‘Mooooooon River!! *POP* Whew … ever serve time, Doc?’

Drop your pants, turn your head, and cry — if it passes, the Democrats’ plan for health care reform could be a painful experience for us all.

With any luck, I will have the pleasure of introducing a new contributor this week, a man who will provide America’s Right with some much-needed expertise with regard to all things health care. I am exceedingly excited about the prospect. So as not to step on his toes while still being sure to point out the cost to America of the health care reform bill currently before Congress, I wanted to highlight some of the Congressional Budget Office’s cost estimates of the Ted Kennedy-sponsored legislation.

Without getting into too much detail–again, toe-stepping–I do think that Americans should watch for the White House to continue to argue that the legislation closest to their design is different than that proposed by Kennedy and know that, if anything, Kennedy’s could be less expensive than the Obama plan.

What we’re seeking here, though, is a plan which will cause the United States of America to incur more than $1 trillion in debt in order to expand insurance coverage for an additional 16 million people. That’s 16 million out of the 46 million uninsured often touted by the left — a number which should be skewed because it includes illegal immigrants and people who can afford health care but choose not to.

Anyway, here’s some excerpts from the CBO report examining (1) the budget outlook under current law, (2) the likely budgetary effect of efforts to expand the scope of insurance coverage, (3) the potential for reducing health care spending, (4) the likely impact of specific changes in the health system, and (5) mechanisms for engendering efficiency gains in health care over time. The full report can be read HERE. Some selections (emphasis mine):

The federal government’s budgetary commitments to health care (including both spending programs and tax preferences) total more than $1 trillion in 2009. Many proposals to significantly expand health insurance coverage would add to federal costs by providing large subsidies to help lower-income individuals and families purchase insurance. Such proposals could permanently boost the government’s budgetary commitments to health care by something in the vicinity of 10 percent. Improving the long-term budget outlook would require addressing that added cost in addition to the budgetary strains anticipated under current law. Health care legislation might include provisions that would make it budget neutral over the first 10 years, but such legislation might nevertheless add to budget deficits in later years.

In other words, the real cost will not begin for another two years, when that real cost to skyrocket into the multiple trillions of borrowed dollars. Folks, it’s important to remember that this is a bell that we can simply never un-ring.

Many experts believe that a substantial share of spending on health care contributes little if anything to the overall health of the nation.

Throughout this debate, it seems so easily forgotten that our health care system is already the envy of the world. But this administration has no problem spending money we simply do not have in order to reduce the effectiveness of the system for everyone in order to add a tiny fraction of the population to the rolls.

Therefore, one broad long-range approach for reform that has drawn interest recently would combine specific policy actions–to generate near-term savings and provide experience that would lay the groundwork for future savings–with a mechanism or framework to impose ongoing pressure on the health care system to achieve efficiencies in the delivery of health care. That path would require tough choices to be made, and its effectiveness would depend ultimately on the willingness of federal policymakers to maintain significant and systemic pressure over time. Without meaningful reforms, the significant costs of many current proposals to expand federal subsidies for health insurance would be much more likely to worsen the long-run budget outlook than to improve it.

Unless I’m reading things wrong, it sounds like the CBO is advocating changing the current system only so much so that delivery of health care is more effective. That’s it. No sweeping reforms. No public options. None of that malarkey.

Regardless, it is vital to keep in mind as this debate rages on that government-run healthcare is the missing link the the evolution of an all-powerful centralized federal government. By bearing health care costs, the government will be in a better position to regulate every single aspect of our lives, from the airbags in our vehicles to the amount of trans fats we consume, to second-hand smoking in wide open fields.

As disastrous as it may be, legislation like Henry Waxman’s cap-and-trade bill can be undone. Obamacare? Not so much, and it alone is enough to flatline our economy and halt the spread of ingenuity, technology and talent which makes the American health care system the best in the world.



  1. Anonymous says:


  2. Gail B says:

    I'm still reeling from the Jobs Lost chart from the other day.

    Today I received an email from "President Barack Obama" pushing the health care. There was a link for questions. (They should have known better!)

    I asked where the money was coming from to pay for this, because we are OUT of money.

    Also, I ask why, if anyone in the White House really knows what he's doing because the job loss rate has risen from about 1 million to 8 million just five months, since Obama has been in office.

    And, I said that global warming was a HOAX designed to line certain people's pockets.

    The reply I received thanked me for my interest in the health care proposal and went on to explain more about it. As the email was from "President Barack Obama," I didn't believe any of it anyway. He's waltzed around his words too many times.

  3. tm says:

    This whole plan is to hire more bureacrats and spread some economic justice. The $1.6 trillion figure only covers 1/3 of the uninsured. Guess who they'll be….who they need to stay in office – ILLEGALS. This financially will break the US. On a personal note, my physician for twenty years says if this passes he's out, done. He also informed me, in time there will be a shortage of doctors.
    This is a nightmare.

  4. NEWT says:

    1964 was followed by 1965, in which Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California. Two years later we began a 40-year period in which no overt liberal won the presidency.

    In 1977, Jimmy Carter's popularity on inauguration day was higher than Barack Obama's. But in 1980, Ronald Reagan won a decisive victory and changed the course of America.

    In 1993, they said Bill Clinton was creating a new, stronger Democratic Party.

    In 1994, the Democratic Party suffered its worst defeat in 40 years.


    This MUST be stopped, one way OR THE OTHER.

  6. Rix says:

    The American healthcare might be "the envy of the world" but it is plagued by two horrors: malpractice lawsuits and pharmaceutical development costs.

    Speaking of the former, the Usurper made it abundantly clear that he does not plan to deprive his ABA brethren of the diamond mine which is malpractice litigation. That, in turn, results in insane insurance costs, massive ovetesting and stunted medical progress. No wonder the country of law turned into the country of lawyers! Giuliani, I believe, was the only presidential candidate who supported tort reform – that, I believe, was the reason why he was the most hated and feared by the Democrats despite his moderate social trends.

    As for pharmaceutical costs (to which my own humble salary contributes), there is plenty of overhead and waste to be cut. FDA, not like other governmental structures, imposes numerous restrictions and requirements that have very little to do with patients' safety and a lot to do with bureaucrats' comfort and ass-protection. The cost of compliance is passed to American consumers – that's why, by the way, drugs sold in Canada are so much cheaper even if they are developed in the US.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Obama wants to provide health care to all, but it has a price tag – a big costly one. There is however another price and that is the quality of the care you get. Even today doctors are limited in the amount of time they can spend seeing a patient by the insurance companies. With the new healthcare system it will be even less. You will not have any one particular doctor you see regularly who would become familiar with you personally and your medical history and family history. You will be assigned to the first available doctor. Sensitivity to patients needs will take a back seat to seeing as many as possible. The waiting rooms will be packed as many people who previously stayed home and treated minor problems will run to the doctor at the slightest sign of anything. If you develop a serious illness you will be evaluated on whether you are worth saving under this health care plan or you may be sent home to die or be medicated. the elderly and chronically ill will suffer more and be allowed to die to decrease the strain on the system. Hospital care will still not be available to many and to others who should be in a hospital they will not be able to get into the hospital or have to leave way too early. It is already happening because hospitals are crowded. Besides they kill more patients than desease. Many good doctors will not work under the system and may continue to provide exclusive care to the wealthy who can afford to pay them. The new system will be a nightmare and my sixth sense that alternative medicine will rise as people look for ways to stay healthy and stay out of this system.

  8. Rix says:

    > 1964 was followed by 1965, in which Ronald Reagan was elected
    > governor of California. Two years later we began a 40-year
    > period in which no overt liberal won the presidency.

    > In 1977, Jimmy Carter's popularity on inauguration day was
    > higher than Barack Obama's. But in 1980, Ronald Reagan won a
    > decisive victory and changed the course of America.

    > In 1993, they said Bill Clinton was creating a new, stronger
    > Democratic Party. In 1994, the Democratic Party suffered its
    > worst defeat in 40 years.

    There is one sharp, distinctive difference between the liberals of past and the Usurper. Misguided, stupid and/or self-serving as Johnson, Carter and Clinton could have been, you could absolutely count on the fact that they tried to serve America's best interest as they saw it. Quite contrary, Obama clearly has an agenda that sees this country merely as a stepping stone to Die Neue Ordnung. The Republic based on the rule of law will not just be tweaked to serve some political goal; it will be thoroughly dismantled and replaced by mob-based oligarchy. The closest example would be Israeli regime of 50-ies: complete economical and political domination of Labor party under the guise of multipartisan elections reinforced by massive state, union and community-based ownership of industrial and agricultural enterprises.

  9. Gail B says:

    You know what? If Obama's programs get put into place, they just might solve the illegal immigration problem.

  10. American citizen, 53, registered Democrat says:
  11. Anonymous says:


    You are right so much of the time, I hate to disagree with you. But if you read Progressivism in America by RJ Pastrito, you will soon learn that FDR was a HUGE progressive and a NWO promoter. As are Carter and Clinton. They are all the same, as are the Bushes.

    Lisa in TX

  12. Rix says:

    Lisa in TX,

    I am no big fan of Clinton or, especially, Carter. The first was a slick, self serving bastard and the other a naive moron. Both have plenty of dirt on their hands and caused significant damage to the country's economy and freedom. I do believe, however – even though my belief could be misguided – that neither of the two intended to change the regime, eradicate capitalism or undo the sovereign power of the USA.

    I am not so sure with FDR and JFK, though. The damage caused by FDR's New Plan was so massive and so obvious that I refuse to believe that the measure was not intentional. As for JFK, it was him who paved the road to mob-based oligarchy Obama is now shaping. When – if?! – the theater of political correctness stops, I hope that the role of these two Democratic presidents in US history will be reevaluated, like that of Russia's Lenin and Stalin was.

Speak Your Mind