The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Saving More By Spending More

Text Size

Of all of the free passes that President Obama has gotten from the media, none is more egregious than their unwillingness to challenge him on the central argument he makes in pushing for an overhaul of the U.S. health care system -- that we can improve the quality of health care, pay to cover nearly 50 million additional people, and save money all at the same time. There is no actual, real life example, in which government has reduced costs by insuring more people.

In the 1990s, Tennessee launched the TennCare program to expand coverage throughout the state, and costs exploded. In 2003, the state comissioned a study by McKinsey & Company, which concluded that the program was "not financially viable" over a five year time period.

More recently, under the leadership of Mitt Romney, Massachusetts overhauled its health-care system, promising universal care at a lower cost with a program that closely resembles President Obama's campaign proposal. The result? The cost of Commonwealth Care has more than doubled from about $630 million in 2007, to a projected $1.3 billion in 2009.

A popular talking point among liberals is that other countries spend less on health care and insure everybody. Such analysts argue that those other systems are better because government health care programs have lower administrative costs than private insurance, and that the government is willing to say no to costly and unnecessary care. The problem is, that's an argument in favor of single-payer, or socialized medicine -- something which President Obama claims his plan isn't.

The bottom line is that Obama's argument that he's going to save the government money by insuring more people without rationing care, simply does not pass the most basic smell test, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

The fact that he's been more or less unchallenged on this point by the media is simply scandalous.

View all comments (2) | Leave a comment

hsr0601| 3.5.09 @ 12:50PM

War Do Not Go With Health;

The overall review of military budget framework based on the antiquated cold war, oil war is going to be imperative along with the review of contracting process, after that, the adjusted funding need to be redirected to the medical costs and peaceful purpose, I think. To be sure, sound mind guarantees healthy life.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 3:25PM

Perhaps, Philip, you should have taken a couple of more minutes and look at WHY this is occurring. First, there are a lot more people going to the doctor who have not gone before because they couldn't afford it. Well, you say, if they are poor, let them die of their maladies. Right? Secondly, there is a shortage of primary care physicians so individuals are being improperly given to specialists who cost more. Third, since most of these new patients have not seen doctors over the years, they have several problems, not just one. Lastly, the payment/review process is tremendously inefficient.

But then again, I don't expect to see real analysis here to solve the health care issue. Only a political stance confirming that Republicans are the party of "no".

Did you look at the reference I provided on the Taiwan health care system on the other blog? If not, here is the link again:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/77

Study up, Philip, and learn.