Ron Hardin posted on July 20, 2009 00:00
Since taking office, President Obama has spent more money than anyone else in the history of civilization. In six short months, he has quadrupled the deficit and national debt and he has no plans to stop anytime soon. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director, Doug Elmendorf, confirmed what the White House’s critics have long known. Neither of the health care reform bills in Congress will result in the deficit-reducing savings that are central to B. Hussein Obama’s arguments justifying them. Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee, Elmendorf was asked by Democrat Senator Kent Conrad, “From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?” Elmendorf responded, “No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” To put it simply, none of the cost-saving benefits touted by the White House are possible with either bill currently considered in Congress. Yet, the administration is undeterred and adamantly claims that the government takeover of healthcare will reap enough savings to cancel out its minimum price tag of $1.5 trillion. Before skipping down a yellow brick road to health care rationing, Americans should step back and consider the trillions already wasted on impossible promises.
In June, the unemployment rate rose to 9.5% as the economy shed another 467,000 jobs. Unemployment continues to rise well beyond the 8% level that February’s stimulus package was supposed to keep it from rising above. The White House didn’t even act surprised over the apparent impotency of their nearly $1 trillion economic “stimulus” package. Facing questions regarding the 2 million jobs lost since the stimulus passed, Obama explained that it was always designed to be a two-year plan. In the wake of June’s jobless numbers, Obama suddenly realized an often cited criticism of the legislation that the bulk of funds weren’t scheduled to be paid out until well into 2010 and beyond. Even though the administration is very adamant about their newly defined original intentions, their explanations of its failures don’t exactly mesh with reality. This makes it really difficult to trust their extremely rosy figures regarding health care reform.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Frank Barnes recalls the sense of urgency used by the administration to sell the public on the pressing need to hastily pass the stimulus. While addressing this in February, Obama explained, “If we do not move swiftly to sign the [stimulus] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe…Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care.” Barnes accurately describes the president’s tone as “apocalyptic.” These aren’t exactly the words used to create support for a plan that was “a two-year plan all along” as Obama now claims. Speaking before the stimulus bill had passed Congress, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag
reassured Americans that the bill’s promised results including “creating or saving” 3.5 million jobs, mostly in the private sector, would “take only weeks or months” to have an impact. Barnes also quotes White House economic advisor Larry Summers who explained, “You’ll see the effects almost immediately.” If the stimulus was originally crafted to be a two-year plan the administration either wasn’t aware, or if they were, they weren’t sharing that detail with the public.
Now that the promised benefits aren’t materializing, the administration is asking Americans to take another $1 trillion plunge on claims of huge savings that can’t be verified by any source, including the White House. The administration’s sudden revision of the stimulus bill’s stated purpose won’t help them win supporters for their efforts to force the nation into another fiscal leap of faith, especially when the next proposal involves inserting government into some of their most personal decisions.
From the outset, B. Hussein Obama has promised that anyone currently satisfied with their private insurance plan will be allowed to keep it. The only effects they would experience would be lower medical costs. Who could oppose that deal? However, while the president’s promises are bright, the reality of his plans is unclear. The White House says that preventative care, streamlining medical records, and appointing a committee to determine the cost efficiency of various treatments will yield far more in savings than the $1.5 trillion minimum outlay. Yet, despite the claims, no other government-run health care program in the US or abroad has experienced the savings being promised. Currently, the UK’s effort to create a national database of medical records is years behind and billions of dollars over budget. Obama’s theory contradicts the advice of a New England Journal of Medicine article from last year that warns against “sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention” and “Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.”
Biden summed up the White House’s frustration at the CBO’s findings when he explained, “So even though we know we’re going to save a lot more money than we’re given credit for that we’re going to save with this health care plan…But, we’re not able to prove it yet, because all those studies showing it, it’s not scorable.” 
Americans are just supposed to trust that even though the CBO, private analysts, and other governments aren’t able to accurately verify the mere existence of Obama’s theoretical savings, the same administration that expected the stimulus to take effect within weeks or months of its passage is miraculously going to suddenly be capable of figuring it out. It’s apparent that the administration and Democrat-controlled Congress shouldn’t be trusted to design this plan alone. So far, the plans exclusively drafted by Democrats haven’t exactly panned-out as promised. It might be a good time to try out that bipartisan approach that candidate Obama spoke so highly of leading up to November.
Despite Obama’s promises otherwise, the creation of a public health option at the center of Obama’s plans would drive over 200 million Americans currently privately insured onto the newly-created government-run plan. If the administration and Congress are so certain of the ability of government to manage all aspects of the health care of hundreds millions of Americans, call and ask them if they will pledge to enroll themselves on the plan they create if the experts’ predictions are right and their constituents are forced onto against their will. It’s doubtful that any of the politicians supporting these plans would be willing to sacrifice their own gold-plated insurance programs in favor of the new public option. Their health care is far too important to trust to government bureaucrats. I’ve already sent the request to Senator Claire McCaskill. Anyone want to bet whether or not she’ll accept the challenge? Hopefully, none of her constituents will be forced to either.