One of the fundamental promises of Democrats is that their massive takeover of health care would deliver lower costs, delivering an economy of scale.
The problem is that government has never been very good at lowering the cost of anything. Quite the contrary.
And what has always been true before turns out to be true again.
Let’s get right to the nitty gritty of the CBO report:
“CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law. About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law,” the report says.
Now, Democrats are trying to argue that about the “about half of those enrollees” who would have lower premiums due to receiving government subsidies. But understand: the costs are objectively higher by 10-13% than they would have been had we done absolutely nothing at all. The mere fact that some people are getting transfer (i.e., welfare) payments from the government (i.e., from still more government taxing and borrowing) doesn’t in any way change that fact.
Stop and think about it: it would be a lot cheaper for the government to provide people with subsidies based on the lower costs of doing nothing else to mess with the health care system. It is an outright fraud for Democrats to say they will lower costs.
I like the way Mitch McConnell put it:
“The bottom line is this: After 2,074 pages and trillions more in government spending, massive new taxes and a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare for seniors, most people, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will end up paying more or seeing no significant savings,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. The health insurance industry’s lobbying arms also proclaimed that the report confirmed their similar warnings.
This is just a terrible bill, and a terrible philosophy.
Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING that will reduce the costs of healthcare. They are diametrically opposed to tort reform, which would lower the costs of premiums by lowering doctors’ exposure to risks, simply because the sharks – I mean lawyers – who sue everything that walks, crawls, swims or flies are a major Democrat special interest group.
In the same way, Democrats talk about “increasing competition,” and yet they are fundamentally opposed to actually doing anything of the sort. A primary reason healthcare costs have increased so much is due to the fact that insurance companies are specifically forbidden from being allowed to compete across state lines. Republicans want competition; Democrats do not. Rather, Democrats want to continue to mandate special interests-based coverage by dictating to insurance companies what coverage they must offer.
The other thing is that Democrats talk about the fraud they are offering is “deficit neutral.” It is no such thing. They played budget gimmicks, taxing for four years before having to pay out any benefits. If you look at the costs of the NEXT ten years – when benefits will actually be paid out for all ten years – the cost will be $2.5 trillion, rather than the $848 billion that the Demcorats talk about in their tax-for-ten-year-spend-for-six plan.
Taxes will be raised by over $500 billion. Medicare will be cut by $500 billion. $500 billion is another way of saying half a trillion dollars. That’s how the Democrats get their “savings”: they bleed it from taxpayers, and they steal it from their previous commitments to senior citizens.
The Democrats’ bill raises taxes, guts Medicare, and raises premiums. You can start to understand why the Dean of the Harvard School of Medicine gave the bill a failing grade.
Tags: $2.5 trillion, 074 pages, 10-13% higher, 2, CBO, costs, government subsidies, half trillion, Harvard School of Medicine, mandates, Medicare cuts, premiums, state lines, ten years, tort reform, trillion