Scoring The Health Care Bill

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on March 19, 2010


Democrats are ecstatic about the score given to the health care bill by the Congressional Budget Office. One wonders why, given a close analysis of the bill and the score. Let’s turn the mike over to Jeffrey Anderson:

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

But even that wouldn’t come close to reflecting the bill’s true costs. The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit: just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming. In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion. What would the president leave behind for his successor? According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone. If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure. This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

So, in fact, the CBO score drastically misrepresents the true cost of the health care reform bill. Now, if wavering Democrats get a chance to see Anderson’s analysis, there shouldn’t be a sand castle’s chance in an earthquake that they will vote for the health care reform bill. The question, of course, is whether they will see Anderson’s analysis–and others like it–or whether the mainstream media will overwhelm the senses with false advertising concerning the health care reform bill’s supposed cost savings, and fiscal soundness.

  • RyderChadwick

    Now that this health care bill has been installed, we will have to pay for those who choose not to get a job, but still need a health insurance. It seems to me like this reform is only making us bitter and it turns one against another, because the economical crisis has been affecting all of us and some of us have children to raise and to give money to. How long is this going to take? If they are healthy, they should find a job.
    Ryder Chadwick – Narconon

Previous post:

Next post: