WSJ Revives Tired Claim To Suggest Health Reform Increases Deficit
A Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that Democrats "counted 10 years of revenue but only six years of spending to make ObamaCare appear to cut the deficit." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the legislation will not only reduce budget deficits through 2019 but will continue to reduce deficits in the following decade.
WSJ: Dems "Counted 10 Years Of Revenue But Only Six Years Of Spending To Make Obamacare Appear To Cut The Deficit"
WSJ Claims Dems "Counted 10 Years Of Revenue But Only Six Years Of Spending To Make Obamacare Appear To Cut The Deficit." In a January 4 editorial, The Wall Street Journal stated:
Another new rule will make it harder to hide deficit spending by gaming the so-called budget window. The cost of spending bills are scored over periods of one, five and 10 years, and Democrats have routinely disguised the true cost of such bills by pushing the spending into the "out years" beyond a decade. Famously, they also counted 10 years of revenue but only six years of spending to make ObamaCare appear to cut the deficit.
The new House rules require budget projections for four additional 10-year windows. And if mandatory spending increases the deficit by more than $5 billion in any of those 10-year windows, the bill will be subject to a House point of order, forcing Members to vote in favor of increasing deficits. [The Wall Street Journal, 1/4/11]
FACT: CBO Found That Health Care Reform Would Reduce The Deficit Beyond 2019
Krugman: Claim That The Bill "Front-Loads Revenues And Backloads Spending" Is A "Lie." In a March 27 New York Times blog post, Paul Krugman responded to former Congressional Budget Officer (CBO) director Douglas Holtz-Eakin's claim that health care reform legislation is filled with "gimmicks" designed to make the legislation appear to reduce the deficit. Krugman wrote:
OK, I finally got around to reading Douglas Holtz-Eakin's op-ed on health care reform. It's much worse than I thought; time to scratch Holtz-Eakin off my shrinking list of reasonable, reasonably honest conservatives.
How bad is it? Holtz-Eakin declares that
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.
I think that's what is technically known as a "lie". Holtz-Eakin, of all people, knows how to read a CBO report. So he's perfectly capable of looking at the actual report (pdf) and seeing that the revenues, like the costs, are minimal for the first four years. Here's the chart:
[...]
His implication that there's funny business going on is totally false, and he knows it.
Wait, it gets worse: Holtz-Eakin implies that there are hidden, delayed costs:
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.
Claims that the plan is window-dressed to look good in its first decade only to go sour later might sound plausible -- except for the fact that the CBO projects bigger deficit-reduction in the second decade of the reform than in the first decade, something that wouldn't happen if lots of costs were being hidden by being pushed off into the future.
That said, we do learn something important from Holtz-Eakin's article. If this is the best critique a conservative budget wonk can come up with -- if deliberately misrepresenting how the legislation works is the only way to make it seem irresponsible -- then the bill must be pretty sound in fiscal terms. [The New York Times, 3/27/10]
CBO Director Tells Deficit Commission That Health Care Reform Slightly Improves Budget Outlook. As The Washington Post noted on July 1, CBO director Doug Elmendorf said during a June 30 presentation that the health care reform bill "did not substantially diminish" the long-term deficit problem, but that it "made a dent":
"Growth in spending on health-care programs remains the central fiscal challenge," CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf said in a presentation to Obama's bipartisan deficit commission. "In CBO's judgment, the health-care legislation enacted earlier this year made a dent in the problem, but did not substantially diminish that challenge."
Although more starkly stated, CBO's position has not changed since the health-care legislation was approved. The new forecast simply incorporates CBO's cost estimates from that time, which predicted that the plan to expand coverage, raise taxes and cut Medicare spending would reduce deficits by about $140 billion over the next decade and by more than $1 trillion in the decade after.
"Slowing the rate of health care cost growth is the single most important action we can take to reduce our long-term fiscal shortfall," White House budget director Peter Orszag said in a statement. "The report confirms that the enactment and successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act is a key step toward a healthier fiscal future." [The Washington Post, 7/1/10]
CBO Budget Outlook Says Health Care Reform Law Will "Reduce Budget Deficits Over The 2010-2019 Period And In Subsequent Years." CBO's June 30 long-term budget outlook states that the health care reform law "is expected to increase federal spending in the next 10 years and for most of the following decade. By 2030, however, that legislation will slightly reduce federal spending for health care if all of its provisions are fully implemented, CBO projects." CBO noted in a footnote that although the law -- which will reduce the number of uninsured by 32 million by 2019 -- will increase federal spending on health care in the next two decades, it will still reduce budget deficits:
If all of its provisions are carried out, the legislation will also increase federal revenues and reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. [CBO, 6/30/10]
CBO: In Long-Term, Health Care Reform "Slow[s] The Accumulation Of Debt Considerably." While cautioning that long-term estimates of health care spending are uncertain, the CBO budget outlook stated that if the health care reform bill is implemented as written, it "increase[s] projected revenues, particularly in the 2030s and beyond, thus slowing the accumulation of debt considerably." [CBO, 6/30/10]
If seen, please approach him with caution- he has been known to snarl a bit when provoked!
