Politics

Bernanke: savings from Obamacare are ‘uncertain’

Photo of Jon Ward
Jon Ward
Contributor
  • See All Articles
  • Send Email
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Bio

      Jon Ward

      Jon Ward covers the White House and national politics for The Daily Caller. He covered the last two years of George W. Bush's presidency and the first year of Barack Obama's presidency for The Washington Times. Prior to moving to national politics, Jon worked for the Times' city desk and bureaus in Virginia and Maryland, covering local news and politics, including the D.C. sniper shootings and subsequent trial, before moving to state politics in Maryland. He and his wife have two children and live on Capitol Hill. || <a href="mailto:jw@dailycaller.com">Email Jon</a>

As Washington fixated Tuesday on expletive-laced excoriations of Goldman Sachs executives, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was across town delivering some grim warnings about America’s fiscal future to President Obama’s fiscal commission.

But Bernanke also voiced a surprisingly pessimistic view of Obama’s recently passed health plan, questioning whether the nearly $1 trillion piece of legislation will do much of anything to reduce overall health care spending.

“At this point, the effects of the recent legislation on federal health-care spending over the long term are uncertain, in part because they depend importantly on implementation,” Bernanke said.

Bernanke’s oblique reference to implementation would likely cover roughly $500 billion in cuts to Medicare that must be authorized by future Congresses as well as the identification of ways to deliver care that are more efficient and reduce costs. The health bill authorizes trial runs of numerous such experiments.

Robert Reischauer, the president of the Urban Institute, also addressed the fiscal commission during its first meeting. He said that “while the health reform act contains many promising demonstrations and pilot projects designed to test incentives and organizational changes that might slow spending growth, it will be more than five years before the results from these experiments can inform policy.”

Like Bernanke, Reischauer sounded some doubtful notes about the likelihood that ObamaCare will bend the cost curve of health spending down.

“Medicaid costs will rise significantly because the program plays the primary role in expanding coverage among low-income populations,” Reischauer said.

“While a recent report from UnitedHealth concludes that significant savings are possible in the program, realizing them would require adopting effective coordinated care for Medicaid’s regular population and community-base/coordinated care for Medicaid’s long term care beneficiaries.”

“Effective coordinated care is unpopular and difficult to do well,” he said.

Some Republican members of the fiscal commission seized on Bernanke and Reischauer’s remarks.

“Our fiscal trajectory was bad and now it’s getting worse,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, blaming the president’s health plan for exacerbating the problem.

The White House did not respond when asked to comment on Bernanke and Reischauer’s comments.

But it is the latest in a string of revelations about the Obama health plan to come to light after the bill passed a little over a month ago.

Perhaps the most significant finding came last week when the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services issued a report showing that health spending will increase by $311 billion over the next decade.

Email Jon Ward and follow him on Twitter

  • Pingback: Will ObamaCare Save Money, or Add to Costs? | www.statehousecall.org

  • doncicciofitipaldi

    I just responded to you there. Good luck with your research. Let me know what you find out.

    • rainmaker1145

      We’re still waiting for you to tell us how we are going to spend a trillion dollars more and save money, don. Is this all over your head? Do you have anything to really offer or are you just another high school kid looking for some online validation?

      I bet you never even finished high school, but I could be wrong and you can prove that by laying out for us how the new health care system is going to save money. Be sure to lay out how your interpretation of Rational Choice Theory is going to work, focus on how reducing Medicare by $500 billion and spending it on new health care insurance is going to reduce the deficit. We want to see the math on this and you are the one advocating the Obamacare policy so tell us how it will work.

      My money is on you being the loser you really are and not being able to articulate any policy. Like our banking system and economics, you have proven in the past to be woefully incapable of demonstrating an understanding of how policies should work, so show us your implementation scheme.

      We’re all ears, don. This is your opportunity to show us how liberalism will actually (for once) work.

      Ladies and gentlemen; I give you don and the modern liberal social welfare program known as Obamacare and how it is going to be implemented to save money. Take it away Don.

      • doncicciofitipaldi

        That’s the problem with your kind. You expect people to be able to explain things to you in telegraphic online posts and slogan lenght one liners. You think that everything should be simple and understandable at a high-school education level. If you want to understand things, go read a book. Don’t ask me to sit here and educate you unless you are paying me.

        Do you really think that I am going to sit here and spend hours to explain a point of view that you will not be able to even open mindely contemplate? It’s like me challenging you to explain to me in great detail how the Reagan trickle-down economic system works (or I should say doesn’t work).

        Maybe you should go get a job and do some actual work. Good luck with your search. Maybe you can make some rain somewhere.

        • gbenton

          Don… what you’ve been called out for here is vapid one line talking points, personal attacks, and a LACK of substantiating your points. Your criticism here is simply laughable.

          I can sum up why any and all progressive left ideas you promote are wrong – because Social Security is broke, because our country owes 12 trillion dollars, because Medicare and every other big progressive wet dream is failing, or about to fail.

          For details, go to the bottom of page 2 on this thread where I took one of your longer posts apart line by line.

          http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/27/democratic-memo-a-sliver-of-hope-amid-mostly-gloomy-data/comment-page-2/#comments

          • doncicciofitipaldi

            Listen…..gbenton…..the Tea Party peopel called THEMSELVES teabaggers first. I laughed for weeks until I waited for them to realize what they were calling themselves.

            Now to your second point. The reason I do not debate everything line by line with you or any others here is because it is futile. I could spend hours breaking arguments down, even using references to actual data, with links, use counter-arguments in balance, etc – just like a university paper – but why would I waste all that TIME when I can annoy you in 30 seconds flat? Do you think I am here to try to convince you or change your mind? I’m not here to have a debate with you. You can only have a rational debate with rational people. I meet many real conservatives that make valid points in my business dealings, etc, but they sure don’t sound like YOU. They can see the whole picture in international context and make intelligent observations that you can actually have a discussion around.

            Asking to actually debate here is like asking a religious man, when presented with eveidence his religion is bogus to change his stance. It just DOESNT HAPPEN.

            I just want to make sure you’re not all in here bouncing ideas in this huge echo-chamber you’ve built for yourselves. You are my enternainment when I need a mantal break from work. Nothing more.

          • gbenton

            I guess the real obvious question is, why do you spend so much time engaging in any kind of debate with people you feel are so beneath your intellectual prowess?

            If we’re as uninformed and stupid as you claim, then by your own view, you’re a bully, picking on the weak so as to avoid a worthy opponent who could knock you down.

            FACT is, you don’t debate, you sling put downs and cite arguments, and after that limited effort fails, you run away and snipe again on another thread.

            You are either a bully or a coward, take your pick. If I go by your words, you are a bully, but by your actions, a coward – to give you a hint.

          • toddthesofaking

            Ah, the teabaggers called themselves teabaggers first. Riiiiight.

            You could break arguments down, etc. just like a university paper? But you don’t, because you just want to annoy?

            Sure. I’m SO sure.

            You wouldn’t know a fact if dropped its balls in your mouth, you idiot.

            So you vomit up all this stuff to annoy us? and when challenged, you claim to have this great sterling argument, backed by a thesis full of facts – it’s just that it would take too much time to whip our asses rhetorically? That, and you’re wearing your good clothes today, I guess.

            HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH!

            I REALLY doubt that’s the case. But i will say this much is true: “Asking to actually debate here is like asking a religious man, when presented with eveidence his religion is bogus to change his stance. It just DOESNT HAPPEN.”

            Indeed it is. Yes, indeed, reverend.

          • gbenton

            I guess the real obvious question is, why do you spend so much time engaging in any kind of debate with people you feel are so beneath your intellectual prowess?

            If we’re as uninformed as you claim, then by your own view, you’re a bully, picking on the weak so as to avoid a worthy opponent who could knock you down.

            FACT is, you don’t debate, you sling put downs and cite arguments, and after that limited effort fails, you run away and snipe again on another thread.

            You are either a bully or a coward, take your pick.

          • gbenton

            Might not have wanted to cite religion as your analogy here. It’s not like the world’s great thinkers have all concluded and decreed, ‘religion is for dummies’.

            There is actually a pretty good argument that true atheism is for dummies, given that so many questions about ‘life’ remain unanswered, such certainty is foolish.

            But I digress.

            What is a more immediate contradiction is why you have so much time to annoy and snark, but are fresh out when it comes time to back up your cherished talking points beyond what you gleaned from HuffandPuff or Olby.

            I know liberals are self loathing, but it’s still a joy to observe in action.

        • toddthesofaking

          He can’t explain it to us because he’s too busy today. That, and he’s wearing his good clothes. Otherwise, he’d give it to us good ‘n hard. Right, Lollygagger? LOL!

          Gag on mah teabag, Lollygagger! LOL! Oh, and GFY! EM!

      • doncicciofitipaldi

        Oh……and if I were looking for online validation, I would be postingthings on Huffington Post, not The Daily Caller. LOL. Classic.

        • gbenton

          Validation, as in, people who would agree with you. You won’t find but a handful here. I didn’t say ‘verify’.

          People seek to validate their ideas by finding those who agree with them.

          If you want a functioning world view that could help you understand why our country is in such a mess after more than 60 years of social engineering, stay here. You’ll also see what could be done to fix things.

          But if you want a bunch of vapid lefty talking points to chant ‘ra ra’ to and have people applaud you, go to HUFFY PUFFY.

          Clear now?

  • boodood

    the only thing that is certain is that this juvenile, self absorbed administration has (by one party rule) destroyed the highest quality health care system in the world that is(was) virtually singlehandedly responsible for the improved health of BILLIONS of fellow earth citizens. We pay high costs because we are the only nation left who pays the actual cost of the R&D. EVERYONE else is getting a free ride on our economic coattails.

    The ONLY uncertainty is the level of MORAL CULPABILITY that every member of this sadistic regime will bear.

    Whew! gotta cool down….. they got me again…

  • toddthesofaking

    And by “uncertain”, he means “imaginary.”

  • toddthesofaking

    doncicciofitiwhatever: “How does THAT make you feel? LOL”

    LOL! About the same as it did (LOL!) when I first heard (LOL!) about it! LOL! I thought (LOL!) it was a misguided (LOL!) misbegotten piece of legislation (LOL!) rammed through at the behest (LOL!) of the callow, disingenuous political naif (LOL!) who currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! LOL!

    Talk about acting like a three-year old.

    From now on, we’ll just call you . . . lollygagger!

    Gag on mah teabag, lollygagger!

    LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

    Oh, and EM!

    • doncicciofitipaldi

      I sure hope you got a good shrink. LOL

      • toddthesofaking

        LOL! Good one! LOL! Oh, and GFY! LOL!

        Now gag on mah teabag, Lollygagger!

      • gbenton

        Donny, at LEAST give us a talking point, puhleeaz. Bernanke peels another layer of stinky stink back from Obamacare and you, of course, make personal insults.

        I gave a point by point rebuttal to your rant at http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/27/democratic-memo-a-sliver-of-hope-amid-mostly-gloomy-data/, so i’d be interested in what your magnificent replies will be to ‘educate’ me… or just defend your screed. either way.

        • doncicciofitipaldi

          Personal insults? Just read what the person wrote. If that doesn’t look to you like someone who is in need of help I don’t know who does.

          • gbenton

            When folks like you stop by here and say things like ‘tea bagger’ and get ‘personal insults’ back, that’s called karma.

            You get mocked because of your personal insults toward ‘us’ and lack of coherent arguments.

            Don’t say we’re in need of help when you get back what you give.

            If I went to Huffy Puffy and said ‘what a bunch of liberal loons, ha ha’ or the equivalent, as you do here, I would not expect a lot of serious debate from the locals.

            Fact is, we’re concerned about our country. Your team is in charge and screwing things up royally, so we’re gonna be a bit hostile to someone who comes here and throws insults in our faces.

            Raise your level of discourse and you will get the same in kind.

            You’ll notice, I only mock and taunt you in threads where you have stooped to that level yourself. Where you ask questions, like here, I will do my best to answer in kind.

          • toddthesofaking

            “If that doesn’t look to you like someone who is in need of help I don’t know who does.”

            I do. Hint: go look in a mirror.

            Oh, and GFY! LOL!

  • doncicciofitipaldi

    Oh and by the way…just to piss all you Regressives that were scared of a 2400 pages bill because they are soooooo hard to read……..the implementation will take about 70,000 pages of policy implementation rules. How does THAT make you feel? LOL> Has your head exploded yet? LOL

    • anniebanannie

      So, once again, you prove that you don’t really care about the implications this will have on the country or its citizens, as long as you “piss” off a few people.

      Typical. Ignorant, but typical for you.

      • toddthesofaking

        Jes! Ju shud lissen to de Lollygagger. What ees thee beeg deel about reading the beel, ju teebaggairs? Frankie say, ‘Relax!’ So ju shud relax alreddy! LOL!

        Eeet eese thee eeemplementation ennywayse, ju are de stoopid! Ju ar de teebaggings corksarking iceholes! LOL! He is de smart!

    • thephranc

      Not progressing for the sake of progress and not for the sake of what is best is not regressive.Why are you so dishonest in your claims?

      • doncicciofitipaldi

        I would consider your argument “valid” if your side offered any OTHER VIABLE SOLUTIONS to make PROGRESS, not “take the country back” to 1964 or 1910 or 1776 or whatever.
        Unfortunately, all we hear from your side is a negation of EVERY SINGLE proposal put forth by the other side. So if you only stand for standing AGAINST everything, then you are a nihilist, or as I like to call you a Regressive.

        For example, I might not agree with Ron Paul on everything, but at least he has his own ideas on how to make PROGRESS. He is NOT a Regressive.

        Maybe you are NOT a Regressive Republican, but then you should really stand and oppose the Republican party’s Regressive, nihilist, do nothing attitude and become a libertarian. But then you’d have to be for end what Ron Paul calles “American Empire Building”.

        Are you for THAT?

        • anniebanannie

          Ahhh,,,you’re one of those “misguided” Paulbots….well, that explains a lot. Here’s a fact – Ron Paul is ashamed of the way you represent him.

          • doncicciofitipaldi

            Nope. I wouldn’t vore for Ron Paul, but that doesn’t mean he he doesn’t have some valid points. I disagree with Paul, but at least he has a coherent policy position that makes sense.

        • thephranc

          There are other solutions but you aren’t honest enough to admit it. And my point is factual you use words in a dishonest way. Most if not all of your posts are dishonest in some way. Why do you need to be so dishonest?

          • doncicciofitipaldi

            OK. Explain why you feel I am dishonest please.

        • gbenton

          Donny don don donny, the Federal Government doesn’t HAVE to do much. If it would get the F out of the way, individuals acting within their own self interest and clear and simple contract law with minimal regulation will solve our own problems, at the local level.

          And yeah, we are against all the progressive FANCY ideas since Woodrow Wilson because 1) they have failed, 2) when they fail, you propose more, 3) you call us names for objecting at 1 and 2.

          So, yeah, we want to turn back the clock to a happier time before all this darn ‘progress’. Got it now?

          • doncicciofitipaldi

            What a coincidence that Glenn Beck brings up Wilson all the time as this boogie man President from our past. Then who do you bring up? Woodraw Wilson. Have you ever looked at his accomplishments with an open mind?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

          • gbenton

            The failures of progressivism are not confined to Wilson. Nor does him being a progressive automatically mean nothing good happened during his time in office.

            What I condemn him for is pushing this country toward a progressive path that has given us FDR, and all the failed social programs that we have now – AND that fools like HR Clinton, Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and the gang now talk about a ‘traditional of American progressivism’ like its a good thing.

            Our national debt is a report card on the progressive, big government fiasco. those who started it SHOULD be condemned by history so we don’t repeat it.

            As for your typical ‘you must have gotten that from Beck so you’re a dummy’ argument, I’ve kicked you around many times on that issue with no satisfying answer from you.

            Why don’t you REFUTE the negative Wilson has done. Defend the outcome. Show me where Beck is WRONG.

          • gbenton

            Well, my dog just left an ‘accomplishment’ on the living room carpet. Gotta go clean it up. Now you know how I feel about Wilson.

    • rainmaker1145

      Okay hotshot. Tell us what IMPLEMENTATION RULES are going to make saving money possible. What rules are going to make it fiscally transparent. What method of operation and regulation will make private health care insurance survive beyond the initial three-year implementation window. Explain to us how an 85% expense ratio requirement will allow insurance companies to make investments, pay claims and pay administrative expenses (much less earn enough profit to attract capital investment).

      You can’t. This is over your head. You are just a cheap sign holder in the parade who does what they are told. I’d wager you have absolutely no understanding of this matter and you will demonstrate it by not providing us with any real information. You will either call us names or not post at all; once again proving who has the facts (that would be me) and who is just a cheap masturbater looking to assuage their petty little ego (that would be you). But hey, I’m an open-minded guy.

      I’m prepared to be wowed by your understanding of this policy. Lay it on us, bro’…

      • doncicciofitipaldi

        Oh, man!!! By implementation rules I mean the actual ECECUTION of the law (or plan). All the procedures that are going to be part of implementing the new legislation. To bring it to your level….we will need to come up with step by step procedures on how to build these “pools” that are the foundation of tehis legislation. Do you understand that?

        It’s like an architect that has the plan for a house, thensomeone needs to actually BUILD IT.

        I’m not sure how to simplify it for you eny more than that.

        • rainmaker1145

          You could have just said you don’t know what you are talking about instead of trying to make these hollow excuses. Move along, please. This is adult swim.

        • anniebanannie

          So, you just proved the point every person in opposition to the bill has been saying all along — that what the dems proposed and passed was merely a rough draft and the true costs were not included in the bill, despite the dems promising it was.

        • gbenton

          Donny, the title of the article was that Obama-care’s ‘savings’ as promised, are ‘uncertain’. Bernanke is not a right wing nut job. So if he says ‘kinda uncertain’, a non-Fed-Speak person would say, WOW< does this plan NOT deliver what it was promised. TOOOO bad you traded 2 trillion dollars for it. Dummies.

          REPEAL.

    • toddthesofaking

      “How does THAT make you feel? LOL”

      LOL! About the same as it did (LOL!) when I first heard (LOL!) about it! LOL! I thought (LOL!) it was a misguided (LOL!) misbegotten piece of legislation (LOL!) rammed through at the behest (LOL!) of the callow, disingenuous political naif (LOL!) who currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! LOL!

      Talk about acting like a three-year old.

      From now on, we’ll just call you . . . lollygagger!

      Gag on mah teabag, lollygagger!

      LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

      Oh, and EM!

    • gbenton

      Gosh, it makes our ‘job’ so much easier when you make our arguments for us. we kinda said it would take a huge, as yet to be defined, gazillion of pages to roll out Stupidobamacare, kudos for pointing this out.