The Wall Street Journal today reports that:
"The Congressional Budget Office has determined the latest version of the health overhaul will cost $940 billion over a decade, according to a Democratic aide. House leaders plan to unveil the final package later today.
Rep. Steny Hoyer said the health-care package will also reduce the federal deficit by more than $100 billion over its first 10 years -- and more than $1 trillion in the second decade.
House Democrats have been working on a package of changes to the health bill passed by the Senate on Dec. 24."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870420750457512 9451183093496.html?mod= djemalertNEWS
Frankly I don't believe these projections. It's nonsensical that +/- 30 million people can be added to the health care/insurance system in an aging population without substantially increasing the deficit in the next 10 years. Many of the people who will be added will require subsidies. Most assuredly the $ trillion spent will add to the deficit.
This Congressman says that the U.S. will spend nearly a $ trillion and reduce the deficit by a $100 billion. Against what baseline? This is totally unrealistic since the Obama budget projection for the next decade shows cumulative deficits as shown in the chart above (also from the WSJ) of ~ $10 trillion.
Even if it's correct, $100 billion is only 1% of the projected cumulative deficit, a prediction far outside the limits of accuracy for a 10-year projection of ANYTHING!
Sadly, TeamObama must believe the American public is both stupid and gullible to believe these numbers.
2 comments:
I do not think they (or anyone) view those projections as anything but a methodology that is applied equally across different programs in order to facilitate REALATIVE comparisons between existing and alternative programs. As compared to doing nothing these numbers indicate that while there is a cost to insuring the uninsured and covering pre-existijng conditions the cost is not outside the scope of normal budgetary constraint. What is going on in the health care discussion and other areas of government spending has to be as much about budgets as it is about about priorities. Its like the complaints about the about the post office. If you want to pay less for a stamp that can easily be arranged by simply delivering the mail every other day instead of six days per week. Isn't insuring the uninsured a priority? Taxes are not so bad - aren't they the proud cost of living in a great country?
See my more recent post on this topic. A former CBO director analyzes the reform proposal under consideration and produces a very different reality of more than $400 billion in deficits.
I believe our healthcare pain requires a national solution, one that controls costs and provides insurance coverage for those who need it. What's on the table is NOT the solution needed.
Post a Comment