ObamaCare - Rhetoric meets Reality

Charles Krauthammer :

. . . As both candidate and president, the master rhetorician could conjure a world in which he bestows upon you health-care nirvana: more coverage, less cost. . .

President Obama premised the need for reform on the claim that medical costs are destroying the economy. True. But now we learn -- surprise! -- that universal coverage increases costs. The congressional Democrats' health-care plans, says the CBO, increase costs on the order of $1 trillion plus.

In response, the president retreated to a demand that any bill he sign be revenue-neutral. But that's classic misdirection: If the fierce urgency of health-care reform is to radically reduce costs that are producing budget-destroying deficits, revenue neutrality (by definition) leaves us on precisely the same path to insolvency that Obama himself declares unsustainable. , , ,

This is not about politics? Then why is it, to take but the most egregious example, that in this grand health-care debate we hear not a word about one of the worst sources of waste in American medicine: the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system? . . .

But the greatest waste is the hidden cost of defensive medicine: tests and procedures that doctors order for no good reason other than to protect themselves from lawsuits. . .

Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health-care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers.

Read the whole thing.

Obama sets up a strawman when he suggests that Republicans want to do nothing. Though Congressional Republicans have not been particulary good at presenting comprehensive alternative plans. They're acting like a party with no power, which is true in Washington. But the Republican Obama is sending to China as ambassador introduced a better plan for Utah.

Kathleen Parker:

Compared to what's being trotted around the Asylum on the Hill, Utah's bipartisan reform project sounds downright dreamy. Simple and geared toward the consumer, it was designed under the operating principle that Americans are capable of making their own decisions, whereas the Obama plan presumes that only government can solve the problem.

Government has a place, to be sure. But as Huntsman and his team have demonstrated, government's best role is in creating mechanisms for people to help themselves.

Personally, I like the idea of Medical Savings Accounts, tax deferred, along with catastrophic insurance. If people keep themselves healthy, they are rewarded by having a little extra money for retirement. Even with traditional insurance, individuals and groups outside the workplace should be able to get the same tax breaks on health care costs as are available with employer-provided health care coverage. Tort reform and other changes can help a lot, too.

Update Mark Steyn on President Obama's recent media over-exposure: "Stars don't shine in sunlight."

On the Other Hand: President Obama still seems to retain some magic, mostly among people who have very noble intentions. Angry libertarian rant here concerning those who would help Congress to rush through a bill that nobody has read and analyzed throughly, which will dramatically affect everyone in the country, and eventually the world. Principle involved: Government compassion toward one group (i.e., the uninsured) leads to less compassion toward other groups (i.e., those with chronic diseases). You have to read a lot of rant to get to that principle, though. Perhaps not the best way to change hearts and minds.

The Obama Administration's "Organizing for Health Care Blog" quotes the Washington Post:

...The all-out ground and air war is broadly understood as a fight for the hearts and minds of the American public but is more rightly seen as a battle for the votes of the 100 members of the Senate. (These two strands are interrelated; public opinions does tend to sway political positioning -- particularly on issues as controversial as this health care plan.)

So much for a new administration "bringing America together".