Obamacare costs more than advertised, double-counting edition
I’ve written many times about the budgeting/accounting/scoring gimmicks that allowed Democrats to claim Obamacare would reduce federal deficits when the opposite is true. The latest piece of evidence came from Charles Blahous, an economist and trustee of the Social Security and Medicare programs who recently reported Obamacare’s “double counting” of spending cuts and tax increases means the law will actually increase deficits by $340 billion over 10 years (or about seven Buffett Rules).
Blahous, writing with former federal budget official James Capretta in today’s Wall Street Journal, explains double counting by making an analogy to Social Security:
If we generate $1 in savings within that program, then that’s $1 that Social Security can spend later. If we also claimed this same $1 to finance a new spending program, we would clearly be adding to the total federal deficit. There has long been bipartisan understanding of this aspect of Social Security, which is why Congress’s paygo rules prohibit using Social Security savings as an offset to pay for unrelated federal spending.
No such prohibition exists in the budget process against committing Medicare savings simultaneously to Medicare and to pay for a new federal program. It’s this budget loophole, unique to Medicare, that gives the health law’s spending constraints and payroll tax hikes the appearance of reducing federal deficits. But it is appearance, not reality. If you have only $1 of income and are obliged to pay a dollar each to two different recipients, then you will have to borrow another $1. This is effectively what the health law does. It authorizes far more in spending than it creates in savings.
So, perversely, the “pay-as-you-go” rules that President Obama and congressional Democrats touted as a measure of their fiscal responsibility back in 2009 are precisely what allowed them to engage in this duplicity. Blahous and Capretta explain further:
When Congress considers legislation that alters taxes or spending related to Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, the changes are recorded not just on the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund’s books, but also on Congress’s “pay-as-you-go” scorecard.
The “paygo” requirement is supposed to force lawmakers to find “offsets” for new tax cuts or entitlement spending, and thus protect against adding to future federal budget deficits. Putting the Medicare payroll tax hikes and spending constraints on the “pay-as-you-go” ledger was instrumental in getting the health law through Congress, because doing so fostered a widespread misperception that the law would reduce future deficits.
But the same provisions add to the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund’s reserves, which expands Medicare’s spending authority. Medicare can only pay full benefits so long as its trust fund has sufficient reserves to meet these obligations. If the trust fund has insufficient resources, then spending must be cut automatically to ensure the fund does not go into deficit. The health law’s Medicare provisions prevent these spending cuts from taking place for several more years.
It’s another reason why “paygo” rules (or lack thereof) don’t necessarily make Congress fiscally responsible (or irresponsible). What makes Congress responsible, or not, is its willingness to spend no more than it takes in.
And when Obama and Congress pass a law to take in $1, count that $1 twice, and then claim the ability to spend $2, there’s no way to spin it as fiscally responsible.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
313 comments Add your comment
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
6:42 pm
“The access to health care is a fundamental human right.”
To that, I say “Bulls#it!”
A fundamental human right is something you can do or practice without the willing or unwilling help of others. You may not claim a right when it requires someone else to participate in it.
“It is a government’s duty to guarantee it.”
And again I say, “Bulls#it!”.
What you are describing is government protected SLAVERY.
td
May 2nd, 2012
6:42 pm
The whole question about debating the hidden cost in Obamacare is purely academic at this point since the SCOTUS is going to rule the entire bill unconstitutional next month.
Obama is suppose to be a constitutional lawyer and he signed this unconstitutional peice of legislation. I guess we all know why he will not release his transcripts now.
md
May 2nd, 2012
6:45 pm
“That represents 13% of all the income made in this country and they pay 2% of the taxes.”
46-13 = 33
Even giving you the 13% Am leaves another 33% with no skin in the game. And there are a good number within the 13% that choose to be there.
As for the other group that does not contribute……you must have missed those days…..this (I) has acknowledged many times that the problem is not restricted to any end of the spectrum.
And that is where you and those like you that only spout off about the “rich” are missing the big picture. Social programs require that everybody pull their weight…bottom, middle and top.
That is why some of those European countries are not in as much red tape as others, there is no “poor pitiful poor” card to play……they all are required to pay.
md
May 2nd, 2012
6:47 pm
“Simplistic tripe.
The reasons are many and lots of them deal with subjects you want to remain ignorant about. Just as you demonstrated a few minutes earlier.”
Evidently not simple enough for you Am…….
Consumers dictate wages………end of story. It is really quite simple…..not too sure why you want to make it more difficult.
