Pork takes a backseat to baloney
Pork is the preferred metaphor in Washington for misspending. But last weekend, pork took a backseat to baloney, which was present in abundance as President Obama and House Democrats tried to convince the public—and themselves—that their takeover of one-sixth of the economy is going to improve health insurance and the availability of medical treatment.
The biggest laugher was the promise to save $500 billion (the current annual cost of the Medicare program) over the next 10 years by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. Democrats used to accuse Republicans of wanting to bump off seniors when they proposed Medicare reforms. Now that they claim to be doing it, they declare themselves righteous.
As Lloyd Brown writes for the website American Thinker, “Medicare cost $3 billion in 1966. In what it called a conservative estimate, the House Ways and Means Committee that year projected Medicare would cost $12 billion after inflation by 1990. The actual cost in 1990: $107 billion.”
Medicare costs doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980 because the population grew older and politicians added more promises. Politicians want us to believe that their inability to control spending and add-ons is over and that they’ll go on the spending wagon while still protecting the elderly. Puh-leeze!
In remarks to the House Democratic caucus, President Obama claimed the bill would reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion. He must know that isn’t true because the money “saved” from Medicare cuts will go to pay for new spending. Only in Orwellian Washington can money be saved and spent simultaneously.
Addressing critics of the bill, President Obama said no one is “going to pull the plug on Grandma.” They won’t have to. The opposition believes that Grandma will be denied treatment because she’s too much of a financial burden on government. It’s called rationing. Is that why the president emphasizes sick children? Will children be the only ones to get the most—and best—treatment? Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel has said government has a right to decide how many healthcare dollars you are worth. And if children with a lifelong taxpaying potential are worth more than Grandma who is taking more from the tax pot than she is contributing, too bad for Grandma.
The president also said the bill will save money by requiring only one test by the doctor “not five tests.” But what if the first test doesn’t reveal the nature of an illness? Suppose a cancer is hiding in one organ and the test is for cancer in another organ? A second (or fifth) test might reveal the location of the disease, but under Obamacare, a government bureaucrat will allow just one test.
The president promised again that “you can keep your doctor.” But the doctor might retire because he or she can’t afford to accept reduced fees mandated by government while paying ever-increasing premiums for malpractice insurance to protect him or her from lawsuits, which, by the way, is another reason so many tests are ordered.
Government-run healthcare has been tried in Massachusetts—and it’s a disaster. According to Peter Suderman, associate editor at Reason magazine, “since 2006, the cost of the state’s insurance program has ballooned by 42 percent, or almost $600 million. According to an analysis by the Rand Corporation, ‘in the absence of policy change, healthcare spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state’s gross domestic product.’”
Insurance costs in Massachusetts are the highest in the nation and double-digit rate increases are expected again this year. Yet, President Obama claimed Saturday that under the Democrats’ plan, rates would go DOWN. How is this possible? The only reason Massachusetts hasn’t become insolvent is because of large transfusions of cash from Washington, which perpetuates the illusion the program works.
As for Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak’s deal with President Obama for an executive order banning federal funds for abortions, laws trump executive orders. Stupak caved; so much for standing on principle.
President Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln, who said he was “bound to be true” and suggested that he, too, was bound to be true. This legislation is so full of budget gimmicks, tricks, and lies that the only thing true is that it will make healthcare in America worse, not better.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services Inc.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top33 Comments to “Pork takes a backseat to baloney”
Stupak caved in his quest to make the restrictions worse than Hyde.
On the other hand, he capitulated to truth. The DEM bill always preserved the principles that Hyde expresses — no more, no less.
It’s time for Evangelical politicians to drop their false pretenses, deceit, and dishonesty about the restrictions on abortion. They’ve been fighting specters and caricatures of their worst fears, not the real provisions of HCR.
But when did these masters of post-modern politics ever care about truth?
Report comment to moderator
My teenager tells me one of the reasons she wants to become a doctor is so she can take care of us when we’re old.
