Rising Costs Cut to the Heart of Obamacare

A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future.

~Author Unknown

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/649165.html

Both of my grandfather's died of heart problems that could be easily treated today. One needed a coronary artery stent, and the other needed a valve procedure. Using modern techniques, a total of about two hours of procedure time could have kept them alive for many years. In many ways, such advances represent the best of modern medicine. However for the supporters of Obamacare, or anyone attempting to address our healthcare crisis, progress in the fight against heart disease is one of our greatest problems.

New therapies to combat heart disease have not decreased it's incidence. Unlike polio or tuberculosis, modern drugs or invasive techniques do not eliminate the disease, but only slow its progression or lessen its impact. More people than ever have heart disease because of obesity, sedentary lifestyles, diabetes, and the rising age of our population. Breakthroughs in the treatment of this and other chronic diseases, including cancer, diabetes and arthritis, are one of the key contributors to increasing medical costs. As the referenced report today concludes, the diagnostic procedures, drug therapies, angiograms and surgeries needed to treat these patients will triple in cost by 2030, and this report does not even consider new treatments such as stem cell therapy.

Although this news may cheer catheter manufacturers and cardiology residents, it should strike fear into the hearts of healthcare reformers and Congressional supporters of Obamacare. The fanciful cost projections used to support the passage of the bill do not acknowledge these increasing expenses. Disease rates are assumed to be constant, and procedures are assumed to get cheaper, not increase three-fold. Supporters of the legislation relied on unproven or useless prevention programs to pretend that disease incidences would decrease in order to meet delusional cost projections. Substituting good intentions and hand waving for science may satisfy political pressure groups, but it cannot replace reality. Even if such a comprehensive prevention program to cut the incidence of heart disease could be developed, it remains to be seen how long it would take to be effective.

If we are to have any hope of solving our healthcare problems we must stop lying to ourselves. Even the most simple and laudable of reforms goals, such as universal coverage and coverage of preexisting conditions have huge price tags. Studies like the one above only reinforce the need to confront the very hard choices our leaders have chosen to ignore or demagogue. We deserve better.

Of Logical Fallacies, the CBO, and Obamacare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010606159.html

I have always envied how Congress runs it's finances. Spend everything you have, borrow all you can, and depend rely on others to pay it back. Spending, budgets, expected income and other projections are declared “optimistic” when in reality they are little more than convenient fantasies. This farce has been elevated to the level of tragedy by the the Congressional budget office(CBO). This “bipartisan” agency is used by the Congress to verify and justify their fraud. The article cited points out a rather blatant example of the abusive manner that Congress uses the CBO to manipulate public opinion.

The Post describes how the CBO has determined that repealing Obamacare will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and how the democrats in Congress, and using this justification to oppose repeal. Clearly, if Obamacare actually saves money, repeal would be far harder to justify.

What the article, Congress, and almost every other commentator has not explained, is that the CBO makes these calculations based upon the assumptions given to them by Congress. In other words, the actuaries were told to not question the completely fictitious “savings” contained in the bill, and just pretend they are true. If Obamacare does not actually fulfill the chimerical assumptions and ridiculous projections contained in the bill, then the “savings” are just as bogus. I have previously explained the fallacies and outright prevarications contained in these cost projections, as well as the data demonstrating their errors.(June 29, July 3, July8, Sept 8, Sept 11, Sept 26, Oct 3, Oct 19, Nov 25)

The logical fallacy here is accepting the premise. If I was Superman, I could fly. The fact that I am not Superman puts my ability to fly in some jeopardy. The CBO accepting the financial assumptions Congress used to justify Obamacare belongs in the same comic book.

The real culprits here are the press. Their journalistic malfeasance is one of the reasons I began this blog. Congress has a vested interest in obfuscation and confusion, and their deception is at least understandable. I cannot comprehend why the press feels no responsibility here. The writers of these articles should at a minimum do enough homework to understand the genesis of these CBO reports, and the resultant implications. In a more fair world, journalists would also have standards and could be sued for journalistic malpractice. Wouldn't that be fun.