Well, the Democratic presidential candidates appear to be agreed on one thing: they will have to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts in 2010 to pay for their forays into government-run health care.
Actually, to our knowledge Sen. Clinton hasn’t said that she will repeal the cuts yet, but we think it’s a good bet. It’s the best way to appeal to class conflict with nebulous numbers postponed so far in the future as to minimize opposition.
Sen. Obama has suggested that his plan will only cost the government about $50 billion a year.
If that doesn’t sound like much to ensure everyone has coverage, that’s probably because you didn’t see the statement coming from his campaign claiming that his plan will save $200 billion a year—that’s “billion” with a “b”—by making the health care system more efficient and reducing unnecessary care.
Yeah, right! Taxing the rich won’t cut it; and saving billions of dollars by “increasing efficiency” is the rogue politician’s way of saying he or she doesn’t know how to fund the changes.
No one involved in health policy would deny that there is waste and inefficiency in the U.S. health care system. The question is how one makes it more efficient.
All three Democrats think they will do so with a massive new infusion of top-down government controls. And you can be absolutely sure that approach will increase costs and decrease efficiency.
So once Obama’s efficiency efforts don’t prove fruitful, he will be faced with a choice: increase the $50 billion per year in new spending or ratchet down on government spending to offset the unrealized $200 billion in savings?
We’re guessing a lot of both.
Let’s be clear: Democrats’ efforts to make health care reform one of their top domestic policy issues means that health care funding will dominate budget debates for years to come.
If the American people buy these proposals, they will deserve the health care they won’t be able to get.