances and preferences of individual consumers, it’s no surprise the latter option leads to widespread unhappiness.

A rejection of the Cassidy bill would make explicit that public control of private decision-making is a bigger priority for Obamacare’s social engineers than actually giving Americans the health care they want. A sensible president would retract the veto threat. A sensible Congress would override a veto should it actually occur. A sensible electorate would turn against either for failing to do so.