Now that we have the Democrats rushing to shove health care reform down our throats whether we need it or not, they could at least make a plausible case for doing so. Instead, they keep flinging unsubstantiated promises our way, and the biggest, most unsubstantiated, fly-in-the-face-of-reality promise of them all is that they’re going to reduce health care costs. It would be nice if they said how and did so in a rational way.

First, adding all currently uninsured Americans to the health care rolls certainly doesn’t cost nothing, nor does it somehow magically reduce costs elsewhere. It might make emergency rooms a saner place to visit, but every sniffling nose suddenly being rushed to a doctor’s office isn’t exactly free. Nor are those aches and pains that people got accustomed to living through with drug-store preparations that will now end up in a doctor’s office visitation.

Second, all we have to do is examine the model after which Kennebaucusbama is designing our health care system–Massachusetts’ Commonwealth Care–which is already going financially bust after just a couple of years. In fact, the state is expanding the number of people who get exemptions from purchasing health insurance (the much-vaunted individual mandate) so it can save money in subsidies. Meanwhile, it’s impossible to see a doctor unless you’re willing to wait, and wait…and wait (provided you had a doctor pre-Commonwealth Care).

Did the cost of health care go down somehow even as the state’s expenditures for it doubled? The answer is in the question, obviously. How about health insurance premiums? Down as promised? Let’s listen to Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute (admittedly a conservative group):

Proponents promised the reforms would reduce health care costs, suggesting the price of individual insurance policies would be reduced by 25-40 percent. In reality, however, insurance premiums rose by 7.4 percent in 2007, 8-12 percent in 2008, and are expected to rise 9 percent this year. This is compared to a nationwide average increase of 5.7 percent over the same three years. Nationally, on average, health insurance for a family of four costs $12,700; in Massachusetts, coverage for the same family costs an average of $16,897. [My note: It is an expensive place to live overall.]

I can hear the Kennebaucusbama rejoinder now: “That’s because it’s only a state. When we do it nationwide, the true savings with kick in as we factor in the uninsured young and healthy. Staying with the status quo is clearly a false option.” (I just had to throw in that gas-bag “false option” phrase because it’s, well, a bunch of hot air designed to shut off debate and deny Republicans a say in the process).

If they were going to be truthful, the Obamacrats could say: “Listen, this ain’t gonna be cheap, and let’s face it, there are only a few ways to bring down costs. We can insure fewer people, we can pay providers less, or we can deny and ration services. Period. Which do you prefer?”

The status quo.