-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
One of President Obama’s primary justifications for pushing health care legislation has been that the status quo is “unsustainable” because of the skyrocketing cost of medical care in the United States. The way to rein in costs, he argues, is to do adopt the policies that he and his fellow Democrats are proposing. But a new report by the government actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, has found that the exact opposite is true.
CMS took a close look at the health care bill that was passed by House Democrats and endorsed by the White House, and it found that not only would the bill not reduce health care costs — it would increase them. Time and again, we have been reminded that the United States spends a higher percentage of its GDP on health care than any other nation — about 16 percent. As Obama put it in his June speech to the American Medical Association, “If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade.” Yet if we adopt the legislation supported by Obama — which finances expanded coverage through tax increases and Medicare cuts — health care spending will actually rise to 21.1 percent of GDP, according to CMS, compared to 20.8 percent if we simply do nothing.
“Make no mistake: The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy,” Obama told AMA. “It’s an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It’s a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.”
I suppose a liberal could still argue that it’s better to cover more people even if it will cost us more as a nation. But given that Obama has spent much of the year arguing that the reason we need to do something about health care is that the status quo is “unsustainable,” then it’s pretty hard to justify health care policies that are more costly than the status quo.
View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/16/obama-administration-actuaries
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 11.16.09 @ 12:35PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Admin. Actuary Fi links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.16.09 @ 12:40PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Admin. Actuary Finds … Admin China links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 11.16.09 @ 1:23PM
Philip, while I agree that Obamacare (and the Republican alternatives) don't do much to reduce costs and don't do anything to increase competition, your slanted topline analysis is a bit misleading. First of all, while there is a $406 million net increase, the cost of increasing coverage to more individuals is $935 million which means there is an overall reduction of $529 million for the current level of coverage. These numbers also exclude the tax increases called for in the bill which lowers the net cost of the plan.
I know you didn't want to confuse the non-analytical bloggers on this site, but this is clearly misleading.
That said, I agree with you that this is NOT the plan we need nor does it increase competition or provide for tort reform. Again, I would support a plan that nationalizes health insurance so that anyone can buy any plan, and has coverage for emergency and catastrophic care since we require doctors and hospitals to do that anyway. Then, people could buy the coverage they desire from the vendor they want. If they want Cadillac coverage, they can get it. If they are willing to wait longer for appointments or have higher deductibles, they can get it. However, they are responsible for their own decisions and if the policy they buy doesn't cover the disease they get, they are out of luck.
Philip Klein| 11.16.09 @ 2:42PM
I assume you mean "billion" rather than "million," but still, there's nothing misleading in my post. Your numbers refer to the federal budgetary impact, whereas I was talking about the effect on total health care spending in the nation. That's the number that people refer to when they talk about "bending the cost curve," and what Obama was talking about when he said "If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade."
edward del colle| 11.16.09 @ 3:15PM
you gents can't be serious! when politicoes offer unlimited benefits for small cost which is at the heart of the medicare trap, what do you expect. the elderly are the wealthiest grouping of citizens. the well off there don't pay enough in premiums! the AARP are parasites and moochers and self serving! the self employed don't receive the same tax benefits as workers insured through work or part of the ERISA self insured! you subsidize something you're going to get a surfeit. the feds need an overhaul in spending outside of health care, tax rates need to come down for all groups;think flat tax. nationalisation is an unmitigated disaster. do you guys remember responsibility, humility and personal sacrifice. health insurance was not meant to be comprehensive, but catastrophic.
E.E. CUMMINGS| 11.17.09 @ 5:38AM
I just have to ask--if you don't capitalize any other words, why do you capitalize AARP and ERISA?
Pingback| 11.16.09 @ 1:57PM
A Deathblow for Obamacare - Political Forum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
RightKlik | 11.16.09 @ 2:00PM
"I suppose a liberal could still argue that it's better to cover more people even if it will cost us more as a nation."
The people ARE covered. Some people lack insurance, but they can go to the E.R. Putting them on a government-run insurance plan won't do much change their health care for the better. We'll be giving them a card and putting them in line.
Tim| 11.16.09 @ 2:48PM
The Government buys and distributes all flu vaccines. What a fine job they are doing too. Can't wait for them to take over the rest.
SBVOR | 11.16.09 @ 3:43PM
Typo alert:
"Obama but it" should be "Obama put it".
Stan Redmond| 11.16.09 @ 4:01PM
The simple question to ask any (alleged) representative is "Why does this bill NOT eliminate the restriction to purchase medical insurance across state lines?"
I'm for the WalMart method of fixing health care. WalMart revolutionized the pharmacy with their 4 dollar a month prescriptions, a capitalist entity like that can revolutionize health care delivery. Would you get world class services at a WalMart doctors office? No, but you would get access to simple procedures at a low cost. BUT, nope, we have to keep in state insurance monopolies controlled by insurance regulators who treat insurance like personal playthings by mandating what is covered.
Pingback| 11.16.09 @ 6:19PM
A Deathblow for Obamacare - Page 2 - Political Forum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.17.09 @ 12:07PM
Ironic Surrealism v3.0 » The Overbearing Overreach of Nanny State Health Care Knockin links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.17.09 @ 12:24PM
How can I make Dog Agility Equipment? | Workouts Fitness Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.30.09 @ 3:17PM
CBO: Senate's Health Care Reform Bill Would Cause Individual-Market Insurance Premium links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.8.09 @ 12:32AM
Economyincrisis.org – America's Economic Report – Daily | Tax Finance Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.8.09 @ 11:36AM
Esquire's Fact-Challenged Attempt at Making Government Look Cool - Hit & Run : Reason links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mobile tracker | 2.8.10 @ 8:26PM
Obama admitted that he made a few mistakes, great man!!
Pingback| 2.12.10 @ 7:01AM
Andrew Sullivan’s Island | America Watches Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Potty Training | 2.24.10 @ 12:42AM
we cant expect him to be great... just better than bush LOL
Potty Training Boys | How To Potty Train A Toddler
Pingback| 3.16.10 @ 9:16AM
Doc2Doc Healthcare Reform » Blog Archive » It Figures: The Figures Lie When The Liars links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
pigment Red | 4.6.10 @ 3:53AM
Never frown, Ink Pigments
even when you are sad,Organic Pigments because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.
Pingback| 4.24.10 @ 12:09PM
HHS Actuary Finds Senate Bill More Expensive Than “Unsustainable” Status Quo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: