Obama Whopper (With Assist by Health Care Industry) of the Day: 2 Trillion in Health Care Savings

This is simply not the case. Encouraging preventive care coupled with electronic records and increased Health care efficiency in billing and paperwork will not magically create 2 trillion in savings over 10 years. The number is a lie and one he may have pulled out of thin air., This isn't the first time he has said this canard either, from AP factchecking on his 100 day speech:

Other whoppers, during the campaign Obama cautioned against ''sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching.'' , last night he said this

"I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term.''

The Facts:

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care ''could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame.''

Obama later today will be meeting health care providers and they pledge along with Obama to create cost saving ways that will result in savings over ten years. So in a sense the health care industry is also signing up for the smoke and mirrors. This is part of Obama's strategy to cover up the trillions in costs by generating make believe savings. In this case Health care Industry along with the President are going to magically cut trillions in waste.

Of course the exact opposite is likely the case, from the CBO blog on Health Costs:

Despite broad support among analysts for moving in these directions, there is substantial uncertainty about the effects of many specific policies. In particular, many policies in these areas might not yield substantial savings within a 10-year window. There are a number of reasons for this. In some cases, savings materialize slowly over time because an initiative is phased in. In other cases, initiatives that will generate savings—such as prevention efforts or disease management—have substantial costs to implement. In some cases, initiatives cause reductions in national health spending that the federal budget does not capture. In yet other cases, new structures for health care delivery improve health but do not provide incentives to reduce costs. And in other cases, limited evidence about effects on efficiency is available.

More From The Congressional Budget Office:

The Potential and Limits of Health Information Technology

Health information technology has the potential to significantly increase the effi­ciency of the health sector by helping providers manage information. In particular, electronic health records—comprising electronic documentation of providers’ medical notes, electronic viewing of laboratory and radiological results, electronic prescribing of medications, and an interoperable connection among providers of health care—could have a significant impact on medical practice.¹⁵ When used effectively, electronic health records could reduce the duplication of diagnostic tests; remind physicians about appropriate preventive care; identify harmful drug inter­actions or possible allergic reactions to prescribed medicines; and help physicians manage the care of patients with complex chronic conditions. Such steps could yield significant health benefits for patients, but research indicates that the extent to which health IT also generates reductions in health care spending depends largely on the incentives facing providers who have adopted it. By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce substantial savings because the incentives for many providers to use that technology in ways that control costs are not strong.

Now I read through parts of the CBO report, in short they argue some of these ideas aren't bad, but its unknown whether they will generate significant savings. In addition the report concedes it may lead to increased costs. And for a finale they threw this in there:

In some cases, estimating the budgetary effects of a proposal is hampered by lim­ited evidence. Studies generally examine the effects of discrete policy changes but typically do not address what would happen if several changes were made at the same time. Those interactions could mean that the savings from combining two or more initiatives will be greater than or less than the sum of their individual effects.

Great, so it all might be BS.
This is about one thing, providing smoke and mirrors as Obama creates a socialist Health Care system:

A centerpiece of Obama's health proposal would be a new government health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The administration says the public plan would help cut costs by introducing competition and cover the uninsured.

Republicans and insurers oppose a government plan, arguing that it would undermine the private healthcare market.

A government run health care plan, the prize of liberals for decades. In time the private insurers will be brought to heel by the state, with the exception of the very wealthy who can afford private health care without rationing, and the rest of us will get waiting lists, higher taxes, and mediocre health care. As we speak doctors are dropping out of the system and the pool of candidates is not enough. The use of PA's and nurse practitioners is going to go through the roof, that is all ready taking place. As for increasing payments on Medicare and Medicaid, well they probably should but that is going to add to an enormous deficit we are running. And yes Government control does lead to waiting lists for the working and middle class:

The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.

Massachusetts is instructive for the waiting lists and soaring costs that are becoming synonymous with the program:


Imagine that on a Federal level and Obama and the Democrats are full of it when they say "electronic" record keeping is going to somehow generate so much savings that it balances out the increased costs. In short its the typical talking point this admin uses when faced with fiscal reality. It sounds good and it can neither be proved or disproved but allows Obama and associates to argue with a straight face.