Game is on for President Obama’s health care plan

President Obama came out swinging last Wednesday night in his address on health care to a joint session of Congress. While saying that the time for acrimony and bitterness was over, he hurled his fair share of hand grenades.

Anyone who thought some grand, bipartisan compromise would be nudged forward by the president in his speech might want to reconsider that notion. It is clear that the battle lines are drawn, and the legislative combat over this issue is going to be fierce.

The president took center stage because the momentum was shifting against him on the health care issue. Polls show his support declining, and voters over the age of 65 in particular are very concerned about the proposed changes.

The president’s speech was primarily a large helping of red meat to the more liberal wing of his party. They loved it, but the more moderate to conservative Democrats were cringing at the prospect of having to answer more questions back home about snowballing deficits and more government intervention in health care.

President Obama gave those shell-shocked moderate Democrats little salve for their wounds from the town hall meetings of August. He claimed that the legislation would not add one cent to the national debt, and it was the only hope to rein in escalating health care costs. He said it would be paid for, but the only evidence he offered to confirm that was his claim that “most” of the cost would be covered by eliminating “waste, fraud, and inefficiencies” in Medicare and Medicaid.

Stop for a moment and think about that statement.

If the Obama administration can squeeze $500 to $600 billion of fraud and inefficiencies out of the current versions of government-run health care, many of the problems related to the ever-rising costs of health care would be solved. A huge driver of health insurance premium increases comes from cost shifting.

The federal government pays health care providers less than what it costs to provide their services. Providers, in turn, attempt to raise their prices for private sector patients to offset those losses. The cost savings the president is talking about could allow the medical providers to be properly compensated and that would end or reduce the cost shifting.

Does President Obama really expect lawmakers, voters, and health care consumers to accept as fact the claim that he can fund the bulk of this huge new government program with cost savings alone? Why doesn’t he take a year and prove these cost savings can be achieved before putting the treasury more at risk?

The president’s rhetoric, as usual, was exemplary. But he has two big problems to overcome in this debate that he didn’t solve last Wednesday night.

The whole question of cost is one of them.

Providing coverage to those with pre-existing illnesses is something most in Congress support, but it will result in insurance premiums going up for everyone. The American voters should be told that up front. Telling insurance companies that they have to offer preventative tests (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) at no cost is sophistry (and borderline government price setting). Someone has to pay for it, and it will be paid for by higher overall insurance premiums.

The second problem that President Obama didn’t solve was the fear that the elderly have that his “inefficiency” savings will come from their ability to get the current array of Medicare services available to them. If he doesn’t calm those fears, he will lose the debate.

President Obama threw a high, tight fastball at the opposing team last Wednesday night. But he, too, has to bat before the game is over.