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
6:48 pm
@6:42 pm
Bulls#it
md
May 2nd, 2012
6:50 pm
“Focus on the real injustice and quit promoting the idea that it is a crime to be poor in this country…”
Merely pointing out the facts dear fellow……nobody here said anyting about it being a crime to be poor….I believe that is your drama card.
Facts are, many do choose to be poor……no if’s and’s or but’s……and no, I give them no pass as I give no pass to those on the other end of the spectrum that are equally “selfish”.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
7:00 pm
Then man up and actually define what a “right” is, MarkV.
Tell us how something can be a fundamental right, when it requires the participation of someone else.
Fair and Balanced
May 2nd, 2012
7:03 pm
I have yet to hear how Mr. Blahous is a reliable source for any valid information about Obamacare. Typical for the “fair and balanced ” crowd. Some people here actually believed he was something more than a partisan hack because he was quoted in one of Rupert’s rag sheets.
and the” former federal budget official one Mr. Capretta that ” Kyle quotes??
His bio:
James C. Capretta, a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), was an Associate Director at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 2001 to 2004, where he was the top budget official for health care, Social Security, education, and welfare programs.”
Sure didn’t speak out much about Medicare deficits when Bush was helping Big Pharma and bankrupting Medicare with free drugs for recipents to buy votes. Another partisan hack.
md
May 2nd, 2012
7:05 pm
MarkV…….are you putting your name in the pot for those that the gov’t can order to become a nurse in order to give others what they are rightfully entitled to??
If not, is defense a right as well? Are you in favor of the draft??
Just curious…….
Bullet County
May 2nd, 2012
7:18 pm
Kyle, Let’s call Newton Leroy, he can fix this the same way he’ll fix his debt-ridden campaign.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
May 2nd, 2012
7:23 pm
obozo and Genevieve, sittin in a tree
e-a-t-i-n-g-a-p-u-p-p-i-e
first came love, then came admiration
then came his ego pushing a diva carriage
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 2nd, 2012
7:30 pm
Fair and Balanced: I have yet to hear how Mr. Blahous is a reliable source for any valid information about Obamacare. Typical for the “fair and balanced ” crowd.
———————
Feel free to point out his factual shortcomings, etc.
Didn’t think so.
You’ve got nothing.
JKL2
May 2nd, 2012
7:31 pm
-there’s no way to spin it as fiscally responsible.
The man who blew $5T in three years claiming fiscal responsibility? Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Romneycare costs 4 times as much as predicted. I’m sure obamacare will save us $trillions because obama is just that much smarter. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
7:31 pm
md @7:05 pm: “MarkV…….are you putting your name in the pot for those that the gov’t can order to become a nurse in order to give others what they are rightfully entitled to??”
md,
Why don’t you present a contra- argument, instead of this rubbish?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
7:36 pm
“Why don’t you present a contra- argument, instead of this rubbish?”
Pot calling kettle !
td
May 2nd, 2012
7:42 pm
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
7:31 pm
Answer the questions posed Mark: What are our fundamental rights, where are they contrived from and are they societal or individual rights?
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
7:42 pm
Tiberius – Banned from Bookman’s and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
2:07 pm
————————
The homosexual bigot in me makes me really LIKE Romney….but the religious bigot in me makes me DESPISE him…….
Hmmmm….do I want to go to Hell for supporting homosexuality….or for supporting polygamists……
The 2012 election comes down to “how do you want to burn in Hell”……
but, of course, Mormons don’t believe in Hell…..and yet homosexuals do…..
md
May 2nd, 2012
7:42 pm
“md,
Why don’t you present a contra- argument, instead of this rubbish?”
Not rubbish if your answer is no………then it becomes a conundrum. How would you provide for this healthcare “right” if there was a shortage of personnel??
You plan to implement a healthcare draft??
It is a very valid question if one believes it to be a right.
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
7:45 pm
A fundamental human right is something you can do or practice without the willing or unwilling help of others. You may not claim a right when it requires someone else to participate in it.
—————————-
What about the right to form a militia…or a union….!?!?!?
@@
May 2nd, 2012
7:46 pm
AmVet:
Get a grip, woman.
You’ve got nuthin’ to grip, eunuch.
Now scurry off to wiki and find all of the holes in that statement…
Just because you get your info from Wiki doesn’t mean everyone is so dependent.
I can’t recall the last time I went to Wiki for info. They’re about as unreliable a source as you.
redneckbluedog
May 2nd, 2012
7:47 pm
Joe ALWAYS comes up with the cleverest posts….:-)….
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
7:47 pm
md and td,
Take up your objections with Mr. Jefferson and the other signatories of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I have not written anything about “unwilling help.” But unless it is about Tiberius’ playing with himself, most people find that pursuit of happiness requires participation of others.
If life and pursuit of happiness are among the fundamental human rights, then so is access to health care. How do you maintain life without health care, if an illness or injury threatens it? What happiness do you pursue when you are gravely ill?
MarkV: “It is a government’s duty to guarantee it.”
Check again the words of the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Case closed
@@
May 2nd, 2012
7:47 pm
ew
Too much blue.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
7:51 pm
“What about the right to form a militia…or a union”
Joe, you can certainly engage in a militia of one if you so choose.
Your union question is why I do not consider the right to assemble as one that protects the creation of unions, and where I disagree with the liberal Supreme Court that upheld it.
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
7:54 pm
md @7:42 pm
Access to health care is a right, just like pursuit of happiness. Do you want to argue that pursuit of happiness is NOT a right, because someone might want to make this pursuit in a way that cannot be achieved? Just like for pursuit of happiness the government’ role is to secure conditions that make it possible, so it is with access to health care.
td
May 2nd, 2012
7:56 pm
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
7:47 pm
If your arguments are correct then man can not survive without food or shelter so are these also fundamental rights? I for one am not happy unless I am able to surf the web and post on these blogs, so does that mean the government should ensure that I have access to the web?
Martin Williams
May 2nd, 2012
7:58 pm
What does the GOP and the Tea Party people have on the table in terms of health care Kyle? The GOP have never seriously talked about health care at anytime and you know that. Next time Kyle call it the real name and not Obamacare as you all continue to label it. It is not by any means a perfect system but it can polished/or improved standard as we go. The Swedish government have used it for almost 20 years and they work on improvement even though some idiots call it socialism. Tell me Kyle if medicare/or medicaid is not a socialized system/or yet social security/or yet the biggest and most expensive military in the world. All these stuff is big time socialism per defination. We spend about 6 billion dollars a in week in Affganistan if you all don’t know in the name security and the GOP and Tea Party spend less talkers say nothing………..Kyle you know why.
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
8:01 pm
Mitt Romney’s health care albatross isn’t just the similarity between his Massachusetts health care overhaul and President Barack Obama’s health reform law.
It’s also the fact that Massachusetts still has the highest health costs in the country — even after the reforms Romney signed into law as governor.
td
May 2nd, 2012
8:06 pm
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
7:54 pm
The key part of the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is pursuit: an effort to secure or attain.
How is an effort to secure or attain happiness translated into a guaranteed right to healthcare? I submit that if one works and earns enough money to get the proper healthcare then they are meeting the right to pursue happiness. If one is not taking the necessary steps to obtain healthcare then they are not pursuing happiness and if the government hands it out to them then we are really violating their fundamental rights to make an effort.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
8:07 pm
“most people find that pursuit of happiness requires participation of others.”
Really, MarkV? You need the help of others to pursue happiness? Who? Your drug dealer? You have just proven that the only thing liberals believe in is DEPENDENCY.
“If life and pursuit of happiness are among the fundamental human rights, then so is access to health care.”
Once more – Bulls#it!
Two issues, MarkV. The first is the phony name changing you libs love to do. There is no issue with “access” to health care, nor is there any issue with “access” to contraceptives, except if you are denied them due to gender, race or sexual orientation. Government can, and does protect “access” to those services, but it does not and should not guarantee USE of those services simply because you cannot pay for them. Your argument fails the Constitutional test completely.
Second, neither life nor happiness is guaranteed, MarkV. Jefferson and Madison would kick you in what little balls you have if you tried out that argument using their words. And I’d be right with them. Government exists to protect your right to life, liberty and property from those who would try to take them through the use of force or fraud, and nothing else.
But government is not there to guarantee outcomes, MarkV.
Finally, you may not intermix the words of the Constitution, which is the limiting document of government, with the words of the Declaration of Independence to make your Constitutional case. The Supreme Court has never used the words of the Declaration of Independence to rule on a law, and likely never will, as it has nothing to do with government limitations.
md
May 2nd, 2012
8:07 pm
MarkV….I think your “pursuit of happiness” definition is a bit off……I’d counter that we are all free to pursue happiness however we so choose to define it without encroaching on the right of another to pursue that same happiness…….in other words, your happiness can not include me unless I choose to allow it……
Life……means one has a right to life without another taking it away…….not a life that requires others to sustain it. I am not your keeper nor you mine……
Liberty……goes against your definition of ‘rights”, as one can not be “free” if forced to provide healthcare for another…….that then becomes an encroachment on ones liberty.
So, I’ll ask you again……how would you provide the right of healthcare if there are no personnel available??
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 2nd, 2012
8:09 pm
Martin Williams: What does the GOP and the Tea Party people have on the table in terms of health care Kyle?
—————————
Freedom.
Try it sometime, Democrats.
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:09 pm
To bad someone doesn’t possess the intellectual ability understand the difference between the words “fundamental” and “inalienable” . The meanings are completely different, as thankfully Mr Jefferson and founders who singed off on the Declaration of Independence were very well aware.
Fundamental rights are subject to forfeiture. Inalienable rights cannot be forfeited. A fundamental right can be earned. An inalienable right cannot be earned, it is endowed by a higher authority.
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:12 pm
Tiberius – Banned from Bookman’s and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
7:51 pm
“What about the right to form a militia…or a union”
Joe, you can certainly engage in a militia of one if you so choose.
Your union question is why I do not consider the right to assemble as one that protects the creation of unions, and where I disagree with the liberal Supreme Court that upheld it.
——————————-
Now here is a TRUE PARTISAN….:-)…..
There is no difference between and militia and a Union……..:-)….
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
8:13 pm
My fundamental rights are being violated!!!!!
I’m not going to be happy until MarkV is banned by Kyle.
I’ve got your right to happiness . . . right here, MarkV.
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:14 pm
QUESTION: Who will go to Hell first..? The polytheist-heretic-false prophet-polygamist OR the homosexual….?!?!?!?
ANSWER: Neither….it will be the HYPOCRITE….!!!!!!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
8:15 pm
“There is no difference between and militia and a Union”
Websters Unabridged Dictionary, as well as every other dctionary on the planet, would disagree with you, Joe.
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:16 pm
But it does raise one question….If you are the leader of a party that incorporates the Defense of Marriage Act in your platform……..
How can you contribute to your faith that condones polygamy….!?!?!?
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:19 pm
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:09 pm
—————————
So both homosexuality as well as Mormonism would be INALIENABLE rights…!?!??
td
May 2nd, 2012
8:19 pm
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:16 pm
What religion are you talking about that endorses polygamy today?
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:24 pm
td
May 2nd, 2012
8:19 pm
———————-
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints…..
Documents & Covenants 131:2-4,
Documents &Covenants: 132:60-66:
60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood–if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment,
There’s a ton more of ‘em……
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:25 pm
They still accept polygamy, as well…..just not so much in public anymore….
Not Part of Romney's Flock
May 2nd, 2012
8:25 pm
Regardless of political affiliation or lack of….. angry, dysfunctional people are so sad……..
Calling names like little children as if that make them better than the other person
They may have good jobs and “function” for the most part in society, but time always shows who they really are………..
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:28 pm
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:19 pm
Are you running for dumbest kid on the block?!?!?! Or maybe reading comprehension is your weak subject?!?!?!?
Very obvious you skipped history class when the Constitution and Federalism were being discussed!?!?!?
Again you should join MarxV in a refresher course to better understand the difference between a a state granted privilege, fundamental rights to obtain them and inalienable rights!?!?!?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 2nd, 2012
8:28 pm
Most of us here are big boys and girls and can handle being called a mean ol’ name.
Not Part of Romney's Flock
May 2nd, 2012
8:29 pm
“You have just proven that the only thing liberals believe in is DEPENDENCY.”
Numerous major corporations are “dependent” on government contracts,,,,,,,,,,,,, wonder if all the execs and shareholders are “all liberals”…….
mmmmmmmmmmm
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
8:29 pm
td @8:06 pm, md 8:07 pm
Please pay more attention, will you?
MarkV @4:35 pm: “The access to health care is a fundamental human right.”
td @8:06 pm: “The key part of the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is pursuit: an effort to secure or attain. How is an effort to secure or attain happiness translated into a guaranteed right to healthcare?”
It does not. And if you have paid attention, you would have noticed that I did not write that there is a right to health care, but to an access to health care, which is equivalent to the “pursuit” in the “pursuit of happiness”
md@8:07 pm: “how would you provide the right of healthcare if there are no personnel available??”
Same answer as above.
Not Part of Romney's Flock
May 2nd, 2012
8:30 pm
Barry
Not just you…….. several of the liberals do it as well
Does it make you feel better? Remind you of a time when you grew up? Is that how you interact at home and at work?
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:34 pm
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:28 pm
———————–
I apologize for my ignorance. redneckbluedog was messing me up on a different blog and I did not read the context of your quite elaborate remarks.
and thank you for taking the time to get me up to speed…..
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:36 pm
The right to pursue happiness, in any form or to any extent, does not mean the protected or assured right to posses or obtain any aspect of said happiness.