I wish I didn’t suspect we’re going to need her.
Report comment to moderator
“Democrats used to accuse Republicans of wanting to bump off seniors when they proposed Medicare reforms. Now that they claim to be doing it, they declare themselves righteous.”
And they’re lying through their teeth. There’s gonna be so much corruption it ain’t funny. The way they’ve started off with all their lying, you KNOW it ain’t getting any better.
Report comment to moderator
As has been pointed out elsewhere (thanks JJF) the Mass. health care program has actually resulted in a reduced rate of abortion, while in the rest of the country that rate has risen.
Now, its only one data point (as I pointed out elsewhere) but if you are going to use that one data point to extrapolate how ObamaCare will affect insurance rates (and how much it will cost), then you can’t immediately turn around and dismiss the abortion statistic.
If it can’t be explained away, and you conclude that a system like the one in Mass. would actually reduce abortions on a national level, then how can you really oppose it? Are you going to elevate all financial arguments over the lives of children? I recall during the leadup to the 2008 election many articles from evangelical leaders defending the notion of being a “single-issue voter” when it comes to abortion.
If that’s your single issue, and you put stock in the data from from the Mass. “experiment”, then I feel like you kind of need to be behind ObamaCare. On the other hand, if you don’t think the Mass. data is reliable, then you can’t really use it to extrapolate how much ObamaCare will end up costing.
Re: the medicare figures, it would be interesting to know the following (which I haven’t been able to find via google):
1. What population was projected to be covered by medicare in 1990 vs. the actual covered population?
2. What rate of increase in the overall cost of health care did they assume vs. the actual rate?
3. What rate of inflation did they assume vs. the actual rate of inflation?
At the end of the day, that it ended up being “way more expensive than projected” doesn’t mean it was necessarily a bad idea. Take it away and you get seniors because they can’t afford expensive treatment and/or medications.
Report comment to moderator
This bill redistributes wealth from those who play by the rules to those who do not. It does nothing to attract more or better health care professionals to this profession. It reduces incentives to attract good doctors. It will be especially hard on specialists. It may do nothing to improve health-care itself or expand it to those who need it, despite promises. But one thing it is sure to do is expand and empower the IRS so that its intrusive demands will be enforced upon Americans with the threat of punishment, imprisonment or violence to our freedom and rights as working citizens. It creates a new tax on life itself. It will pour in federal money (which we must print out of whole cloth) to the tune of tens of billions to increase the IRS by about 17,000 to go after American citizens who prefer to take personal responsibility for their own health. Such citizens will be taught a severe lesson for presuming to take responsibility for themselves choosing their own risks.
We keep hiring more gov’t workers while punishing and diminishing America’s work force in the private sector who actually provide the funds to government. This is unsustainable and smart Democrats know it. This means that Democrats who are smart are also dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
This is fear mongering, plain and simple. It’s what Cal does best!
Report comment to moderator
First off, Stupak caved because Obama had the votes to pass the bill and Stupak pulled off his last option to prevent abortion from being funded. It will not be effective but Stupak had no other choice.
#6
You call this fear mongering? It is simply the history of socialized health care in this country, so if socialized medicine is the equivalent of fear mongering, I am led to assume that you are a walking paradox as you said you supported socialized medicine. Cal just summed up the last 54 years.
Report comment to moderator
“Fear mongering” is a meaningless cliche used my many who don’t want to deal with the specifics or the facts. They only want to feel good in their childish illusions that the government will take care of them compassionately every step of the way whether they play by the rules or not. They prefer and believe promises from slick politicans whom they worship and trust them without wanting to check them with reality. So they often get rather angry at those of us who shake up their fell good utopian illusions.
Report comment to moderator
# 4 Can you substantiate your claim that the Mass Healthcare has resulted in fewer abortions? Can you lead us to the direct link between the two? THIA
Report comment to moderator
I am confidant in my beliefs and I know they are true. Keep crying ‘wolf’, though. I’m sure people will continue to buy it.
Report comment to moderator
I never did like baloney–not very palatable.
Report comment to moderator
Baloney always tastes like cold fat to me.
Report comment to moderator
#9: Stat is from a New England Journal of Medicine article. I can’t say I went out and counted all the abortions to make sure his numbers are correct.
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3178&query=home
One mitigating factor here is that we don’t know what the national trend was re: abortion over the same time period (2007-2009). So its possible that while the rate in Mass. decreased under their health care plan, it decreased at a slower rate than for the rest of the country. (We can’t know without abortion stats for “everybody else outside Mass.”)
Report comment to moderator
JOEL 8
good one
Report comment to moderator
MORE JOBS will be going BYE-BYE.
If companies don’t want to pay health care for all their part-time employees they will move overseas.
The companies who hired many part-time because they couldn’t afford health insurance too will now hire full-time, but fewer people and work them harder.
Soon immigrants, new citizens, will be looking at your job too–you had better learn Spanish.
Report comment to moderator
#9 According the the study NEJM study you cited, abortion rates have been declining for years. In fact, the decline was more substantial during the 1990’s than in more recent times. The study does not claim or substantiate any causal relationship between the introduction of health care coverage for abortions and the observed declining abortion rates. The only observation that is made in the study is that the introduction of health care coverage for abortions did not result in an overall increase in abortion rates for the affected population. However, even this observation does not distinguish between the contribution of health care coverage and other factors that are known to affect abortion rates. It would seem to be a dubious proposition to postulate any outcomes at the national level based on this study.
Report comment to moderator
They also tossed in a takeover of the student loan business. It will become fully government controlled. More baloney.
Report comment to moderator
#16: It does sort of demonstrate that any increase in abortions from that type of health care system is not large enough to offset the overall general decline.
In other words, it argues against a “sky is falling” reaction to ObamaCare re: the possibility of it increasing the abortion rate.
Report comment to moderator
It’s funny that the supporters immediately want to sidetrack any discussion of the merits of the bill by debating how well it restricts funding of abortions or whether it will actually aid the “pro-life” cause.
Really? That was hardly even mentioned in the article. How about the actual substance: None of the savings are real (since, it’s a “we’ll start doing those pay for it things later – Cadallac tax in 2018? Who believes THAT one? Besides, all that from “waste” in Medicare? Really? And no savings from this would ever go to the defecit anyway), it is likely to cost much much more than stated (using the examples of Medicare, Mass as starters), and that rationing is inevitable once you remove prices as a mechanism for distributing care.
Report comment to moderator
Early in his campaign, Obama broke his clear and solemn promise to not take any public financing. It was blatant, willful and cynical. But that’s long forgotten and forgiven. I have expected nothing but baloney from him ever since and that is exactly all we have ever gotten.
Report comment to moderator
Less abortions makes sense to me since there would be less healthcare of any sort but I’m not sure less dying babies outweighs more dying seniors and people with termanal illness. Also we can say goodbye to any more restriction of abortions now that they’re state funded.
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone know which states are opposing this? I haven’t been able to find a list.
Report comment to moderator
Esther – you have to go to the NEWS. Do you read news online, most people do – that’s where you’ll find the answers.
Report comment to moderator
Won’t pork protect us from Islamic terrorists? What will balogna protect us from?
Report comment to moderator
“Medicare cost $3 billion in 1966. In what it called a conservative estimate, the House Ways and Means Committee that year projected Medicare would cost $12 billion after inflation by 1990. The actual cost in 1990: $107 billion.”
This quote is irrelevant for today’s debate and serves only one purpose to mock and discredit without substance. The Cmmtte could not predict – the low inflation of the 50s and 60s would suddenly take off in the early 70s (an oil embargo, off the gold standard, and the dismantling of Bretton Woods), – the dramatic increase in the cost of medical equipment — and finally, the very success of medicare allowed seniors to live longer and thus increase the cost.
