Comments (47) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Cost control?
Tools
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 10:08 a.m.
American medical care over the past 60 years has come under increasing government regulation, control and economic dominance, thanks in part to Medicare and Medicaid.
Each of these programs has overrun its initial cost estimates, not by a mere 10 percent or 20 percent, but by a factor of 10 to 20. In company with Social Security, their costs will soon dominate the entire federal budget.
Now, "Optimists say" the $848 billion health care package drafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., "would eventually reduce both private premiums and the swelling cost of government health care for the elderly and poor," reports The Washington Post.
"Pessimists," on the other hand, "fear the initiative would leave Washington struggling to pay for a new $200-billion-a-year health program even as existing programs require vast infusions of cash to care for the aging baby-boom generation," the Post reports.
By imposing new taxes now, but phasing in benefits only over a period of years, the Reid bill is rigged to fool federal 10-year cost analysts into believing it will shave "less than 2 percent from deficits projected to top $9 trillion over the next decade." After that, the Congressional Budget Office figures its impact on federal deficits -- projected to balloon to roughly 14 percent of the economy by 2035 -- would be minimal.
"The hope that health care reform would take care of our budget problem has evaporated," admits Isabel Sawhill, a fiscal expert at the Brookings Institution.
Furthermore, the budget-balancing act assumes Congress won't renege on imposing new taxes and spending cuts. This is like watching a skilled carny operator shift the three walnut shells, in hopes we can find the one that contains the pea. Problem is, the fellow palmed the pea way back at the start.
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag insists the legislation "creates a feedback and continuous improvement loop that will allow us to learn as we go," while insisting that "Doing nothing is guaranteed to fail," since -- without change -- health care costs are poised to swamp the federal budget.
But what really threatens to "swamp the federal budget" is the assumption that the federal government can cover all the medical costs anyone chooses to run up. What Washington should be doing is reining in or reforming Medicare and Medicaid. Instead, they plan to make all medical care "free" for everyone, and promise us it won't cost a thing.
If you believe that, let's go to the nearest ATM and draw out your life savings. Then, we'll bet you can't figure out which walnut shell holds this little pea ...
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
jcm,
I most decidedly did not say that the elderly and the poor did not get medical care before Medicare and Medicaid existed. What I said was that if those two programs didn't exist they couldn't get medical care now.
Health insurance companies don't want to insure the elderly because they get sick and their illnesses are expensive; they're simply not profitable. They won't insure the poor because the poor can't pay the premiums. They aren't profitable either.
Therein lies the problem; the taxpayers are getting the shaft. Not only do we end up footing the bills for the elderly and the poor through our taxes, we also end up paying for insurance company profits when a more affordable plan - Medicare - exists, because we are barred by law from enrolling in Medicare.
So we allow the insurance companies to reap the benefits of insuring the health of people who don't get sick while we also foot the bill for insuring the people who do get sick.
Where's the sense in that?