Boston Globe Says ObamaCare Will Save Money... Later

More from the White House Summit On Spending Our Money -- The Boston Globe reports, wishfully, that expanding government programs to "provide health insurance to most Americans, ...could increase spending in the short term but would be designed to save money later." Nowhere in the article do they support that idea, with quotes or analysis. It doesn't even appear, at least from their reporting, that Obama even said that it would "save money later." Perhaps this is the nature of the post-Obama world of hope... people just imagine what he said or meant, and then vigorously agree with it.

I have written previously about some of the proposed health care plans that call for massive expansion of Medicare, and what this will mean for the country. Take a look at this chart from the Wall Street Journal, based on Medicare/Medicaid spending projections as a percentage of the economy:I have no idea how increasing entitlement programs will save anyone money in the long run, and the Congressional Budget Office seems to agree. Any attempts to justify greater government meddling in the health care market by appealing to cost-savings are absurd.

I wrote in November, after Obama was elected:
The first 100 days of a presidency are the most active, and therefore the most dangerous (at least in today's political and philosophical climate). I fear we will be hit with the devastating one-two punch of nationalized healthcare and disastrous carbon-capping environmental regulations. America is already staggering under the furious assault of Big Government, and I'm not sure she can absorb the blows coming in Obama's 100 days.
I haven't seen much that specifically addressed carbon-capping recently, but I think I was right about the one-two punch. It's just that the biggest punch was the nationalization of the banks and the "stimulus," with its related sucker-punch of smuggling in universal health care. This is day 35... I'm dreading the next 65 days.

No comments: