Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
Thirty-six percent (36%) of U.S. voters say cutting the deficit is the most important of the four priorities the president cited in a speech to Congress in February, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up from 32% in March.And, why?
At the same time, 24% rate health care reform as the most important of Obama’s priorities, down from 29% in the earlier survey.
But a growing number of voters (63%) – up from 54% in March - also see cutting the deficit in half as the goal the president is least likely to achieve.
Just after the president’s speech, 42% named deficit reduction as the top priority while 24% said health care.
Americans voters fail to see the utility of Obamacare. In other words: "What's in it for me?"
The last time Congress tried to overhaul the health care system, most Americans didn’t see any personal stake in it, other than possibly the rationed care the critics warned them about.
Today, White House officials gave another example of how they’re going to help lawmakers make a better case this time. They released a report predicting that most Americans’ income will go up if the federal government can get health care costs under control.
The report, “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform,” by the Council of Economic Advisers, predicts that the annual income for a typical family of four would be $2,600 higher in 2020 than it would have been without an overhaul — and nearly $10,000 higher in 2030. That’s because the increases in efficiency and lower deficits would help the economy grow faster than it would have otherwise, according to the report.
There is nothing but higher taxes and SLOWER economic growth as a result of Obamacare in the future and Americans know that the Obama Administration is spinning the issue.
There has been something very odd about the logic of the Democrats’ case on health-care reform the past few months. Rather than focus on access and the uninsured, as they have usually done and as Obama did during the campaign, they’re talking about their massive expansion of the government’s role in American health insurance as a way to save money, and focusing a lot of attention on the (unquestionably pressing) need to control health care costs. The trouble is, they don’t actually have any plan to control health-care costs.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report this morning that offers a good example of this peculiar approach. It’s basically a 50-page explanation of how wonderful it would be if we could reduce the rate of growth of health-care spending. It’s called “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform,” and it makes a strong case. But it’s not a case for Obama-style health-care reform. In fact, the examples it offers of the causes of rising health-care costs are mostly examples of government-driven inefficiency, especially in Medicare, which hardly argues for a government run insurance “option.”
This is a very interesting tactic by Obamacare universal health care system advocates to promote long term cost savings by allowing the government to have more control of the health care system. You see the federal government already controls 50 per cent of the system with Medicare but Obama wants to control it all. To think that Obama and Democrats argue that entitlement costs will be reduced by creating a vast NEW ENTITLEMENT does not make any sense.
Flap does not think Obamacare will go very far in this Congress.
Technorati Tags: Obamacare, Barack Obama, Socialized Medicine
No comments:
Post a Comment