This dates back to just before the 2010 election, but this the first time that
I heard about it. It seems unbelievable, but I can't find the hoax if there is
one. If you can give me a logical reason Obama would have turned down IBM's
offer, I will be very grateful to you.
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare for free
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare Fraud for free
Sam Palmisano, IBM CEO
What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano,
approached President Obama and members of his administration before the
healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by
$900 billion? Given the Obama Administration�s adamancy that the United States
of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for
even the most dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned
forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, �Tell me more!�
And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this program
was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?
And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings, President Obama
and his team, instead of embracing a program that was proven to save money and
one that was projected to save almost one trillion dollars ? a private sector
program costing the taxpayers nothing, zip, nada, zilch ? said, �Thanks but no
thanks� and then embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of
legislation in UShistory?
Well, it�s all true.
Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said in a recent
Wall Street Journalinterview that he offered to provide the Obama Administration
with a program that would curb healthcare claims fraud and abuse by almost one
trillion dollars but the Obama White House turned the offer down.
Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping (click here to see ) of The
Wall Street Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:
"We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the healthcare
system by $900 billion...I said we would do it for free to prove that it works.
They turned us down."
A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration took place
two weeks later, with no change in the Obama Administration's stance. A call
placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by FOX News confirmed, via a spokesperson,
that Mr Palmisano stands by his statement.
Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US
News & World Report, said,
"It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of both fraud
and inefficiency that American business is a lot more comfortable with and more
effective in trying to reduce. And this is certainly true because the IBM people
have studied this very carefully. And when Palmisano went to the White House and
made that proposal, it was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And
it's really puzzling...These are very, very responsible people. They don't have
a political ax to grind.. They are very familiar with the subject; they
understand exactly what the issues are."
Given the fact that Mr. Obama�s own Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
actuary debunked the claim that health insurance costs would diminish over the
next decade and given that the budget deficits for 2010 and 2011 are in the $1.2
trillion?$1.4 trillion ballpark, the question begs to be asked: Why would Mr.
Obama balk at a sure-thing savings of almost $1 trillion?
Cost projections prepared by economists at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS), revealed the nation's healthcare spending, as a share of the
economy, will be 0.3 percentage points higher in 2019 than estimated before the
law was passed. That CMS report, published September 9, 2010, in the journal
Health Affairs, also revealed healthcare spending will grow by an average of 6.3
percent each year over the next decade, whereas pre-reform projections pegged
annual growth at 6.1 percent.
CMS actuaries also say that Medicare cuts mandated by the law are unrealistic
and unsustainable. An April 22, 2010, CMS report about the financial and
coverage effects of selected provisions of the new law estimates that about 15
percent of hospitals and other healthcare providers could lose money treating
Medicare beneficiaries as a result of the proposed cuts.
And the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010
budget year, which ended Sept. 30, will total $1.29 trillion. The Obama
administration has projected that the deficit for the 2011 budget year, which
began on Oct. 1, will climb to $1.4 trillion and that over the next decade, it
will total $8.47 trillion.
So, again, I ask you, with the main issue being the economy, including the
audacious spending habits of elected officials in Washington DC, why would Mr.
Obama and his team balk at facilitating not only the saving of almost $1
trillion in healthcare expenditures, but the opportunity to affect an issue
victory in the 2010 midterm election cycle?
Mr. Zuckerman concluded,
"When you are in a situation where this country is facing a huge deficit and
where anybody who knows anything at all about the healthcare system knows how
much waste, fraud and abuse is involved in that system...not to take this offer
up, frankly, does not make sense."
Mr. Zuckerman is correct, but only to a point. It doesn�t make sense if Mr.
Obama is trying to reduce waste and fraud, and make health insurance affordable
for all Americans. It does make sense if those were never the goals in the first
As I wrote in an article titled, Cloward, Piven & Obamacare,
"...the goal of the Progressives is to crash the system; to overwhelm the system
to such an extent that it fails. It is at this moment of failure that
Progressives believe they can enter the situation as the knight in shining
armor. It is at this particular moment of vulnerability that Progressives
believe the American public will acquiesce to the false choice of something is
better than nothing; to a government-run universal healthcare plan to rescue the
devastated American healthcare system, a system Progressives themselves threw
into chaos, courtesy of their ridiculous health insurance reform law".
As an aside, keeping this plan in mind, it makes perfect sense that Progressives
and Liberal Democrats wouldn't waste their time reading the massive health
insurance reform bill. They never intended for it to be around long enough for
it to matter.
It is one thing to be ( as a good many elected officials in Washington DC are )
arrogant, self-absorbed spendthrifts, so detached from the actualities of what
Americans require and want from their government. It is quite another to
willfully abuse the system ( and the American people ) in an attempt to bring
about and ideological change ( a fundamental transformation ) of the very system
of government that has made the United States the most prosperous nation in the
history of the Western Civilization and the last best hope for freedom and
liberty for all in the world.
In Mr. Obama�s shunning of a private sector program that would have saved our
country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented to him as he
declared a "crisis in healthcare ", he proves two things beyond any doubt: that
he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in nature and that he can no
longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his political declarations or