Report comment to moderator
The opposition believes that Grandma will be denied treatment because she’s too much of a financial burden on government. It’s called rationing.
Its what insurance companies do everyday — they deny treatment in order to achieve a profit. Who would you want to ration your care — a private company responsible only to its shareholders OR the gov’t responsible to the people.
Is that why the president emphasizes sick children? Will children be the only ones to get the most—and best—treatment?… And if children with a lifelong taxpaying potential are worth more than Grandma who is taking more from the tax pot than she is contributing, too bad for Grandma.
And I thought I was a cynic. If I was to apply this logic to private insurance companies I would claim they would be more interested in treating the old since young people will continue to cost the insurance companies money for a far longer period.
Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel has said government has a right to decide how many healthcare dollars you are worth.
Now there’s a credible source. Hey, I heard from a buddy who was partying with the Bush twins in Daytona that Bush knew there was no WMD. Not buying this line? so why should we buy Cal Thomas’ line?
Report comment to moderator
The president also said the bill will save money by requiring only one test by the doctor “not five tests.” But what if the first test doesn’t reveal the nature of an illness? Suppose a cancer is hiding in one organ and the test is for cancer in another organ? A second (or fifth) test might reveal the location of the disease, but under Obamacare, a government bureaucrat will allow just one test.
And how many test does a private insurance policy allow? What if the first test reveals an illness but the second test doesn’t? Will private insurers deny care?
Report comment to moderator
The president promised again that “you can keep your doctor.” But the doctor might retire
or might be run over by a bus, a nurse may go postal on him, he might slip on a banana and crack his head on a tile floor. Lets speculate some more.
Report comment to moderator
The most pressing issues today are:
1. Terrorist states like Iran on the brink of having nuclear weaponry — that have already called for the extermination and aniahilation of Israel and the United States. Also the continuing threat of jihadist terrorism globally.
2. The cripplingly high jobless rate in the private sector (which supports and funds its public sector parasite) we are facing, even as government jobs continue to increase, expand and gov’t raises and benefits go up and up.
3. The rising and inevitably destructive national debt. Monopoly money is becoming equal to gov’t printed money. National bankrupsy has never been more likely and more difficult to avoid.
But our total one-party-government leaders choose to hire 17,000 more IRS agents to enforce a wealth redistribution bill, in the name of health coverage and control, down our throats on a one-party-line vote full of sleazy bries and enormous political pay-offs with taxpayer money to make us all more dependent than ever on our gov’t masters.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Do you think its a way into a new agency? IRS arent sanctioned for it. Itll get shot down, thus a new agency with such jurisdiction will have to be created…
“they deny treatment in order to achieve a profit”
Then all we really needed was a one page law stating that health insurance companies are to be non-profit.
Whats obvious is that none of this is actually about lowering health care or actually helping the sick. It’s about politics, power, and greed. Thus baloney.
Report comment to moderator
Long gone are the people who actually cared about their neighbor, the Washingtons, the Adams, the Jeffersons, the Wilberforces, the MLK Jrs. We are saddled with greedy morons in office, and no real leadership.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s see, Jefferson kept slaves and “slept” with one of them.
(I don’t think “sleeping” creates children, but perhaps you sleep more creatively than the rest of us.)
Wilberforce was a prissy conservative who opposed slavery but was indifferent to oppression of workers and protection of civil liberties. (He would have fit right with worldmagblog.)
MLK Jr. was a horn dog who cheated on his wife egregiously.
They were just as fallen as you, Thorn. Your attempt to gild an imaginary past strikes me as very silly. But then, worldmagblog is the world headquarters of silly posting.
Report comment to moderator
I never said they were perfect Random. I fail to see how their personal failings deny the reality of their achievements?
I never said the best of leaders are flawless. My point is that they were not in it for their own glory, but for the benefit of others. They actually put their people first, and its why men followed them even despite their failings.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!