Costs are emerging as the biggest obstacle to President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to provide health insurance for everybody.
The upfront tab could reach $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, while expected savings from wringing waste and inefficiency from the health care system may take longer to show.
Isn't this what we've been saying for months even during the campaign? Has the light bulb finally clicked on over the AP's headquarters?
When will liberals learn that the fantasy land that they live in never works when it meets reality?
Sure, universal healthcare sounds great until it's actually implemented. Just ask the Canadians.
The cost will be more than our government and economy can take. We need to find ways to lower health costs that will in turn lower insurance.
The first thing that they should do is limit frivolous lawsuits as much as they can, but trial lawyers are a big constituency of the Democrats. So, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Two senators have apparently seen the writing on the wall and are getting wary of the added financial burden of a universal healthcare plan:
"You go to a town meeting and people are talking about bailout fatigue," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. "They like the president. They think he's a straight shooter. But they are concerned about the amount of money that is heading out the door, and the debts their kids are going to have to absorb."
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said cost control has to come ahead of getting more people covered. "Unless we halt skyrocketing health care costs, any attempt to expand coverage will be financially unsustainable," he said.
Will Pelosi, Reid, and Obama be able to see the same writing and put a freeze their massive spending spree?
The AP had another interesting little nugget in the article:
The U.S. spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care, more than any other advanced country. Experts estimate that at least one-third of that spending goes for services that provide little or no benefit to patients. So theoretically, there's enough money in the system to cover everybody, including an estimated 50 million uninsured.
But one person's wasteful spending is someone else's bread and butter.
So, why is Obama and Co. wanting to spend more money? Maybe if they take out what doesn't work, they'll have enough to try to do some of what he proposes.
Unfortunately, I think those whose "bread and butter" is those wasteful programs have lobbyists in the goverments ears convincing them not to cut them out.
Isn't that what Obama promised to do, though? He promised to use a scalpel on government programs and take out what is useless and wasteful. Maybe he should focus on that instead of thinking of raising taxes especially in this bad economy.