ObamaCare's Broken Promises
Every one of the main claims made for the law is turning out to be false.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578217720567917856.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

. . . . . the law was originally sold largely on four grounds—all of which have become increasingly implausible.

1) Lower health-care costs.
One key talking point for ObamaCare was that it would reduce the cost of insurance . . . . . save the typical family $2,500 per year.

REALTY: HUGE INCREASES in health-care cost BECAUSE of ObamaCare.

2) Smaller deficits?
Put aside the absurdity that savings from Medicare—the country's largest unfunded liability—can be used to finance a new entitlement. The argument that health reform decreases the deficit is even worse.

3) Preservation of existing insurance.
After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of health reform in June 2012, President Obama said, "If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your insurance." This theme ran throughout the selling of ObamaCare: People who have insurance would not have their current arrangements disrupted.

This claim is obviously false.

4) Increased productivity.
In 2009, the president's Council of Economic Advisers concluded that health reform would reduce unemployment, raise labor supply, and improve the functioning of labor markets. According to its reasoning, expanding insurance coverage would reduce absenteeism, disability and mortality, thereby encouraging and enabling work.

This reasoning is flawed. (Just the opposite is happening.)

If we are ever to have an honest debate about entitlement spending, we will need to . . . . . . see them for what they really are, rather than what we wish they would be.