The Wall Street Journal points out that ten-year cost
estimates of health care "reform" greatly understate the eventual
cost of a government takeover.
Explains the Journal:
In a July 26 letter, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf notes that
the net costs of new spending will increase at more than 8% per
year between 2019 and 2029, while new revenue would only grow
at about 5%. "In sum," he writes, "relative to current law, the
proposal would probably generate substantial increases in
federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current
10-year budget window." (The House bill has changed somewhat in
the meantime, but not enough to alter these numbers much.)
The nearby chart shows this Grand Canyon between spending and
revenue, including CBO's long-term predictions. While these are
obviously very coarse estimates, there's also a projection of a
$65 billion deficit in the 10th year-and "deficit neutrality in
the 10th year is . . . the best proxy for what will happen in
the second decade."
That's not our outlook. That's what White House budget director
Peter Orszag told the House Budget Committee in June. He added
that "If you're not falling off a cliff at the end of your
projection window, that is your best assurance that the
long-term trajectory is also stable." The House bill falls off
a cliff.
And the CBO score almost surely understates this
deficit chasm because CBO uses static revenue analysis-assuming
that higher taxes won't change behavior. But long experience
shows that higher rates rarely yield the revenues that they
project.
As for the spending, when has a new entitlement ever come in
under budget? True, the 2003 prescription drug benefit has, but
those surprise savings derived from the private insurance
design and competition that Democrats opposed and now want to
kill. The better model for ObamaCare is the original estimate
for Medicare spending when it was passed in 1965, and what has
happened since.
First, the Congressional Budget Office only carries its estimates
out ten years. Costs keep rising thereafter. Second,
virtually every estimate of the cost of a new social program has
been too low--way too low. Third, once Congress begins the
process of nationalizing the health care system, it isn't likely
to stop.
The battle over health care reform is ultimately a fight over
whether government will remain limited in any meaningful way.