“You get to keep your insurance.”

This is a lie. As many writers have pointed out, unless you self-insure, you have little say in whether or not to keep your health insurance; your employer makes that decision. If Obamacare passes, and your employer decides to drop insurance coverage, you are thrown into the government plan, whether you like it or not.  And the bill creates numerous incentives for private employers to do precisely that.  Obama knows this.

“Government-provided health care will encourage competition.”

This is a lie. If you get dropped from your insurance coverage, you will not be able to purchase private insurance for yourself. The bill prohibits private insurance companies from writing a new policy for anyone who has lost coverage; they are forced into the government plan. This is not “choice” and it is not “competition.”

President Obama was asked point blank about this provision of the bill during a conference call he hosted last week. His answer? “You know, I have to say I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” If Obama is telling the truth, the best that could be said about him is that he is irresponsible in the extreme, travelling all over the country promising the nearly 90% of Americans who are happy with their health care coverage that they can keep it. But I do not believe for a second that no one has briefed the President of the United States about what is in the bill he himself is pushing. This goes beyond dereliction of duty; it is deliberate deceit.

“Care will be as good or better under the government plan.”

Again, history proves this to be a false promise. We have all heard the stories about months of delays and treatment denials under Britain’s and Canada’s health care plans. But we do not need to look to other countries to see the failure of government-provided health care. The dismal conditions and substandard care for American veterans at VA hospitals like Walter Reed, Fort Knox, Fort Dix and Fort Lewis have been the subject of shocking exposés. And in June of this year, the Associated Press published a devastating story about Native Americans, who have always had government-provided “care” under Indian Health Services, which describes itself as a “rationed health care system.” Indians routinely go without treatment for conditions like cataracts, frostbite, hypertension, diabetes and gall bladder removal, congestive heart failure and cancer. The sad tagline among Native Americans is, "Don't get sick after June," when the federal monies run out.  If the government cannot dispense adequate care to just under 3 million Native Americans, how on earth can it manage health care for the 300 million people in the entire country?

“Government health care will not be about rationing”

This is another lie, one driven by the inevitably skyrocketing costs under Obamacare. But don’t take my word for it. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and one of the President’s advisors on health care has said, “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.” So how will savings be effected? By refusing treatment to the elderly and the disabled, for starters. Emanuel advocates denial of treatment for people “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . [a]n obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” Since when did being a “participating citizen” become a requirement for receiving health care? And who defines “participating”? Given that medical experts across the globe are predicting an “epidemic” of Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia as baby boomers age, this would be a significant percentage of the population who would be denied life-enhancing medical care when they need it most.

“Government-provided health care will reduce costs”

Perhaps the biggest lie of all. It’s astonishing that anyone could believe this whopper. Just look at the government’s legacy. In an article last week Jacob Sullum, senior editor of Reason magazine cited figures produced by the Cato Institute: in 1965 when Medicare was launched, the government promised it would cost no more than $9 billion by 1990. But by 1990, the actual cost was $67 billion; the government’s projections were off by a factor of 7. By 2007, total Medicare spending was $374 billion – 12% of the total federal budget.

The Medicaid projections were even more inaccurate. In 1987 when Medicaid’s special hospital subsidy was added, the government assured us that those expenditures would be no more than $100 million per year. Only five years later, those costs were actually $11 billion. The government projections were off this time by a factor of 100.  By 2007, total Medicaid spending was $319 billion.

Government-administered health care is also a prescription for widespread fraud: In New York alone, Medicaid fraud has cost taxpayers nearly $50 billion. Add the other 49 states to this, and imagine the possibilities.

The Congressional Budget Office has already projected that the Obamacare plan would increase costs, not decrease them, and puts the price tag on the Obamacare plan at around $1.5 trillion dollars. This announcement sent shock waves through Congress, the media, and the American public. But given the precedent, it is safe to assume that this cost estimate is grossly understated. If the CBO is off by a factor of 7, as was the case for Medicare, the cost would be a backbreaking $10 trillion. And if it is as inaccurate as the projected Medicaid expenditures were?  We would be looking at complete and total government collapse.