The President’s silly health care announcement

The President spoke about health care in the cross-hall today, flanked by the heads of several major health lobbying groups (“trade associations,” in Washington vernacular):

  • hospitals — the American Hospital Association (“AHA”);
  • doctors — the American Medical Association (“AMA”);
  • insurance companies — America’s Health Insurance Plans (“A-Hip”);
  • the drug manufacturers — Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“Pharma”);
  • the medical device manufacturers — Advanced Medical Technology Association (“AdvaMed”); and
  • health care worker unions — the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”).

The President announced,

[T]hese groups are coming together to make an unprecedented commitment. Over the next 10 years — from 2010 to 2019 — they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.

This is one of the sillier White House announcements I have seen. Let me draw a sports parallel.

Imagine if the mayor of your nearest big city were to hold a press conference with the General Manager of the city’s Major League Baseball team. The Mayor announces that the GM, working with the coaches and players, has committed that he will work to develop plans for the team to hit the Mayor’s new goal of winning 40 more games this season than they otherwise would have won. Those plans will improve the team’s hitting, pitching, and fielding. The Mayor also announces that the manager’s plans, combined with the Mayor’s new policy initiative for better parking at the stadium, will make fans happier and help the team win more games.

Baseball fans would reply, “Great, I’m all for it.” They might then ask a few questions:

  • What do you mean the GM “will develop plans”? Doesn’t he have any specific plans yet? How will he improve hitting, pitching, and fielding?
  • How are we supposed to verify that the team won 40 more games than they otherwise would have, since we will never know how many games they would have won?
  • Other than picking the number 40, why is the Mayor involved in this press conference? What does the Mayor’s new parking initiative have to do with the coaching changes, and how will the new parking initiative help the team win more games?
  • If this is such a good idea, what has changed to make it happen now? Is the Mayor claiming that his persuasive powers alone are worth 40 more wins? Why didn’t the GM make these changes before?

The only substance to this announcement is that the manager agreed to the Mayor’s target of winning 40 more games.Everything else is fluff or unrelated.

The same questions apply to the President’s announcement today. The letter from the provider groups says:

We will do our part to achieve your Administration’s goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual health care spending growth rate — savings $2 trillion or more. … To respond to this challenge, we are developing consensus proposals to reduce the rate of increase in future health and insurance costs through changes made in all sectors of the health care system.

Not “We have developed proposals and here they are,” but instead “We are developing consensus proposals.” So today the groups actually announced (1) that they accept the President’s quantitative goal, and (2) they will work together to reach that goal. Neither the interest groups nor the Administration announced any substantive plan to achieve the goal.

The letter from the groups states some warm-and-fuzzy non-specific ideas:

  • Implementing proposals in all sectors of the health care system, focusing on administrative simplification, standardization, and transparency that supports effective markets;
  • Reducing over-use and under-use of health care by aligning quality and efficiency incentives among providers across the continuum of care so that physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers are encouraged and enabled to work together towards the highest standards of quality and efficiency;
  • Encouraging coordinated care, both in the public and private sectors, and adherence to evidence-based best practices and therapies that reduce hospitalization, manage chronic disease more efficiently and effectively, and implement proven clinical prevention strategies; and,
  • Reducing the cost of doing business by addressing cost drivers in each sector and through common sense improvements in care delivery models, health information technology, workforce deployment and development, and regulatory reforms.

This is the parallel to the baseball manager saying he will improve the team’s performance by improving their hitting, pitching, and fielding. Everyone agrees that it makes sense, and everyone wants to know how he’s going to do it. The same applies here. Without specifics, these are empty promises. Nothing in this list is concrete enough to translate into specific actions by anyone.

The letter does urge some increased spending on health care, for “health promotion and disease prevention to reduce the prevalence of chronic disease and poor health status, which leads to unnecessary sickness and higher health costs.” This is a repeat of a common health policy fallacy — that increased government spending on preventive care will reduce overall health expenditures. While it is true for specific individuals, it is generally false for the population as a whole, because you end up spending money on preventive care for people who would not otherwise have gotten sick. The Congressional Budget Office takes a skeptical view toward the claim that this will save money, at least in the 5-10 year short run.

