« | »

The Real Math Of ‘Health Care Reform’

Buried back on the editorial pages of the ‘New York edition’ of the New York Times:

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform

By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN
Published: March 20, 2010

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

Of course you have gone over all of this, but it is a little surprising to see it in The Times, no matter how carefully buried.

And bury it they did. As the New York Times notes:

A version of this article appeared in print on March 21, 2010, on page WK12 of the New York edition.

Now that is burying a story.

Mind you, if The Times had wanted to present this as a news item, they would simply have used Mr. Hotz-Eakin’s quotes in an article and printed it on the front page above the fold.

Instead, they chose to hide the truth as best as they could while pretending to have covered it.

This is what The Times calls “flooding the zone.”

(Thanks to Proreason for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, March 21st, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “The Real Math Of ‘Health Care Reform’”

  1. proreason says:

    Hell freezes over.

    In other news. the Slimes publishes an op-ed that describes the cost of ObamyScare without the accounting gimics.

    “In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

    But even this is just the “Deficit Impact”.

    It fails to mention that the $562 billion INCLUDES trillions in new taxes…..which aren’t even counted as a “cost”., heh heh. Taxes are counted as INCOME to the government. i.e., a good thing.

    Let me repeat……the new taxes you will have to pay are considered a GOOD THING in the bill, because the new taxes YOU WLL HAVE TO PAY reduce the deficit.

    But there’s more!!!

    Even that doesn’t include the increased premiums you will have to pay. They are “off budget”. Since they only affect YOU and not the government, those costs don’t even exist…you see.

    That will be several trillion more in costs the poeple will have to pay.

    But there’s more!!! !!! !!!

    As I’ve said many time, the real cost will be the lives lost because of this power grab. Over the next ten years, literally millions of people will die because the government screws up everything it touches.

    Many people reading this will die before they otherwise would have.

    That’s the real cost.

    But your betters in government will have the best health care your money can buy, of course. And they will live in splendor fit for princes.

  2. MinnesotaRush says:

    “This is what The Times calls “flooding the zone.”

    And this is what we call “fraud”, “lying”, “misrepresentation”, “distorting the facts”, “propagandizing”, etc..

    All the things that most of the MSM has become expert at in synch with the dems and epitomized by this president and his administration.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »