-
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
Repealing the new national health care law would result in gross savings of $1.4 trillion, a new report by the Congressional Budget Office finds.
During the health care debate, Democrats were hard pressed to keep up with President Obama’s promise that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion.” So they employed the gimmick of delaying the major spending provisions until 2014 to make the legislation appear cheaper within the CBO’s ten-year budget window, then 2010 through 2019. At the time, I calculated that this tactic deferred 98 percent of the spending to the last six years of that period. Well, now two years have passed, and the CBO’s budget window has shifted to 2012 through 2021 — and volià — the estimate that was $940 billion at the time of passage has suddenly gone up to $1.4 trillion. Keep in mind that this estimate still includes two years (2012 and 2013) prior to full implementation. Clearly, the actual 10-year cost of the major coverage provisions is going to be even higher — likely something closer to $1.8 trillion.
Of course, Democrats are going to focus on the CBO’s other finding — that repealing the health care law would add $210 billion to deficits over this period. But let’s break that down. It’s true that the law also includes $732 billion in spending cuts (primarily for Medicare). Right now, we’re engaged in a bitter debate over how to wring savings out of the federal budget so we can reduce the debt. Well, if the $732 billion in cuts had not been used to pay for a new entitlement, they’d still be available for deficit reduction.
Even so, when all the cuts are taken into account, net spending still goes up by $604 billion under the health care law. The way it achives deficit reduction is through $813 billion in tax hikes. In other words, the law “saves” money only if you think alll money is government property to begin with — it certainly doesn’t save the taxpayers who are coughing up the additional $813 billion.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/18/cbo-repealing-obamacare-to-red
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- The Great Train Robbery
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Nite| 2.18.11 @ 11:58PM
The cuts coming from Medicare will make that program more unstable. The cuts from Medicare will NOT be available to spend elsewhere. That is what Obama is trying to do. Seniors have a difficults time now trying to find a physician for care. If money is taking out of Medicare, it will be impossible. Why should all cost cutting efforts be balanced on the backs of Seniors? First with Medicare and then Social Security. If Congress had not put incoming Social Security funds in the general fund and spent the money, we would not be lacking in the SS Trust Fund now.
Warrior | 2.19.11 @ 8:09AM
The entire idea is make all portions of healthcare unstable, employer benefits, medicare, medicaid and to make it near impossible for insurance companies to provide any moderately priced policies. This will enable the left to proclaim the only viable alternative as being single payer.
Oldefarte| 2.19.11 @ 1:08PM
Any MORON would be able to reason to the fact that this is nothing but WELFARE whose sole purpose is to begin insuring the 30 million who currently do not have health insurance [either due to their choice to avoid paying for same or due to their financial inability to pay said premiums]. The fact that these sleazy Democrats are able to proclaim that it save governmental money is testament to the STUPIDITY of their average constituents!!!!!!!!!
Wayne | 2.19.11 @ 2:41PM
Since ObamaCare is void, the budget cuts have already happened.
AC| 2.19.11 @ 3:03PM
Universal Medicare would save at least $1.5 trillion. And provide medical, dental, and vision care to every single American - including the 40% or so the Republicans are actively trying to murder through neglect.
AC| 2.19.11 @ 3:04PM
That's 1.5 trillion every single year.not over 10.
Oldefarte| 2.20.11 @ 10:04AM
No, Republicans [or other opponenets of this WELFARECARE] are not trying to 'murder through neglect'. Welfarecare is intended to replace [and defund] Medicare, and to be a substitute. Medicare has been [will be] PAID FOR by its recipients through their lifetime payroll deductions of premiums, and can only be recieved/collected at age 65 [unless deemed disabled]; whereas welfarecare will NOT BE PAID FOR by the majority of the 30 million [either financially indigent or ignorantly choosing to NOT OBTAIN health insurance] recipients that it was established/legislated for. Medicare [like all health insurance] can be renovated/repaired/fixed etc simply by things like allowing purchasing of insurance accross state lines, removal of the current abuses of lawsuits, etc; and welfarecare's only purpose is GOVERNMENTAL WELFARE!!!
AC| 2.20.11 @ 4:17PM
Yes, Republicans are trying to murder the poor through neglect - if you could, you'd round them up and gas them, and make lamp shades from their skin: You are inhumanly evil. Considering the permanent damage your policies have caused this nation, we'll probably see deaths from starvation soon.
"[A]llowing purchasing of insurance across state lines, removal of the current abuses of lawsuits." Nice parroting of party propaganda. These foolish ideas would actually make things worse by eliminating State protections currently in place - the only protection from rapacious "insurance" companies most people have. This is, of course, is the intent: to strip away any protection the average citizen has, and financially rape them to death.
Universal Medicare would cover everyone, regardless of age - the current annual government spending on health care is enough at present, all by itself, to fully fund such a program.
Of course, nobody will be making a $30 million "executive" salary off of such a program. These people will need to look for new hosts to parasitize.