Dear Son,
Start by asking yourself a common sense question: Is it possible to add tens of millions of people to the insurance rolls at no additional cost?
Now, reread the article closely. The CBO’s only finding is that Obamacare will not “increase the deficit,” not that it will not “cost the taxpayer a lot of money.” Look at these quotes from the article:
-
The law's mix of spending cuts and tax increases would more than offset new spending to cover uninsured people, Elmendorf explained. … Thirty million uninsured people will be covered by 2022 … That brings the total cost of expanding coverage down to [a mere] $1.2 trillion, from about $1.3 trillion in the previous estimate. … Actually, the government will spend more. It just won't go onto the national credit card because the health care law will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. [emphasis and sarcasm added]
So, "thirty million" new people will be added to the insurance rolls at an additional cost of "$1.2 trillion" and these costs will be paid for by "new spending" by the government. But the additional money the government is going to pay out has got to come in from somewhere. The CBO assumes it will come from a mix of "spending cuts" and "tax increases." So, yes, according to the CBO’s model, the deficit will not increase because the additional money going out will be offset by additional money coming in.
But, ask yourself if you believe the spending cuts will really take place, or whether a couple of years down the road Obama and the Democrats will tweak the law to eliminate these spending cuts. Since many of these planned cuts are cuts to Medicare, it is highly likely that the government will change the law and rescind the cuts. After all, what politician wants to cut Medicare for old people?
So, what you are finally left with is this: the $1.2 trillion cost of adding tens of millions of people to the insurance rolls will be borne by new taxes on you, me, and everyone. Even if you assume that the spending cuts will, in fact, be made, you are still left with the best case scenario that Obamacare's additional spending will be paid for through some cut in current services and some increase in taxes.
Obama and the Democrats have always made a big deal of how Obamacare will be “revenue neutral.” In making this argument, they assume that the American people are so stupid that they don’t realize that “revenue neutral” is not the same thing as “it won’t cost them anything.” All “revenue neutral” means is that the additional spending that results from Obamacare will be offset by additional revenues coming into the government. That way, the deficit (the national credit card) will not increase. But that doesn’t mean that these additional revenues are going to magically materialize out of thin air! Someone is going to pay. And that someone is you, son.
Finally, consider how utterly misleading the Times' coverage of this story is. The headline reads: "Budget Office: Obama's Health Law Reduces Deficit." The lead sentence is: "President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will shrink rather than increase the nation's huge federal deficits over the next decade, Congress' nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said Tuesday, supporting Obama's contention in a major election-year dispute with Republicans." Sounds pretty good, no? It's not until the end of the article that the reader finds out that the government is, in fact, going to "spend more." And people say that Fox News is biased!
Loving you always and firm in my belief that as your mind ripens you will abandon the liberal path,
Dad
No comments:
Post a Comment