Fool me once, shame on you….

In his most recent article at the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove explains in great detail how Barack Obama told quite obvious lies about the stimulus numbers, only to pretend now that he didn’t really mean what he said.  (That’s the lying pattern I’ve told you about.)  The American people were good and fooled.  The question, of course, is whether they’re going to let themselves be fooled again into believing Obama’s health care numbers:

This fits a pattern. The administration consistently pledges unrealistic results that it later distances itself from. It has gotten away with it because the media haven’t asked many pointed questions. That may not last as the debate shifts to health care.

The Obama administration wants a government takeover of health care. To get it, it is promising to wring massive savings out of the health-care industry. And it has already started to make cost-savings promises.

For example, the administration strong-armed health-care providers into promising $2 trillion in health savings. It got pharmaceutical companies to promise to lower drug prices for seniors by $80 billion over 10 years. The administration also trotted out hospital executives to say that they would voluntarily save the government $150 billion over 10 years.

None of this comes near to being true. On the promised $2 trillion, everyone admits that the number isn’t built on anything specific — it’s an aspirational goal. On drug prices, a White House spokesman admitted that “These savings have not been identified at the moment.” It is speculative that these cuts will actually be made, when they would begin, or whether they would reduce government health-care spending.

A month ago, I would have said that a compliant media would simply spin things for Obama again, with a credulous American public going along and footing the bill for its own destruction.  Despite the fact that the media is still shilling for Obama, at least as to the little things, I’m not absolutely sure that media members (who also pay taxes) are as willing to shill for the bigger things.  Two signs that they might not are Obama’s increasingly (and steadily) negative polling numbers, and somewhat belated articles from the MSM admitting that his budget numbers don’t add up.  I’m not dancing jigs yet, especially with that “60” in the Senate, but I’m allowing a faint hope that the juggernaut might be slowing down.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    It is speculative that these cuts will actually be made, when they would begin, or whether they would reduce government health-care spending.

    Oh, they’ll be made. You can save a lot by letting those over 80 die. “Voluntary” or not euthanization. Elimination of babies, reduced support for pre-natal care or low birth infants.

    That’ll really save the state some moola.

  • Ymarsakar

    The limitation of all conquering bodies is logistics, logistics, logistics.

  • BrianE

    It seems an obvious question. Why can’t the drug companies cut prices $8 billion a year and the hospitals cut costs $15 billion dollars a year sans health care reform?
    While assuring the public that government run health care won’t reduce access or limit services, the savings touted to pay for this universal lite plan are supposed to come from cutting the administrative overhead in the “public option” versus private insurance companies.
    According to proponents, Medicare administrative costs are 2% while private insurance companies are 15-30%. They claim since Medicare is so much more efficient, these savings can pay for increased coverage.
    Only according to recent studies, Medicare administrative costs may actually be higher.

    Expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs makes Medicare’s administrative costs appear lower not because Medicare is necessarily more efficient but merely because its administrative costs are spread over a larger base of actual health care costs. When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.
    I think the public knows intuitively that nothing the government does is ever cheaper than they claim it will be.

  • nosiafd

    I would expect these promised cuts will of the Obama type, promised but not delivered, probably because “things are worse than we expected”.

  • Al

    At some point, some harassed, overworked, Zantac popping hospital administrator of a small western Ohio health care system will cry “The Emperor has no hospital gown.”, and the laughter, and real change, will start.

  • Ymarsakar

    and the laughter, and real change, will start.

    I think it would be more like the Queen of Cards in Alice’s Wonderland.

    The manic and insane laughter will promptly lead to the execution of the one who shouted such blasphemy.

    Which I believe was also what happened to the crowd around the Emperor in that little allegory. Any sufficiently capable and ruthless narcissistic megalomaniac would have done no less than to kill everyone in the crowd, women and children included.