Funny how government can stack one failure on top of another and never be held accountable.
"That would not have been needed if we just enforced our immigration laws." - Extremist
I have to ask, Extremist. In your mind, when you read that back to yourself, does it still make sense?
Now, if you want someone else to pay for your services then you are subject to their restrictions. But YOU can go anywhere, at any time for any service.
The issue isn't health care, the issue is what happens when you want someone else to pay your cost. If you think insurance companies are evil wait until government steps in and you have no choice but to accept what they give you.
Government health care = high cost, rationed mediocrity for all.
Private Health care = You decide.
Yet we're 37th in the world, #1 in cost, and still have 50+ million uninsured, whose health care costs you're paying for RIGHT NOW. You're fabulously ignorant as usual.
I wouldn't love it so much if I were you. It's bankrupting the country.
Government health care already covers approx. 40% of America through Medicare, the VA, and public employee plans. Ask seniors, veterans, or your local postman how they like their health care plans and then get back to us.
Exorcist = ignorant
So, we decided we wanted less care for more expensive premiums year after year? Even you are not dumb enough to believe that.
"I love our health care service. I can go anywhere, anytime for any service I choose. one of the few places in the world that has unlimited universal health care available to all." - Extremist
"The issue isn't health care, the issue is what happens when you want someone else to pay your cost." - Extremist
You realize that this is our issue right now, right? Who do you think pays for those that go to hospitals and ERs and cannot pay for it? We do. We socialize those costs NOW. We just do it at the highest possible price for the worst possible expectations of positive outcomes. Are you truly still this proudly misinformed on the subject?
The actual "tired claim" comes from mmfa...repeatedly spewing the CBO numbers as gospel...when in fact they most assuredly won't produce the predicted results.
In fact, the CBO warns of this type of ignorance:
-- Those longer-term projections assume that the provisions of H.R. 3962 are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation...
The bill would put into effect (or leave in effect) a number of procedures that might be difficult to maintain over a long period of time. -- CBO
What more evidence about the ignorance of blindly asserting CBO numbers as fact? [url=It's not a lack of expertise or bias that causes the predictions to miss the mark, says Stuart Altman, a Brandeis University economist: "The problem is what we're asking them to do is impossible." Health-care legislation is the toughest to score accurately, says Robert Reischauer, former CBO director]Here's a couple[/url]:
-- "It's not a lack of expertise or bias that causes the predictions to miss the mark", says Stuart Altman, a Brandeis University economist "The problem is what we're asking them to do is impossible. Health-care legislation is the toughest to score accurately, says Robert Reischauer, former CBO director.
The health care reform that was passed gambles about a trillion dollars with the projected result of about 100 billion in savings...which is baloney.
It's not that I don't trust the numbers from the CBO...it's because I don't trust our federal government to actually follow through on the law they passed.
You offered nothing but insults. Sort of tells you have nothing else. Keep plucking away..
"bout time, was waiting for those.
Seriously though, if they were any less informed they wouldn't reach the standard of ignorant. That they seem incapable of comprehending that poor, inequitably distributed healthcare is not only a social problem but an economic one as well speaks volumes to their downright stupidity.
As for Extremists comment "I love our health care service. I can go anywhere, anytime for any service I choose. one of the few places in the world that has unlimited universal health care available to all" above, that is just so demonstrably wrong that it beggars belief.
Stupidity or merely malice, it illserves the nation.
And there's the rub-a-dub-dub Wesley, nail on the head. Do you think these cost projections mean a damn thing to these lawmakers who will be sipping manhattans on a Florida beach when they are long gone from office? It's their successors that will have to deal with "unforeseen" and "unexpected" cost overruns that inevitably accompany every government program that comes down the pike - just look at Medicare as Exhibit A.
These are all "educated" guesses at best. Why not just say it.
Try it sometime.
"In 1966, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990. By 1990, the actual cost of Medicare was $107 billion"
Chew on that and then get back to us on how accurate government cost projections are.
You are so gullible. All it takes is for some cute name change to the "CBO" and you act like that makes some difference.
It doesn't.
"The Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DHS) Program: The Medicaid DHS Program is used by states to aid hospitals that treat a high number of Medicaid and uninsured patients. In 1987, Congress estimated that the cost the program would be $1 billion in 1992.13 The actual cost was 17 times larger than the congressional estimate. Medicaid DHS cost taxpayers $17 billion in 1992"
Government will always underestimate and be ultra conservative in cost projections because they cannot see the future, unlike the fantasy that you have created in your own mind to rationalize and justify the staggering growth that you advocate. To get as many people dependent on government as possible, I get that.
Do you have any clue how ridiculous your meandering thought processes are? You're a fun pinata but it's too easy anymore. :)
As Bruce Vladek wrote in Roll Call, "[T]he CBO’s track record in predicting the effects of health legislation is abysmal. Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures. Most recently, it overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D — the prescription drug benefit -— by more than 35%. Even more dramatically, the CBO’s estimates of the Medicare savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 underestimated the impact, on average, by a full 100%. That’s right: In the BBA’s first three years, Medicare spending fell fully twice as fast as the CBO had projected."
Oh, and for the record, every single thing you've said in this thread has proven false. You've written nothing but ignorant anti-govnernment screeds on this site for years. So you thinking that you're winning this debate, this debate in which you have consistently failed to back up your assertions when challenged, well that's just good theater right there. Dumbass.
They are? What is more accurate?
The bill would put into effect (or leave in effect) a number of procedures that might be difficult to maintain over a long period of time. -- CBO" - Wesley
OK. I can agree that this would be tough to score. But, what is the alternative if not go with the CBO?
There has never been a major government program in the history of government that came in on budget.
It is sad that government intervention in private health care is the reason costs are increasing every year. Uncle Sugar and his bottomless check book created ever increasing health care costs. Cost can only go up if there is a person with a check book willing to write the check. Thank You Uncle Sugar for destroying our private health care market then passing an idiotic bill to screw it up even more.
When did that happen? Seems to me the private health care market just got millions of new paying customers thanks to HCR.
You really need to leave you basement more often, BJFan.
So, Social Security is actually running a surplus, Extremist. Next silly question, please.
No, what was sad was that insurance companies were raising their premium rates between 5% and 35% every single year, driven by pure profit motive, while providing fewer and fewer services. Under the private system, we paid more per capita than any other nation on earth, had 50 million uninsured, and ranked 37th in health outcomes world wide. That's sad.
Since health reform isn't even fully enacted yet, this is obviously false. In fact, it is the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry who are busily running up costs, along with record profits.
With proper reform, costs will go down. That is the whole point of reform, after all. Instituting a public option, or simply expanding Medicare to anyone who wished to pay the premiums would be a fine incentive. Hopefully they will pass that this year.
To bad they loaned it all to a crack head government that is 13 trillion in debt. Can you think of a more stupid way to invest your retirement savings. Loan it to someone who is so far in debt they have no hope of paying it back.
The next ten years will be brutal.
Well, thankfully the first 6 of those 10 years will be safely handled by a rational, intelligent, and clear-thinking president.
So, you admit that you were completely, undeniably, smack in the face wrong on your earlier post? Now, we are getting somewhere.
And how stupid would you have to be in order to not realize that we socialize our healthcare costs now, Extremist?
If he was one nanometre a Christian he would be lamenting the lack of a genuine healthcare reform that works for the public i.e. consumers and isn't a big welfare scheme for the insurance industry. Private health insurance is not a good product and given a universal, single purchaser model to compete with it most people opt for the latter as in the Australian experience.
Huckabee is a humbug!
How's this for CBO accuracy?
Just goes to prove that Wesley is twice as dumb as originally thought!
"The discrepancy here does not prove that the CBO is wrong or bad at making these kinds of predictions. It just shows that they don't know what Congress is going to do over the course of the decade. For one thing, the outlays estimates assume that discretionary spending will grow at the rate of inflation, which they obviously did not.
But more important, the CBO in 2000 did not know that we were going to invade and occupy two foreign countries. They did not know two major tax cuts representing trillions in lost revenue would be passed. They did not know Medicare would start covering prescription drugs. They definitely did not know that the financial sector would collapse in upon itself, leading to a dramatic drop in revenues and necessitating trillions in spending to fuel a recovery. Policymaking is messy and unpredictable, and those sorts of thing just can't be factored in ahead of time."
But, like any true Faux believer, context means nothing...
Just like I said above "It's not that I don't trust the numbers from the CBO...it's because I don't trust our federal government to actually follow through on the law they passed."
That's why I'm not betting that they can spend a trillion dollars on health care to save 100 billion...only fools would make that bet.
I ain't buying your brand of crazy...
any state."
The other sources you cite (Bowles and the CBO) have both concluded that PPACA will lower overall health care costs. The Bowles statement you cite was about the CURRENT trend of health insurance costs, which are driven up by private insurers.
And the CBO has repeated stated that the net effect of PPACA will be a net reduction in health insurance costs.
You're conflating health CARE costs with health INSURANCE costs.
Beside, Republicans won't repeal the law because one of their key constituencies doesn't want it repealed.