The second problem with the announcement is that it is unverifiable. We obviously cannot wait ten years to test the claim, and countless other factors will have changed during that time, making it impossible to know what the growth rate would otherwise would have been.

The third problem is that there is no obvious linkage between today’s announcement and the government, much less the President. Today the President said,

Their efforts will help us take the next and most important step — comprehensive health care reform — so that we can do what I pledged to do as a candidate and save a typical family an average of $2,500 on their health care costs in the coming years. Let me repeat that point. What they’re doing is complementary to and is going to compatible with a strong, aggressive effort to move health care reform in Washington with an ultimate result of saving health care costs for families, businesses and the government.

The President is attempting to claim credit for savings that (a) do not yet exist, (b) are not backed up by any specific changes in industry practices or government policies, and (c) are related to him only in that the groups announced they were adopting his quantitative goal. For all three of these reasons, the President’s claim that these savings will materialize is wildly unrealistic, and it is absurd to attach a per-family savings number to it. This is like the Mayor claiming credit for the 40 additional wins now, and telling fans that he will be responsible for the team winning the pennant. No one should take these claims seriously.

This artfully constructed sentence misleads:

What they’re doing is complementary to and is going to be compatible with a strong, aggressive effort to move health care reform in Washington with an ultimate result of saving health care costs for families, businesses, and the government.

If the groups had specific plans to change industry practices to hit their new quantitative goal, then those changes in private-sector behavior would save money for families, businesses, and government.

The President deserves credit for proposing some modest changes to Medicare and Medicaid that would slow the growth of government spending, although not nearly enough.

But the President has not yet proposed any policy changes as part of “health care reform in Washington” that would save families or businesses any money. He has proposed government spending increases that would improve the information available, but has proposed no changes to the financial incentives that people or firms have to use that information.Information by itself won’t significantly slow the growth of health care spending. You need incentives as well. (The Congressional Budget Office agrees.)

While the President’s announcement was silly and meaningless as a policy matter, it is tactically significant as the legislative battle over expanding taxpayer-financed health care heats up. The health insurance companies were a major industry opponent of HillaryCare in 1993-1994, and it appears they are trying to ingratiate themselves with the new President. Similarly, the drug manufacturers, who have historically aligned themselves with Republicans, are doing everything possible to get on the President’s good side. They want to share in the spoils of increased government spending on health care, they want to avoid being the political and policy targets of legislation, and they see no political downside to supporting a popular and powerful President with Democratic supermajorities in both the House and Senate.

Today’s announcement was about a budding political coalition that could support the President’s legislative push. Nothing more.

Posted in budget, health Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
32 comments on “The President’s silly health care announcement
  1. Gad Levin says:

    Hi,

    I enjoyed your analogy.

    What is your opinioin regardign Orzag’s announcement that the deficit is much larger than (he) expected?

    • Steven Hales says:

      The bulk of the savings are in the out years and they do nothing to significantly bend the curve we’re still at about 18% of GDP in 2019 rather than BAU of 20%. We’re looking at a federal budget of over $5 trillion in 2019 add to that about $2 trillion of private spending on healthcare then between the government and healthcare we have over $7 trillion of spending. But nominal GDP should be at about $23 trillion by then so we should be able to afford it. But we’ve done nothing to reduce the burden of healthcare on the average citizen we’ve only made it worse at a slightly lower rate, 1,000 cuts rather than 1,001. Who are we kidding.

  2. Allan says:

    Hrumph.

    They have to start somewhere. And it is a positive that this is going on in the open.

    No, there are no plans, but that is to be expected. I hope there will be plans. If none are forthcoming, I expect that you will vilify the adminstration, and rightly so. I also expect that you will be against whatever plan the administration offers.

    Sports teams do this all the time to pump up their fan base. Coaches at the end of one season say they will do better the next, after the draft and after trades. But they have no plan at that time. Fans can take it for bluster. But fans can also talk about what they want and give their opinions as opening day draws near.

  3. Trouble says:

    I am glad to see the “lifestyle interventions will save money” fallacy being debunked, finally.

    We had a whole unit on this in pharmacy school 25 years ago. There are many advantages to longer, healthier lives, but cost savings isn’t one of them.

  4. happyfeet says:

    I don’t think it’s fair to expect actual proposals and stuff especially not before the media can explain what all of this means for me and my family. We’ll find out tonight on the tv and everything will be fine. You’ll see.

  5. MarkJ says:

    This just goes to show that Obama’s achilles heel can be found in one simple word:

    “How?”

    When enough people start asking Lord Zero, “How?”…that’ll be the beginning of the end for him.

    Obama: “New! Improved! With twice the vapidity and incompetence of the leading political bargain brands!”

  6. Some antitrust guy says:

    Cough…price fixing…cough.

  7. CS says:

    The more exact parallel would be an announcement that the team would slow the rate at which it would lose more games than the year before–1.5 percent of the delta.

    This seems to be a preemptive move by the (c)(6)s. As many have pointed out, the administration seems be involved in a giant two-step: first get coverage, then control costs to pay for it. That route very possibly would entail letting employers drop group plans for a fee (presumably less than the coverage cost, levied to pay for universal coverage) and the establishment of a quasi-Medicare subsidized payer. That would crush AHIP, of course, and face providers, labor and consumers (read seniors) with widespread and progressive cost controls and crypto-rationing.

    With this phony-baloney initiative, the TA’s avoid damage at the front end and have ten years to fight cost controls at every step. Everybody wins but taxpayers.

  8. Billy says:

    Reminds me of when Bush stood up there with the mortgage bank representatives to announce their voluntary efforts to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure. I would have preferred a government-created plan with oversight, rules and consequences.

  9. D says:

    Brought to you by the Ministry of Silly Walks.

  10. Steev says:

    Real reform will need to be more than 1.5% per year…or we are doomed. Health care cost reductions of 50% are what is needed. Unfortunately this is not doable because there are too many people earning a living on health care. We need a machete not a scapel. Get rid of the need for the practice of defensive medicine will likely save a ton. Get rid of advertising for drugs…no other country allows this, why should the US? Start paying based on diagnosis related groups to all parties. Get rid of conventional Medicare (fee for service) will help, other wise Medicare is definitely not going to exist. Signicantly reward people who meet can meet standardized height-weight tables. Open up the markets…have all American’s buy their insurance online. My belief is that the end result will likely not be much more than 5-10% initially, because the very same companies who are to lose are the ones that paid for the law makers re-election. I have zero faith that anything significant and definitely anything long-term will result unless a machete is brought in dismantle most of the present system. But I do admire Obama for doing something.

  11. Bruce Hayden says:

    # Reducing over-use and under-use of health care by aligning quality and efficiency incentives among providers across the continuum of care so that physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers are encouraged and enabled to work together towards the highest standards of quality and efficiency

    One thing that is never mentioned here, likely because those spouting off don’t have a clue, is that this is currently impossible. Medicine is as much an art as it is a science. And it is extremely hard to compare the care given by one provider with that of another. For example, maybe one guy in a specialty orders more of a certain type of test or procedure than another guy in that specialty. Is he less efficient? We don’t know, because we don’t know his patient mix. It could just as easily be that he is treating sicker patients. Diagnosis codes aren’t much help here, since their granularity is fairly gross, plus some providers do up-code for just this sort of situation.

    And, since the Obama Administration is filled with lawyers (including Obama and Biden), it is no surprise that one of the major driving forces behind over-prescription of testing and procedures is the possibility of malpractice suits. I have little doubt that malpractice juries are not going to give a lot of credence to a defense that “best practices” as defined by the government justified skipping tests that might have detected whatever caused the injury being litigated.

  12. Barbara says:

    I don’t see how you can dub thisone the silliest. Closing Gitmo in a year… Greg Craig will tell you how as soon as he’s figured out a process. Stem cell research has many ethical considerations that Obama has wrestled with…NIH will figure all that out. In Obama’s world, it’s all about process, primarily the process of coming up with a plan to hit phony targets. My personal fave is that without the Stimulous Bill, the unemployment rate would go as high as 8.9 per cent!

    Whoops.

  13. Don says:

    A few simple questions before we wholesale change 20% of the US economy…
    HOW MUCH will it COST me and my family??
    And what services will we receive?
    I already KNOW what I get, and what I pay.
    To change, I would need to receive MORE for LESS..
    Otherwise, why enact any change?
    Make sense?

  14. JR says:

    The Chicago Annenberg Challenge established by Educator/Terrorist William Ayers, and for which Obama was a founding director, seems to have been a prelude for Obama’s “visionary reform” style of governing the spending of other peoples’ money — although on a more modest level of a city’s education system compared to health, energy, and education policies of the entire nation.

    For the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama and Ayers had “only” about $100 million dollars to spend on their social laboratory for educational reform in Chicago.

    But now, at least thus far, Obama has tapped into trillions and trillions in deficit spending for his national experimental lab.

    One of the criticisms identified in a post-mortem on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge: combining broad goals with vague strategies.

    For the full review, see:

    http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=60

    The grade, as found by the above review: expenditure of a hundred million dollars by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge did not make a significant difference in improving educational programs it funded as compared to programs that it did not.

    Sound familiar? The full report on the successes, failures, and lessons learned from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge under the governance of Ayers, Obama, and others makes interesting reading as a thorough assessment of Obama’s only foray – prior to assuming the presidency about a hundred days ago – into responsibility for directing expenditures of enormous sums of someone else’s money to advance the social goals of Obama and his pals.

    Now, the entire nation gets to watch (and finance) Obama while he directs — with “broad goals and vague strategies” — expenditures of trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars, with skyrocketing deficits far into the future, to finance his own national social laboratory for the reform of energy, health and education.

    As described above, he pretends that his broad goals and his vague strategies will succeed as measured by scales that are even more amorphous than his strategies, and in fact totally meaningless.

    The dice are loaded and ready for the suckers’ bets.

    JR

  15. Michael Kogan says:

    Your post is silly since the criticisms here can be applied to any announcement by any President, past and fututre – of course it will not be specific and of course it will be full of platitudes and taking credit, etc.

    But the quote below is significant:

    adherence to evidence-based best practices and therapies that reduce hospitalization, manage chronic disease more efficiently and effectively, and implement proven clinical prevention trategies

    That is pretty major and fairly specific and different from the current practice

  16. Scott Riley says:

    Allan writes: “No, there are no plans, but that is to be expected. I hope there will be plans. If none are forthcoming, I expect that you will vilify the adminstration, and rightly so. I also expect that you will be against whatever plan the administration offers.”

    Given Obama’s thuggish intervention with the automakers, we should probably hope no plans are forthcoming. No plans are better than bad plans, and Barack Obama, a statist, is probably genetically barred from endorsing any plan that (a) gives Americans choice in health care while (b) not forcing other Americans to pay for it. Doing (a) but not (b) leads to rationing, loss of choice, and collapse in quality. Besides, why should I pay for your healthcare, and why should someone else pay for mine. This is an overriding moral issue, to which Obama is blind.

    Allan also wrotes: “Sports teams do this all the time to pump up their fan base. Coaches at the end of one season say they will do better the next, after the draft and after trades. But they have no plan at that time. Fans can take it for bluster. But fans can also talk about what they want and give their opinions as opening day draws near.”

    If management of the US healthcare system were a sport, you might have a point. Alas, it’s not. The right to decide *and* provide for one’s healthcare choices is inseparable from human liberty. I want to make my healthcare decisions on my own (and only my own) terms. There is no “team” aspect to this problem. I do not want my healthcare choices to be determined by what any other actor does or does not do. I certainly do not trust any part of the US government to know better than I do what is good for me.

    What Obama will propose will not honor these principles. Obama has no innate understanding of human liberty, which is a combination of choice and responsibility. Obama only seeks power. This is why it is instructive to see what Obama is doing and will do with GM and Chrysler. First, the bailout. Then the takeover with the strong-arm tactics. Then, when people just don’t want to buy cars subsidized by the government, there will come the coercion to do so. This is inevitable. Obama wants to herd us into government-run healthcare.

    Obama knows best, according to Obama. In his mind, we should forget about liberty and just be grateful he’s president and can give us goodies. He’s the important thing, not the free market system, not the United States Constitution, and certainly not the wisdom of the ages. Obama knows best.

  17. Dotar Sojat says:

    Since the Canadians won’t be able to come here for timely care, because it will be rationed, and since lots of Americans will be looking for a place to get timely care, because it will be rationed, the solution is for entrepeneurial health care companies to establish modern fee for service hospitals and clincs in the Carribean, staffed by expat Canadian and American doctors and nurses. Air carriers will step in with cheap shuttle flights, hotels will spring up if not already there. If you need your hip replaced, you can just hop on a plane and go get it done, instead of waiting Gaia knows how long. Off shore insurance companies will sell health care insurance for major medical procedures (not for every office visit). As the health caare system of the US becomes more like Canada, and then like Britain, the Carribean will be the only place to go. I exclude Cuba, which is already a health care paradise.

  18. Allan says:

    Scott,

    About those sports metaphors, I was just pointing out that Keith’s metaphor was broken.

    And you seem not to want plans, but Keith wants plans. I don’t know which side to argue. I guess I want plans, but I want to know that all stakeholders have a seat at the table and that the process is open.

    As for the “thuggishness”, I am not so sure. After 8 years with Bush/Cheney, culminating with the treasury bullying the banks, Obama is a breath of fresh air.

    I really don’t think Obama has been a bully. Yes, he played hardball with GM, but do you really think that any other president would have done differently? Well, maybe Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.

    People have different ideas about liberty. Your liberty is another person’s slavery. Give the ideas a chance. Maybe they will work, if not, we surely will see a revival of the Republican Party.

  19. Melfort says:

    Allan,

    Please explain at some length how my liberty is another person’s slavery. I am very interested in how my making my own choices places another person in chains of bondage, and who this other person is… If you can string together even a few logical implications in this endeavour I promise to look really hard in 0bama’s press release for these “ideas” I’ve heard so much about.

  20. Steven Hales says:

    The savings are ludicrous. The following table shows the savings are trivial

    Year Business as Usual President’s Proposal Savings
    2010 $2,644,132 $2,619,188 $24,945
    2011 $2,802,780 $2,750,147 $52,633
    2012 $2,970,947 $2,887,654 $83,293
    2013 $3,149,204 $3,032,037 $117,167
    2014 $3,338,156 $3,183,639 $154,517
    2015 $3,538,446 $3,342,821 $195,625
    2016 $3,750,752 $3,509,962 $240,790
    2017 $3,975,797 $3,685,460 $290,337
    2018 $4,214,345 $3,869,733 $344,612
    2019 $4,467,206 $4,063,220 $403,986
    Cumulative Costs/Savings $34,851,767 $32,943,862 $1,907,905
    Cumulative Percent Savings 5.47%

  21. Steven Hales says:

    We could begin to lower the rate of spending on administrative costs by forcing all providers and insurers including Medicare and Medicaid to use the same coding system internally and externally. (This is a way to emulate a single payer system in a multipayer framework) (BTW insurers add about 6 to 7 cents in healthcare costs because they are subject to adverse selection and prefer to be cream skimmers or they attempt to. Simple adjustments to the type of insurance offered would reduce the risk of adverse selection.) At the same time we need to force providers to implement cost accounting to align prices with costs, price transparency. These reforms would force hospitals to abandon their chargemasters and begin to do business like other businesses. These reforms could save as much as 20 cents of every healthcare dollar and eliminate the cost inflation related to administrative costs. This is all low hanging fruit waiting to be picked by smart regulators (do we have any?). It would eliminate the cottage industry of code matching and make shopping for healthcare possible. It would eliminate discriminatory pricing. These reforms would naturally move providers to pay attention to price for performance as their prices would be easily discoverable and comparable. Together with other reforms of health insurance underwriting to implement true catastrophic policies. These policies from individual insurers could be reinsured above some excess and the risk further spread out. I would have been impressed if Obama had made such a proposal but he kowtowed to the industry and got them to forego a meager cumulative 5.5% of future revenues. They must have high fived eachother on the way out.

    The difficult part of cost containment and cost trajectories surrounds the diffusion of medical technology and new surgical procedures as well as new pharmaceuticals. This is where everyone’s ox gets gored including the patient. If we remove incentives to innovate we may contain costs and reduce healthcare cost inflation but kill people in the process. However, is there a middle way to avoid the cost increasing aspect of medical innovation? I think that is the difficult question and another one that the big O refuses to face. He’s refused the low hanging fruit why should we expect him to drink the apple smoothie on the high shelf, fear of brain freeze? (I am waiting for the cartoonists to picture him as a little boy without a clue, what a newbie.)

  22. t jefferson says:

    What a bunch of “USEFUL IDIOTS”: trade associations, labor unions. They are just so many fat pigs lined up to feed at the socialist trough. They will be the 1st to be made into ham to grace the tyrant’s table.

  23. rjsgso says:

    Dear Mr. President,

    We promise to behave from now on. Please, please, please, don’t make us lose our profit machine. We’ll curb costs, and look out for the consumer, we promise. We promise we’ll keep costs from rising as much as they have been.

    We like the “preventive” care model, where we sell health care to healthy people, that doesn’t even require RESULTS. We’d like to get away from the “disease treatment” model and just refuse care to all those low-life’s who get sick since they obviously didn’t pay enough attention to the “prevention” part.

    Oh, and please don’t ever mention “SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE” because it really doesn’t support our marketing model at all.

    Sincerely,

    The “Health Care” Industry.

  24. Jelloman5000 says:

    This just in from the ballplayers:

    Players state, “Insired by the GM’s plans, we will now give a full 110% effort as compared to what we might have given in absence of the GM’s plans.”

  25. Obama is supposed to be a smart man. Is he really stupid enough to write this drivel? Is this the work of a speechwriter?

    Presidents used not to have speechwriters? That was much better: they were forced to think, and we could see how they thought. Read Lincoln for inspiration—he wrote, and thought out, all his speeches himself. He even engaged in real debates with Douglas, not the idiocy the calls itself a “presidential debate” today.

  26. Vicki says:

    Health insurance just tells me what I can’t have in REAL Health Care and forces me to say “thank-you” while I pay them more than I could get my REAL Health Care. What a CROCK! This is Highway Robbery!

  27. David says:

    I would have assumed the pledge to reduce the rate of growth for health care means from the current level, not what it would otherwise be. However, that rate of increase has already been dropping fairly steadily from about 16%-18% in 2002 to about 10%-12% today. So a reduction of 1.5 percentage points every year for the next ten years would bring it to a negative growth rate. Also note that the providers’ letter states that the goal is to reduce the rate by 1.5 percentage points, but does not say “every year”

  28. Mary M says:

    What else would we expect from the Ministry of Silly Stimulus Packages?

  29. Scott Riley says:

    Michael:

    Are you under the impression that, prior to Obama’s election, actors in the healthcare marketplace did not adhere “to evidence-based best practices and therapies that reduce hospitalization, manage chronic disease more efficiently and effectively, and implement proven clinical prevention [s]trategies”?

    Medicare has been kicking people out of hospitals “quicker and sicker” for years. Yet, I note, Medicare is still going broke. The healthcare industry has been making incredible strides forward with respect to managing chronic illnesses since before anyone knew who Barack Obama was. And I suppose you believe that prior to January 20, 2009, healthcare providers stubbornly refused to implement proven prevention strategies? (Laughing)

    The Obama Cult will ignore any empirical rebuttal, of course, because it is an emotional universe where facts do not matter. But facts do matter in the larger world, and given that Obama’s signature achievement so far is the tripling of the federal deficit, the chickens will come home to roost in a particularly brutal way.

  30. Scott Riley says:

    Allan,

    I said “no plans are better than bad plans.” Surely, that much is inarguable. But if Obama’s plan was this: “My fellow Americans, because the government has shown a singular capacity to mess up healthcare (see Medicare, VA, Medicaid, etc), I think it’s best we let the market decide what healthcare products we should have,” I would heartily support it.

    But we know he won’t propose that. It would defeat his primary motive: the acquisition of power. Getting power is the elemental motive of Barack Obama’s career.

    And yes, Obama is a thug. He strong-armed bondholders to give up property rights in the Chrysler situation, and almost daily he is hounding someone he does not like. (Funny how he never hounds Saudi monarchs and Latin American tyrants!) I would agree than Bush did the atrocious things in the last months of his presidency. In fact, in his last term Bush spent like a drunken Democrat. But that’s beside the point. Obama is president now and I was talking about *his* behavior.

    Finally, you write “People have different ideas about liberty. Your liberty is another person’s slavery.” Orwellian cliches to the contrary notwithstanding, Allan, words have defined meanings that we can reference. It is not “liberty” for Allan to take Scott’s money so Allan can have the things he wants. It is not “liberty” to make people dependent on the government. Indeed, the chief form of bona fide slavery in the last century was socialist/statist strangleholds on economic decisions in most of the world–exactly the type of thing you suggest we should “give a chance” with respect to Obama on healthcare, auto manufacturing, and probably everything else. And I should point out that the various socialist panaceas of the last century were sold with the same siren song: “Don’t worry. The government will relieve you of those pesky choices and annoying responsibilities.”

    No thanks. We do not need to prove again that two and two can never equal five, just because people make themselves willfully ignorant of history and basic economics and refuse to open their eyes before buying the snake oil.

  31. Barbara says:

    People are already schlepping to India for all kinds of stuff, but the Caribbean sounds much better for any number of reasons: I think they can prescribe umbrella drinks for medicinal purposes.

    Gotta love Cuba. You can’t get paper plates in the Worker’s Paradise, but there’s a “doctor” on every block dutifully chronically your menstrual periods and who’s sleeping with whom.

10 Pings/Trackbacks for "The President’s silly health care announcement"
  1. […] HENNESSEY: The President’s Silly Health-Care Announcement. “The President is attempting to claim credit for savings that (a) do not yet exist, (b) are […]

  2. […] (1)January 2009 (2)December 2008 (1)November 2008 (3)October 2008 (1)September 2008 (3) Keith Hennessey says the President's health care announcement is silly. Keith's analysis starts as follows:The […]

  3. […] Keith Hennessey has somewhat to say on the matter as well. Share with others […]

  4. […] not as beefy as first thought. A bit silly, […]

  5. […] conservatives were merciless: calling the whole charade “silly” and asking, “Where’s the beef?”  And libertarian Megan McCardle summed up: Obama’s […]

  6. […] photo-op with industry groups on healthcare “reform” was anything but a watershed. Keith Hennessey sums it up: The President is attempting to claim credit for savings that (a) do not yet exist, (b) […]

  7. […] the health-care industry to cut $2 trillion in costs over the next decade, or 1.5% year on year, Keith Hennessey figured he’d heard this before … and so had the President.  If nothing else is […]

  8. […] And of course the $700 billion in spending would be very likely to happen, while most onlookers were very skeptical about the “2 trillion” actually ever being saved. […]

  9. […] being told that health care organizations have promised to reduce their costs by 1.5 % every year. This is not true. They said they would try to reduce costs by 1.5% by […]

  10. […] unintentional elevation of the actually honest CBO Director makes that harder than usual.  Anyone who thinks they have a deal should be careful.  If these bills implode, all bets are off, and the probability escalates that […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>