This cost-savings is not just some amorphous, “Hey, we’ll do it someday” promise, like Obama’s about-face claim that medical malpractice tort reform is right around the corner, even though it’s not in the Senate bill that he intends to sign no matter who doesn’t like it (especially the American people). Cutbacks on payments for anesthesia are already in the Senate bill, cutbacks so severe that payments to anesthesiologists will not cover the cost of providing anesthesia. ObamaCare, as written, will pay only 33% of an anesthesia bill (see 1/14/10 link) as compared with the 80% now paid by private insurers.So, does this mean that O's claim that the cost of premiums would go down based on his plan is contingent on doctors accepting only one third of the bill? If not, how can he claim that we will have the same or better care that we currently enjoy? The other possibility is that patients are expected to pay two thirds of the bill for anesthesia but then O's claim that our out of pocket costs will decrease doesn't ring true. Somehow, O's claims just don't add up.
On further consideration, I take that back. O's claims add up to less care, longer waits and higher costs.
Read the rest.