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
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:40 pm
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:34 pm
Nothing elaborate about it. Simple understanding of Constitution and Federalism and the difference between privileges and rights, fundamental or inalienable.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
8:45 pm
“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””
Oh, please spell THAT one out for us, MarkV. How does government provide for the “access” to health care?
md
May 2nd, 2012
8:45 pm
“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””
So it’s a moot point considering the SC already ruled on the access aspect of the equation….for now. Access isn’t even part of the current political debate.
But what exactly does “access” to healthcare mean?? If there are no personnel to provide healthcare, does that right no longer exist?? If it can’t exist, then it can not be inalienable…….
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
8:47 pm
Tiberius @8:07 pm: “Really, MarkV? You need the help of others to pursue happiness? Who? Your drug dealer?”
Tiberius,
It does not surprise me in the least that you do not need anybody to pursue happiness. As a matter of fact, for the sake of all that might come in contcatwith you I hope you do not. For you the designation “intelligent life form” is only a technical term, not a true description.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
8:48 pm
And please be specific, MarkV. Do you have the fundamental right to OBTAIN health care regardless of ability to pay for it, or are your rights just limited to availability if you can pay for it?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
8:52 pm
MarkV, I don’t “need” anybody. That I have the luxury of “wanting” and “obtaining” happiness voluntarily with others is one of the joys of life.
But my happiness, nor the pursuit thereof, is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
independent thinker
May 2nd, 2012
8:53 pm
If there is no right to health care, why did Reagan pass EMTALA – which guaranties the right to medical care to anyone who shows up in an emergency room? Was he a socialist?
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:55 pm
Healthcare and healthcare providers do exist and neither is an inalienable right. Humanitarian is less debatable, though, a fundamental right still does not qualify as an inalienable right: Were you endowed by your creator with healthcare or a doctor?
But here is what should be in play on healthcare: Should it be Socialized or Individualized?
I say Individualized and removed from direct political control.
BTW, for these democrats… this entire Safety Net idea belongs to a Republican not a democrat.
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
8:55 pm
md @8:45 pm: “But what exactly does “access” to healthcare mean?? If there are no personnel to provide healthcare, does that right no longer exist?? If it can’t exist, then it can not be inalienable…….”
I have already answered that. You do not lose the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness because you choose a pursuit that requires something that is not available. The same with health care. A right to an access the health care does not mean to any health care.
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:57 pm
independent thinker
May 2nd, 2012
8:53 pm
No Reagan wasn’t a Socialist but he was a humanitarian IMHO and EMTALA is humanitarian aid.
independent thinker
May 2nd, 2012
8:58 pm
Little Barry know nothing: If you were to become educated you would know that Obama care did away with Medicare Advantage which included free gym meberships and profits for private administrators. The people who lost their Medicare freebies were the same ones you saw at Tea Party rallies -silver haired moochers who blamed Obama for all the governments ills. Next take away their free scooters if they are overweight and lazy. I do not see Kyles experts or you talking about that. But then you want everyone else to do the research while you call everyone libtards who disagree with you. A sure sign of los IQ.
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
8:58 pm
But my happiness, nor the pursuit thereof, is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Thanks for the reiteration.
Michael H. Smith
May 2nd, 2012
9:08 pm
How does government provide for the “access” to health care?
IMHO, the GUB’MENT stands in the way of access to healthcare. How many doctors stopped practicing medicine because of Medicare and Medicaid?
I know a of few and others who no longer accept new Medicare patients.
j$
May 2nd, 2012
9:11 pm
ObamaCare is a joke.
Hopefully, next time, someone can identify the main culprits in this medical insurance and health care scam, and do something about it.
not likely.
baby steps
td
May 2nd, 2012
9:13 pm
Joe the Prophet
May 2nd, 2012
8:24 pm
You are trying to take text from older works to justify a position. The church has publicly said it does not endorse polygamy and has thrown out members that have continued to practice it.
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.”
Deuteronomy 25:5
Christians do not practice this text today.
fair and balanced
May 2nd, 2012
9:15 pm
Here is why the right wing hacks want you to believe Obamacare is a failure:
More than 3 million health insurance policyholders and thousands of employers will share $1.3 billion in rebates this year, thanks to President Barack Obama’s health care law, a nonpartisan research group said Thursday. The rebates should average $127 for the people who get them, and Democrats are hoping they’ll send an election-year message that Obama’s much-criticized health care overhaul is starting to pay dividends for consumers. Critics of the law call that wishful thinking.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/27/rebates-from-obamacare-to-top-1-billion-report/
APRIL 27/2012;
Better keep that bad news spin machine going.
td
May 2nd, 2012
9:19 pm
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
8:55 pm
“The same with health care. A right to an access the health care does not mean to any health care.”
I am not understanding where you are coming from on the above statement. Can you please go into a little more detail about your thoughts?
md
May 2nd, 2012
9:20 pm
“You do not lose the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness because you choose a pursuit that requires something that is not available.”
Except the right to access requires there be someone to deliver said right……and requiring said individual to provide healthcare intrudes on the others right to Liberty……can’t have one and not the other.
And access to nothing is a right to nothing…….
md
May 2nd, 2012
9:25 pm
“Here is why the right wing hacks want you to believe Obamacare is a failure:”
obamacare will be/is a failure because it requires 3 parties to a 2 party equation…..forcing the masses to basically buy at retail (middle man gets his cut) will ensure costs remain higher than they should be. The winners will still be those that have the cash to negotiate a better deal and the losers will be everybody else.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
9:27 pm
“More than 3 million health insurance policyholders and thousands of employers will share $1.3 billion in rebates this year, thanks to President Barack Obama’s health care law . . .The rebates should average $127 for the people who get them”
Yeah, fair and balanced, and at the same time, 350 million Americans (every man, woman and child) are going to get a bill for $125 for the annual increase in the deficit thanks to Obamacare.
Thanks a pantload.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 2nd, 2012
9:31 pm
independent thinker: Little Barry know nothing: If you were to become educated you would know that Obama care did away with Medicare Advantage which included free gym meberships and blah blah…
——
Irrelevant, since we were talking about Medicare Part D. Why has your Failed Messiah made it even more expensive, all the while complaining about our President Bush having created it?
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
9:31 pm
@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.
**********************************************************
If EVERYONE is wallowing in the GUTTER, where does that leave you?
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
9:35 pm
@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 2nd, 2012
9:31 pm
independent thinker: Little Barry know nothing: If you were to become educated you would know that Obama care did away with Medicare Advantage which included free gym meberships and blah blah…
——
Irrelevant, since we were talking about Medicare Part D. Why has your Failed Messiah made it even more expensive, all the while complaining about our President Bush having created it?
******************************************************************
Why has your WANNABE Messiah MITT WITT made it even more expensive IN MASSACHUSETS, all the while complaining about our PresidMnt OBAMA?
HUH?
the red herring
May 2nd, 2012
9:38 pm
both parties are guilty of over spending. the worst began however when the democrats gained control of the house and senate in 2006/2007 and bush caved. after that it was total democrat control thru 2010. deficits continued to worsen and under obama who proclaimed “i’ll cut the deficit in half in my first term”— it got almost 6 trillion worse—the working and taxpaying americans can no longer afford this insanity. we need more people like paul ryan, tom coburn, etc in congress and in the white house. i think we must have term limits in order to stop the overspending. if you keep re-electing me to overspend in order to benefit you then i’ll most likely keep overspending to satisfy your demand and to gain your vote in order to be re-elected….. GLTA –we sure need it.
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
9:41 pm
@md
May 2nd, 2012
9:25 pm
“Here is why the right wing hacks want you to believe Obamacare is a failure:”
obamacare will be/is a failure because it requires 3 parties to a 2 party equation…..forcing the masses to basically buy at retail (middle man gets his cut) will ensure costs remain higher than they should be. The winners will still be those that have the cash to negotiate a better deal and the losers will be everybody else.
*************************************************************************
AND MITT WITT will do any BETTER?
I don’t think so.
Ask anyone in Massa chew sets.
It’s a FACT that Massachusetts still has the highest health costs in the country — even after the reforms Romney signed into law as governor.
md
May 2nd, 2012
9:53 pm
“AND MITT WITT will do any BETTER?”
Actually, yes. He believes each State should decide for themselves how they want to manage their healthcare……so yes, I’ll take 50 States working toward a solution that may benefit everybody vs one party’s vision of utopia that may take everybody down together.
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
9:53 pm
td @9:19 pm
MarkV: “The same with health care. A right to an access the health care does not mean to any health care.”
“I am not understanding where you are coming from on the above statement. Can you please go into a little more detail about your thoughts?”
I was responding to your comment “If there are no personnel to provide healthcare, does that right no longer exist?? If it can’t exist, then it can not be inalienable…….”
To explain, I will ask you:
1. Do you agree with the authors and signatories of the Declaration of Independence, that pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right, and that governments are instituted to secure it (among others)? If not, there is no reason to discuss it further.
2. If you agree, then do you agree that that right exists even if in your pursuit of happiness you would, for instance, wanted to fly to Mars, and it was not possible? Does this impossibility means that, as you suggested above, that unalienable right to pursue your happiness no longer exists? I you think so, then again there is no point discussing it further.
