Posts Tagged ‘entitlement’

In the News

January 7, 2010

An Entitlement Certain to Grow

One of the main arguments President Barack Obama and other Democrats have made on behalf of the health care bills that have passed the House and the Senate is that they would reduce the federal budget deficit in the coming decade and in the years following as well. Their claim is backed up by the official cost estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office that show modest improvements in the budget outlook through 2019 if the bills become law. But there are important reasons to be very skeptical that a final health care bill will improve the nation’s budget outlook, both in the short and the long term.

For starters, neither bill addresses the impending cut in the fees paid to physicians under the Medicare program. There is bipartisan opposition to these cuts, but the cost of fixing the problem would exceed $200 billion over 10 years. Consequently, congressional Democrats aren’t providing a permanent solution in the health care bills; they are in effect understating the cost of the reform program they have promised to deliver. If the so-called “doc fix” were included in the accounting, the health care reform effort would no longer be a deficit reducer at all. (more…)

Tags: , , , ,

In the News

October 30, 2009

Morning Bell: The Pelosi Blueprint for Government Run Health Care

The new House health care bill (H.R. 3962) unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) yesterday clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. As written, the bill purports to cost only $1.05 trillion over the first ten years and is paid for by over $700 billion in tax increases and cuts to Medicare Advantage and Medicare prescription drug payments. But as troubling as those numbers are, the scariest thing about the bill is the solid foundation it lays for a complete government take over of the health care sector of our economy.

The Washington Post describes the bill as “creating an expensive new entitlement program (subsidies to purchase health insurance) and dramatically expanding an existing one (Medicaid).” This is true by itself, but the Post later dismissively adds: “If you’ve noticed that we haven’t talked about the public option in the House bill, that’s not an oversight. For all the fury over the issue, it doesn’t matter that much; the CBO estimates that the government-run plan would actually have slightly higher premiums.” This is a breathtakingly naive statement by the Post and demonstrates that they have not yet fully grasped how all the different elements of the bill are designed to interact to produce President Barack Obama’s desired outcome. (more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Key Documents

August 31, 2009

Back to Basics

Reforming American health care is an immense and complex undertaking. Heritages Dr. Stuart Butler writes:

If the U.S. health care sector were a separate national economy, it would be the sixth largest in the world–bigger that Britain’s entire economy. Imagine five bickering congressional committees trying to redesign the British economy successfully in just a few weeks.

Dr. Butler goes on to explain:
We must and can get health reform. But it will never be achieved if Americans are pressured to agree to Big Bang change on a ridiculously short timetable–and based on central planning, rather than on better incentives for American creativity and federalism.
Effective, bipartisan reform can be achieved if President Obama and Congress refocus discussion on three kinds of changes:
1. Promote State Innovation
2. Establish Fairness in the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance
3. Get Serious About Entitlement Reform

Tags: , , ,

In the News

July 13, 2009

How Big of a Government Do We Want?

That’s what a Washington Post editorial says we should all be asking ourselves in the current health care reform debate. Congress is considering a new federal health program on top of others (along with Social Security) that could have long-term implications on our nation’s budget. “This expansion may not be good for us, but we are not contemplating the adverse consequences or how we might minimize them,” the editorial says.

The article notes “in 2000, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the main programs providing income and health care for those 65 and over — totaled nearly 8 percent of GDP. In 2020, the Congressional Budget Office projects that will reach almost 12 percent of GDP.”

“Obama would make matters worse. He talks about controlling ‘entitlement’ spending (mainly Social Security and Medicare) but hasn’t done so. He’s proposing just the opposite. His health-care proposal would increase federal spending,” the op-ed notes.

Tags: , , ,