Barack Obama’s speech on health care tonight was a good effort to re-frame the debate and the issues, but ultimately was a non-starter because it relied on governmental powers of coercion, a public option as to which Obama will not back down, the illusion of no increased deficits but expanded benefits, all to be funded by the pipe dream of every governmental plan:
Government will find cost savings through greater efficiencies.
With a dose of taxes on high cost insurance plans and insurers, to fill in what efficiency does not.
$900 billion over ten years. Since the plan doesn’t start for 4 years, that’s $900 billion over six years.
Let’s see how the bill reads. The supporters of HR3200 said many of the same things, but the legislation was a monstrosity. A monstrosity that Obama was willing to sign into law had it passed Congress prior to the August recess.
A speech heavy on emotion, without noting the emotions of those who suffer when government inevitably rations care as costs escalate because people always want more of what is free. A speech laden with calls for personal responsibility by proposing a system which relies on just the opposite.
It will be an interesting fall.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. If you want to know how the devil is the details, take a look at my posts on the role of the IRS as the health care enforcer (I beat Byron York by weeks on that one), why the Democratic proposals should be called the Bureaucracy Expansion Act of 2009 , and my series of analyses of HR3200:
Throwing Darts at HR3200 – Day 7 (Don’t Wish Too Hard)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 – Day 6 (No Mulligans)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 – Day 5 (Cutting Hospital Readmissions)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 – Day 4 (Birth of a New Entitlement)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 – Day 3 (Cost Sharing Limits Gone Wild)
Throwing Darts at HR3200 – Day 2 (Enhanced Penalties)
Throwing Darts At HR3200 – Day 1
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You were right about mandates: (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/09/hillary-had-mandate-for-mandates.html)
From the speech:
"Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those — particularly the young and healthy — who still want to take the risk and go without coverage."
…
"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
Sounds like the mandates to me and straight from the horse's mouth!
Dems all seem to repeat that math error. The proof will be in the pudding of a CBO scoring.
If the Feds are so sure they know where there is enough money being lost through fraud and waste to cover the health plan, why has this been allowed to persist?
Also, be aware that in the Medicare lexicon, "fraud" may be claimed if a medical office visit is not "coded" correctly, whether or not there was intent to commit fraud. Obama's plan to "reduce fraud and waste" will translate into increased harassment of medical providers over paperwork errors, with fines and paybacks to Medicare. Actual fraud exists, no doubt, but don't believe there is enough of it to fund the grand new plan.
And what happened to the "Specifics" he was going to talk about? I just heard the same thing from him tonight that he's been saying.
Of course, I've only been hearing Charlie Brown's teacher whenever he opens his mouth for about three months now, so maybe that explains it…