The word from on high


No facts, please, I'm a Mets fan!

After he said such nice things to me earlier this morning I was considering sparing reader XYOUNT’s blood pressure by refraining from posting any nutty right-wing rants for an hour or two, but this article caught my eye and I can’t resist. Perhaps since it comes from the New york Times and quotes Demmerkrats, I’ll be forgiven.

Democrats, health economists express grave doubts over medical costs under ObamaKare.

WASHINGTON — As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama’s promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.


Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

But health economists say it is impossible to know whether the bills, including one passed by the House on Saturday night, would meet that goal, and many are skeptical that they even come close.

Experts — including some who have consulted closely with the White House, like Dr. Denis A. Cortese, chief executive of the Mayo Clinic — say the measures take only baby steps toward revamping the current fee-for-service system, which drives up costs by paying health providers for each visit or procedure performed. Some senators are also dissatisfied.


Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “The word from on high

  1. XYount


    I’m flattered that you think I’m a guy, if not one of your right-hanging guys. As Dorothy Parker said (prayed, actually), “Please, God, let me write like a man.”

    P.S. Blood pressure normal. Believe it or not, I’m on the fence re ObamaKara. IMO, the Messiah hasn’t healed anything yet, miraculously or otherwise. I fear he’ll be another Carter: nice guy, wouldn’t want to live there.

  2. '73Refugee

    Obama successfully navigated the Chicago political system. He’s not going to be a nice guy.

  3. Diva4ever

    I hope your readers read the full article. The upshot of the piece is that doctors need to lower their financial expectations (funny how the article neglects to mention the cost of medical school or what the average income of a US doctor is). Also, the writer sticks to the usual liberal spin that the US lags behind its counterparts in life expectancy and infant mortality rates (which are attributable to the way different countries calculate these rates).

  4. Riversider

    A great editorial from today’s WSJ that exposes ObamaCare for what it really is….

    The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let’s give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that “it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to.”

    Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. “The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment,” he writes. “Let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.”

    Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of “making the United States a more equitable country” and furthering the Democrats’ “political calculus.” In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

    This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, “Putting on my amateur historian’s cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted.”

    No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.