3. But if you believe that the right as a principle still exists, why would a right to an access to health care do no longer existed just because there were some objective conditions that made a particular form of access impossible? When the government secures the right, whether to pursuit of happiness or to an access to health care, it cannot mean that pursuit or access are without limits.
@@
May 2nd, 2012
9:55 pm
I wouldn’t have expected this…even from the Obama administration.
Administration officials began the day touting what they depicted as a foreign-policy conquest: an arrangement designed to allow Mr. Chen, a blind activist known as a barefoot lawyer, to remain in China with his family, safe from harassment by authorities.
But in phone calls from the hospital where he went after leaving the safety of the U.S. embassy in Beijing, Mr. Chen told reporters and friends about his fears that the deal would fail to protect his family, seeming to contradict what U.S. officials had said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303877604577380592235216200.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
9:59 pm
“Why has your WANNABE Messiah MITT WITT made it even more expensive IN MASSACHUSETS, all the while complaining about our PresidMnt OBAMA?”
You need to understand that Mass. health care rates were rising at some of the fastest percentages in the nation before Romneycare.
Now? Not so much.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
10:05 pm
MarkV, once again you are mixing documents, which you may not do.
The Declaration if Independence is an aspirational document.
The Constitution is one that defines the role and limitations of government.
The ONLY thing they have in common are the men who largely wrote them.
Your argument is wholly without merit.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
10:08 pm
Stop wordsmithing, MarkV.
Does your “access” to health care mean “obtaining” health care or not?
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
10:08 pm
@the red herring
May 2nd, 2012
9:38 pm
“i’ll cut the deficit in half in my first term”— it got almost 6 trillion worse—the working and taxpaying americans can no longer afford this insanity. we need more people like paul ryan, tom coburn, etc in congress and in the white house.
************************************************************
NEED more people like paul ryan?
YOU WILL BE SCR#WED with the rest of us with the PAUL RYAN BUDGET.
YO Boy Ryan is a follower of Ayn Rand .
Paul Ryan is trying very hard to put daylight between himself and Ayn Rand, the right’s leading advocate of selfishness, greed and laissez-faire capitalism.
Her philosopy was the DEFEAT of the widely held, pernicious ideologies that dominate contemporary culture and threaten our liberty—ideologies SUCH AS collectivism, moral relativism and multiculturalism.
Collectivism is the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
Moral relativism says that anything goes,
MULTICULTURALISM is a philosophy that appreciates ethnic diversity within a society and that encourages people to learn from the contributions of those of diverse ethnic backgrounds.
NEED PAUL RYAN.
Be careful what you wish for.
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
10:09 pm
@Tiberius – Banned from Bookman’s and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
9:59 pm
“Why has your WANNABE Messiah MITT WITT made it even more expensive IN MASSACHUSETS, all the while complaining about our PresidMnt OBAMA?”
You need to understand that Mass. health care rates were rising at some of the fastest percentages in the nation before Romneycare.
Now? Not so much.
****************************************************************
LINK PLEASE
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
10:13 pm
@md
May 2nd, 2012
9:53 pm
“AND MITT WITT will do any BETTER?”
So yes, I’ll take 50 States working toward a solution that may benefit everybody vs one party’s vision of utopia that may take everybody down together.
****************************************************************************************
SO YOU CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE?
What ARE the numbers for MEGA MILLIONS OR WIN FOR LIFE?
md
May 2nd, 2012
10:22 pm
“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.”
To simplify matters, one should understand that to list those 3 rights together means one right can not circumvent another………access to healthcare can not be a right if it infringes on ones right to liberty……….otherwise, the writers were total idiots.
And access to healthcare is not at issue, so what’s the beef?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
10:22 pm
“LINK PLEASE”
http://www.google.com
You’ve provided NOTHING but crap this evening,Trashman, so it’s time for you to get to work, son.
md
May 2nd, 2012
10:25 pm
“SO YOU CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE?”
No…..but I can read.
16 trillion in debt……
Obamacare already revised to cost more…..and hasn’t even been implemented……
Medicare in trouble….
Medicaid in trouble…..
SS in trouble……
Europe in trouble…….
Those are pretty easy to read tea leaves.
td
May 2nd, 2012
10:25 pm
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
9:53 pm
Thank you for the explanation.
I will go back to my original post to you:
“The key part of the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is pursuit: an effort to secure or attain.”
Is it not true that by the government providing healthcare to people without any conditions really the same as them taking away a fundamental right from those people? If you are given something by the government then you are not making an effort to receive the happiness and therefore are having your rights taken away from you by the government.
Now the government could grant access to anyone the ability to join their pools at the same cost as its employees pay and that would solve the issue you have about access and happiness and my issue about no effort means no right.
@@
May 2nd, 2012
10:37 pm
Among the many things I did not know.
How Deval Patrick Gutted Romneycare’s Market-Oriented Health Reforms.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/12/how-deval-patrick-gutted-romneycares-market-oriented-reforms/
Very interesting!
Romney genuinely strove for a free-market-based solution to the grave problems with Massachusetts’ dysfunctional insurance market. But Romney put too much faith in the willingness of Democrats to implement his ideas, as opposed to their own, especially after Romney left office. Romney’s biggest mistake was the individual mandate. The individual mandate was a loaded gun that Romney handed to his opponents, who used it to force individuals to buy comprehensive insurance they didn’t need.
Can’t trust Democrats as evidenced by Kyle’s column today.
“Obamacare costs more than advertised, double-counting edition”
j$
May 2nd, 2012
10:46 pm
Thank you, and good nite, @@.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE-Okqna4sQ lol
snoqualmiepass
May 2nd, 2012
10:48 pm
Sorry MarkV… you will never win a factual or theoretical arguement with T-Ban.. He sets the rules, provides a cogent reply and concludes with a nasty little comment. He provides all of us an unvarnished interpetation of authoritian conservatism, something he thrives on, an ideologue all the way.. have to admire his world view through…. his blinders makes it all so simple… why else could he have banned from another column?
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
10:48 pm
@Tiberius – Banned from Bookman’s and proud of it!
May 2nd, 2012
10:22 pm
“LINK PLEASE”
http://www.google.com
You’ve provided NOTHING but crap this evening,Trashman, so it’s time for you to get to work, son.
*************************************************************************
Google??????
heeheeheeheeheeheehhee
Pro-Gingrich super PAC blames ‘Romneycare’ for spiraling health care costs
@@
May 2nd, 2012
10:48 pm
j$:
You’re always welcome.
md
May 2nd, 2012
10:51 pm
Not to mention the additional costs to the States for Obamacare when the States are already slashing everything in sight…….tick, tick, tick.
And no, the millions in additional administrative costs are not covered in Obamacare……just mandated.
Think CA can stand to add to it’s mega billion debt load? And are GA citizens ready and willing to bail them out for choosing not to have a balanced budget amendment like GA has??
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
10:53 pm
@md
May 2nd, 2012
10:25 pm
“SO YOU CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE?”
No…..but I can read.
16 trillion in debt……
Obamacare already revised to cost more…..and hasn’t even been implemented……
******************************************************************************
HASN’T BEEN IMPLEMENTED?
So you can predict the future?
I still want the numbers for MEGA MILLIONS, WIN FOR LIFE, FANTASY FIVE.
md
May 2nd, 2012
10:55 pm
“So you can predict the future?”
As I said, I can read……now go get the latest CBO report and educate yourself……
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
10:56 pm
md 210:22 pm; ‘And access to healthcare is not at issue, so what’s the beef?’
Ask those, who attacked me for writing thatthe access was a right. Were you not one of them?
md
May 2nd, 2012
11:05 pm
MarkV….from your earlier post:
“The fundamental facts are that each year a certain number of people in the country are sick, get sick, or injured. Those people should get health care. That costs money. Because nobody knows when and how he/she will get sick or injured, the only sensible way of guaranteeing the health care all people should receive is some form of universal insurance.
The access to health care is a fundamental human right.
It is a government’s duty to guarantee it.”
You yourself have mixed up the concepts…..one sentence it’s “should have healthcare”, and the next it’s “access to healthcare”…….they are not the same.
MarkV
May 2nd, 2012
11:06 pm
td @10:25 pm
“Is it not true that by the government providing healthcare to people without any conditions really the same as them taking away a fundamental right from those people? “
It certainly is not true. I do not think you can provide any logical argument for that statement. Apart from that, I do not see that it has anything to do with what I was writing about. As for the government granting access etc, as you write, that is a quite different issue. I might agree with you, but that would require a much more detailed elaboration from both sides than I could go into now.
And Mitt Romney may be haunted by Massachusetts health care cost (Pot Calling Kettle Black)
May 2nd, 2012
11:13 pm
@md
May 2nd, 2012
10:55 pm
“So you can predict the future?”
As I said, I can read……now go get the latest CBO report and educate yourself……
********************************************************************************
lanoissergnoC tegduB eciffO (OBC)
A dnim si a elbirret gniht ot etsaw
heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee