Thursday, March 15, 2012

This Is Why Nancy Pelosi Said : "We have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in the bill."

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

1 comment:

  1. I can't understand how anyone can support an additional $2 trillion entitlement program when our country is already so far in debt. I realize that the health care system in this country is messed up and currently unsustainable, but a huge bureaucratic expensive government 'solution' is not the answer!

    On a related note, I did my taxes this weekend--thanks to Prof. Taylor I knew how to do it all by myself! That is, except for the Massachusetts provision that I have to have health insurance. As a student not from Massachusetts, I've remained on my out-of-state insurance, so of course they didn't issue me the paperwork that Massachusetts required. After spending a couple hours wading through the government bureaucracy trying to get it resolved, I just gave up when I realized that my income was too low for Massachusetts to fine me for not having health insurance. That won't be true next year, though: I'll make enough in the last 4 months of the year (I start my accounting job 9/1) to qualify for the penalty, but I will only be insured in Massachusetts for 4 months, so they will assess a penalty. This will be true of pretty much any out of state student who plans to work in Massachusetts after graduation.

    So great job, 'Taxachusetts:' not only do you force me to buy health insurance (how is that land of the free?), but you discourage college students (many of whom have out of state insurance until they graduate) from staying in Massachusetts and working after graduation. Massachusetts is home to some of the greatest universities in the world, and now they've created a law that encourages bright young graduates of those universities to leave the state upon graduation. Once again, the government fails to consider the economic incentives their nanny-state laws create.

    ReplyDelete