I do have a caveat, however. I do not think you can extrapolate the same costs for the 46 million uninsured that you get by averaging the cost of the 43 million on Medicare. The latter group are by definition the elderly and the former group comprised about a third or the quarter in the 18 to 30 year old bracket who are much cheaper to cover. Otherwise I agree with you.
My original question was, is there any justification whatsoever for Obama claiming that they can wring two thirds of the cost out of price tag for putting 46 billion people on the insurance rolls? I noted during his town hall meeting today he did not reiterate that the Congressional Budget Office had confirmed this projection although he did indicate, very unconvincingly, the savings could be had by coordinating test needs and the like. Not a word, of course, about the unnecessary tests generated out of fear of negligence actions in the absence of tort reform. No word about buying insurance across state lines. Not a word about how to pay for the increased cost of insurance if pre-existing conditions are mandated to be covered. Only generalities. It is interesting that he conceded on the private option that if the government enjoyed competitive advantages it would indeed drive private carriers out of the market. He cited, for example, the government's ability to get cheap capital. But what about the government's employees? The health costs of those employees? Their pensions? It is simply impossible to set up a government agency on an even playing field with private enterprise; it must either require subsidies like the post office, or be utterly incompetent and corrupt like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyway, it is interesting that the president made that concession and it should be exploited by opponents.
I thought Obama was most effective in his closing argument that healthcare is ultimately bankrupted the treasury. He is right. The problem is that Medicare is a federal program a program which has no money in the till because the politicians cleaned out the drawer. Moreover, he touts Medicare as such a wonderful program that everybody loves, but not a word about the fact that the demographics have been running in favor of Medicare but those demographics are now turning as the boomers gray. So Medicare is a boogie man when he wants to cite the need to reform, and Medicare is wonderful when he wants to cite the need to reform his way.
I suspect fewer people watched this performance today and I suspect that each succeeding performance will have less and less impact on the debate.
