Will Obamacare Be Deficit-Neutral? Part 2

October 29, 2009

by Mario Rizzo

To much fanfare the House Democrats just revealed their healthcare plan. Three items from the CNN report caught my eye:

“The nearly 2,000 page bill — a combination of three different versions passed by House committees…”

A priori, I say this will be a nightmare to read and a mess to interpret.

“Pelosi’s office said the bill would cut the federal deficit by roughly $30 billion over the next decade. The measure is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and spending constraints in Medicare and Medicaid.”

That is $30 billion over TEN years.  When have Congressional estimates of savings not been seriously wrong in the direction of greater spending?

“Medicare expenditures would be cut by 1.3 percent annually.”

Politically impossible under the current mindset.

I am astonished by the patently obvious nonsense that is being peddled by this Congress.  Let them admit that what they propose will cost a ton and add to the deficits. Then, at least, we could see if there are any counter-balancing benefits.

UPDATE: A few hours ago the House Democrats said the bill would cost $871 billion over ten years.  However they “misspoke.”  Oops. It has now been revealed that it will cost $1.05 trillion over ten years. (But now it will save about $100 billion over ten years.)  Stay tuned.

4 Responses to “Will Obamacare Be Deficit-Neutral? Part 2”

  1. Lee Kelly Says:

    Mario said: “Let them admit that what they propose will cost a ton and add to the deficits. Then, at least, we could see if there are any counter-balancing benefits.”

    Trade offs? Nobody ever got elected by telling people they’d have to make trade offs.

  2. chidemkurdas Says:

    A trillion here, a trillion there, soon you’re talking serious deficit redeuction. Except that it’s all spending–somehow the sign is wrong. It’d be funny, if the joke weren’t on us taxpayers.


  3. Isn’t that cost re-estimate dated a week ago? It can’t refer to Pelosi’s bill introduced yesterday. Of course they have way understated the cost by not counting the planned increase in Medicare reimbursement and other items.

  4. Mario Rizzo Says:

    Sheldon,

    I corrected the link. But apparently the week-ago estimate was the “correct” one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: