Barack Obama, through his moronic mouthpiece Jay Carney, announced today that Obamacare isn't on the table for cuts to avoid the so-called Fiscal Cliff because it saves money.
It's interesting, frustrating, and annoying that the federal government can take over part of the private sector, incur a large ongoing expense after doing so, and then make the claim that their takeover somehow saves money.
Why do we accept this nonsensical premise?
Let's accept for a moment that Obamacare saves the federal government, aka taxpayers, money.
Now by way of analogy I'll demonstrate how it's a false notion.
Let's assume that in 1980 the federal government nationalized the manufacture of clothing thus incurring the cost of design, manufacture, distribution, etc of said clothing. The government went from having zero liability for clothing to having say, $1 Billion in liabilities.
Fast forward to 2012 and the national clothing expenditure has risen to $10 billion. So the government decides it needs to save money. There are two choices, return the clothing business to the private sector where it rightfully belongs and eliminate immediately $10 billion in "expenses" OR eliminate all choice in clothing and only sell one style and one color of clothing thereby reducing government expenditures to only $8 Billion.
Which choice have the socialists made regarding our healthcare?
In other words, Obamacare only "saves" the government money IF you first accept that health care spending is a legitimate function of government.
It is not.