Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Re: No, Ezra Klein, Obamacare Will Not Reduce the Deficit

Kevin is right. How could the health-care bill reduce the national debt when it increases spending in the next ten years and leaves long-term federal spending on health care unchanged in the best-case scenario (and the best-case scenario won’t happen)? There are a lot of things in the health-care bill; but savings is not one of them. Using the Congressional Budget Office data, the chart below shows that the bill has left the cost curve of federal health-care spending virtually unchanged over the next 25 years.

The data for this chart comes from the June 2010 Long-Term Budget Outlook and the Cost Estimate for the Reconciliation of Act 2010. As we can see, the chart compares future projected federal spending on health care with and without the projected effects of the Affordable Care Act. In red, CBO’s projected federal health-care costs without the effects of the Affordable Care Act; in blue, CBO’s projected federal health care costs with the health-care legislation. The two lines closely follow one another, with currently legislated health-care spending (which includes the effects of the health-care legislation) dominating the baseline health-care spending (which does not).

The CBO finds that the effect of the health-care legislation has been to increase government spending by roughly $400 billion between 2010 and 2020. From 2020 to 2035, federal spending under the two projections are equal percentages of GDP. If the real cost-containment provisions kick in around 2036, these futuristic projections are simply not realistic.

Assuming the very unlikely scenario that every cut in the Affordable Care Act is enacted, the law contains provisions that have conflicting effects on net federal spending. On the one hand, it increases spending by increasing the federal commitment to Medicaid and increasing federal subsidies for private insurance; on the other hand, federal payments to Medicare and private insurance are legislated to decrease.

While the increases are a sure thing, the savings are unlikely to materialize. In 2010 alone, Congress has already headed off four scheduled payment drops — in January, March and April and December (I think). In fact, as the CBO noted, “Congress has kicked the can down the road on payment reductions yet again, putting off the reduction in payment rates until at least December 2010.” But even that didn’t happen.

The bottom line is that this law doesn’t reduce federal spending on health care under even the rosiest of scenarios (that is, projections that take seriously all its creators’ assumptions).

Here is a piece I wrote on the issue for Reason Online two months ago.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   7

EXPAND  

 Eric
   01/06/11 10:00

You say it doesn't decrease our deficit. But then you back that up by showing how it doesn't decrease national healthcare expenditures? Really? You do realize they are actually two entirely different things, and one can decrease while the other increases?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/06/11 10:18

Why do people keep using the CBO for purposes that the entity was never designed for?

Who in the hell would make a forecast based on a benchmark and expect to be taken seriously? A forecast based on the idea that Congress doesn't do anything, which is a false assumption to begin with?

This is stupid.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/06/11 11:05

I agree with Eric. This is really sloppy. The deficit is analyzed by combining government receipts with government outlays. Not one or the other on its own. It's a decent point to show that the ACA doesn't do enough on cost containment but that is an entirely different argument from what it does to the deficit.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Counterfactual
   01/06/11 11:18

How can Obama care reduce the deficit without cutting spending? By raising taxes External Link 

Next question, please.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Daniel Gatti
   01/06/11 12:52

"How could the health-care bill reduce the national debt when it increases spending in the next ten years and leaves long-term federal spending on health care unchanged in the best-case scenario (and the best-case scenario won’t happen)?"

Are you serious? Have conservatives gone so far off the reservation that they no longer understand that a program can both maintain current spending and decrease the deficit through a fancy method called raising tax revenue? The health care bill raises $438 billion in new revenue while maintaining approximately equal levels of health care spending. In return, 32 million Americans will now have health insurance and the deficit will go down.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Norman Spaulding
   01/06/11 14:53

Daniel Gatti: In other words, Income Redistribution (aka Socialism).

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Peej
   01/10/11 01:24

Eric, I'm sure De Rugy understands they are two separate things.

I was hoping someone here would have addressed the CBO estimate directly. My understanding is that it is based on many assumptions that simply aren't reasonable, one being that the Federal Government will be able to cut Medicare spending by $500 billion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact