President Obama made several trenchant points in his press conference last night. He offered a reason for public skepticism about his plan for health-care reform. Americans “haven’t seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that helped them,” Obama said. Too true. What’s they’ve seen, most of all, is a $787 billion economic “stimulus” that hasn’t done a thing to stimulate the economy.
The president also said: “If you don’t set deadlines in this town, things don’t happen.” Here again, there’s a measure of truth. But his deadline is this August for a health-care plan that won’t go into effect fully until 2013. And the part of the plan he emphasized last night, a panel of health-care “experts” to decide what remedies and medicines doctors should use–that wouldn’t be a activated until 2014.
So what’s the rush? Obama said the stars are “aligned” at the moment for passage. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agrees. She’s willing to delay the congressional recess in August to pass the bill. Put another way, the most unpopular national political leader in America is willing to keep Congress in session to approve legislation about which the public is skeptical and isn’t demanding quick passage.
Obama strained credulity, to put it charitably, with a number of his statements. He insisted that insuring the uninsured will save money “in the long term.” Please. There’s not a chance of that. Once insured–with generous benefits set by government and largely paid for by taxpayers–the now-insured are bound to consume far more health care than they did when uninsured. It’s human nature.
And savings from eliminating wasteful health care won’t pay for two-thirds of his health-care proposal, as Obama claimed. These are the old “waste, fraud, and abuse” savings routinely cited by presidents. Even President Reagan promised such savings. The problem is they never materialize, as Reagan found out and so will Obama.
Obama talked about “skyrocketing” costs of Medicare and Medicaid and indeed those costs are rising. But he has yet to advocate specific cuts in those programs to curb their costs. Perhaps he’s waiting for his panel of experts to find them and take the hit for imposing them–after 2014, of course.
While we’re on the subject of the panel, if it’s enacted, it will decide which medical practices are wasteful and won’t make people “healthier,” not doctors, hospitals, or the “discriminating consumers” Obama said we need more of.
For the record, Obama’s $2.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade is entirely illusory. The figure is based largely on the utterly false idea the Iraq war would continue full-tilt, only now it won’t–thus the savings. The fact is, the war was won before Obama took office and was already winding down.
Meanwhile, the tax revenues Obama in his budget’s rosy scenario won’t be as nearly as large as he’s projected. The lingering recession is likely to wipe out Obama’s savings, imaginary or real.
Nor does Obama deserve the credit, which he claimed in the session with reporters, for stabilizing the economy. He helped, but it was the bailout of the banks last fall which were mostly responsible.
The president had two moments that would have been awkward, except the president didn’t appear to realize the contradictions he was embracing. He said letters from families whose health needs are urgent led him to seek passage of his health care plan now–a plan that won’t go into effect for another four years.
And remember when the president lavishly praised the health-care bill passed by the House? That was only days ago. Last night, Obama said he would only sign a bill that would reduce cost and cut the deficit. The House bill would do neither. Guess Obama will have to veto it.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
