The true cost of ObamaCare

The true cost of ObamaCare

The House of Representatives intends to ram its healthcare legislation through Congress. A mere week ago it revealed some of what it plans to do to our "health" with the latest iteration of ObamaCare. We can only say "some" because floor action will see new amendments added, and after that the bill must still be reconciled with the $2 trillion Senate abomination put out by Max Baucus's (D-MT) Finance Comittee in October.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10 year (2010-2019) cost of the House Democrats' bill at $1.055 trillion. As usual, there is so much budget gimmicry in these estimates as to make them virtually meaningless.

The Democrats are dishonest on so many levels about this healthcare "reform" it is almost impossible to untangle all their lies. Let's start by clarifying some basic truths.

First, who pays for healthcare right now? That's right, the taxpayers who foot the bill not only for their own healthcare, but for illegal immigrants, the poor and seniors as well. (Some seniors continue to pay a premium for Medicare but it still doesn't cover all the costs).

Who is feeling the pain of the rapid annual growth in healthcare costs that the Democrats claim so desperately to want to fix? Right, these same taxpayers.

Some will argue that employers pick up most of the tab. That is true when employers offer healthcare policies to their employees, but it is an illusion. Businesses must make a profit to remain alive, so every cost they pick up is passed on to the consumer in higher prices. So, in reality, we pay.

Others will remind us that actually, employers don't pay the entire tab -- that offering healthcare benefits is a big plus for employers because they get subsidized from the government. Since healthcare benefits become part of a "compensation package," employers actually pay less, by the amount of the government subsidy, than they would have to pay the employee otherwise.

True again. Employers don't pay the full cost of healthcare benefits, the government subsidizes them. But where does the government get the funds to subsidize employer-provided healthcare? From taxes or borrowing (which will require more taxes in the future to retire the debt). So who pays? Again, we pay -- now or in the future.

One of the primary causes of skyrocketing costs in healthcare is the low cost or no cost healthcare available to low income groups, including illegal immigrants. This creates an explosion in demand, and as we have seen all over the world, immigration, both legal and illegal, to take advantage of our low cost, high quality services. Government sometimes reimburses doctors and hospitals for the service they provide, but not always. Even when they do, the reimbursement is often below cost, sometimes significantly below cost.

Who pays for all this? We pay! Twice!

We pay the taxes to cover the government reimbursements, and we pay in higher insurance premiums that result from doctors and hospitals trying to recoup their losses by passing them on in higher fees to private insurers. If this is not an option, they go out of business, reducing the availability of healthcare for everyone.

Who pays for that? We all do!

Now Reid, Pelosi, Baucus, et al proclaim "We're from the government, and we're here to help!"

We have to ask:

"Haven't you done enough already?"

First, the notion that this bill is a deficit reducer is a laughable fraud. They cost out the bill at $1.055 trillion. In and of itself, that should give anyone pause. Then they expect us to buy the same phony scoring they did on the Senate's Baucus bill.

They subtract out hundreds of billions of reimbursement cuts to doctors that experts agree will never happen. Indeed this phony maneuver was exposed when the Senate attempted to pass a stand-alone bill giving doctors back the pay cuts taken out in Baucus's bill. There are other similar gimmicks which reveal that much of the cost cutting is a mere illusion. It won't happen.

The bill raises $700 billion in new taxes. That much, you can be sure, is real. In addition to the explicit taxes in the legislation, the 1,990 page House bill imposes all kinds of uncounted taxes on insurers that will dramatically increase private health insurance premiums. This is similar to the Baucus bill, which would cause health insurance premiums to go up for most individuals as much as 199 percent! The true cost of the Baucus bill, when these phony savings and other hidden costs were considered, was at least twice the CBO estimate.

But the biggest fraud of all is that in order to make this program "budget neutral" i.e. not add to the deficit on paper over the ten years estimated, is that tax collections and program cuts begin immediately but the new program itself does not start fully paying out until 2015. So they are covering five years of cost with ten years of tax collections! Going past 2019 the deficit will skyrocket.

This all assumes of course that the projections they have produced have some basis in reality. The analysis so far should make a mockery of that notion. But it gets worse, much worse. As explained in an earlier article, such projections never include these programs' huge ripple effects.

First, the market distortions created by such programs require the government to create yet more programs to deal with them, for example, enforcement. Beltway "think tanks" get involved with all kinds of new ideas and some of these proposals become law, creating yet more bureaucracy. Politicians and beneficiaries get together to dream up new fixes and adds.

Second, they do not include the many changes and additions made after the bill becomes law. Such changes invariably increase program costs dramatically.

Finally, they never account for the explosion in demand created by moral hazard, i.e. the tendency of people to demand more services when the perceived cost is minimal or zero.

For example, Medicare and Medicaid have grown 2,735 percent between 1967, the first year they paid benefits, and 2008, the last full year for which actual data is available, after correcting for inflation. Together Medicare and Medicaid are the largest expenditure in the federal budget. In inflation adjusted dollars, Medicare paid out a modest $17 billion in it's first year of operation. In 2008 that cost had risen to $455 billion.

We are still waiting for Congress to explain how this monstrous bill is going to cut our costs. Included in the bill is about $400 billion in cuts to Medicare - spread over ten years. Will that do it?

Given the system's current total outlays of about $500 billion, that is a significant cut. But how do Pelosi and Co. plan to ration the inevitable cuts in Medicare services to come? You guessed it. To paraphrase President Obama: " You'd better take the pill, Granny." And despite its supporters' claims that this is a reasonable provision, the government will become very pushy with "end of life counseling." They will have to be. The resources will just not be available to handle demand. So if your idea of cutting costs is to cull the elderly from the population, you should be okay with this bill.

Along with the death panels, this bill will create a new "Health Choices Commissioner" to lead a new Health Choices Administration, with the power to oversee and influence every aspect of healthcare, from auditing private insurance companies to dictating policies and coverages, from collecting information on your healthcare to deciding what your doctor gets paid.

Congress is selling their "reform" idea on the notion that we were paying too much for healthcare in the first place. It turns out that Congress isn't really interested in what we pay for it. Because for those of us who actually do pay for our healthcare, our costs are going to go through the roof!

For the privilege of paying much more than we pay now, we will get to see the quality, variety and availability of healthcare take a nosedive. If we are elderly, we can expect much longer waits for whatever care will still exist. All this is being done in the name of forcing a small segment of the population (12 million - about 4 percent) to get health insurance, even though those people can already receive medical care if they seek it out.

We could go through this bill page by page and dissect every item to demonstrate the critical omissions, budgetary shenanigans, faulty reasoning and outright dishonesty. But whatever the cost of this monster, we shouldn't even be talking about it, because it shouldn't even be on the table. Never mind the fact that our crippled economy cannot handle another such tax and spend body blow. Never mind the fact that the Constitution never anticipated this role for government.

This legislation is not about healthcare, it is not about covering the few people who can legitimately be characterized as "uninsured." It is about raw political power pure and simple. The Communist from Chicago and his Congressional fellow travelers want to make sure the American public is under their collective thumbs in the most effective way possible: by having influence over our physical health.

Lenin said "Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism." Like the Nazis in World War II and the Soviets throughout the 20th century, the government intends ultimately to dictate the kind of care, the level of care and the quality of care we all receive - and where we receive it too. And just like Stalin's Soviet Union, the Nazis meant it when they said "we'll take care of you." But theirs is not the kind of "care" I would wish on anyone.

Dlakeside's picture
Posted by: Dlakeside
5 years 2 weeks ago
Views:
575
Comments:
0

Rating Overview

This text will be replaced

Recent Activity