There’s also an interesting revelation (at least, it’s a revelation to me) in this op-ed from professor of healthcare management Scott Harrington in the Wall Street Journal:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the House and Senate health-care bills will reduce federal deficits over the next 10 years by $138 billion and $130 billion, respectively. The lion’s share of the savings, $101.6 billion and $72.5 billion, would be realized by the long-term care program.
How can a new entitlement reduce deficits? With budget accounting, the program will pile up more revenues than its costs. But only in the short run. In the long run, it will blow a hole in the federal budget.
Read the whole thing. It’s pretty appalling. Dr. Harrington concludes:
Sen. Kennedy notwithstanding, it is hard not to conclude that a major motivation for the Class Act is to make ObamaCare look fiscally better over CBO’s official 10-year budget horizon. Without the new long-term care program, CBO’s projected deficit reductions for the House and Senate bills would be $36 billion and $58 billion, respectively, rather than $138 billion and $130 billion. This makes the overall Democratic reform look fiscally more responsible than it really is. The real danger comes after 10 years, when the long-term care program will increase deficits and create even greater pressure for government rationing of medical care.
Longterm care is calling out for reform and the problems it poses are likely to reach crisis proportions as Baby Boomers require it in growing numbers. However, the growth assumptions that underpin such creative accounting, kicking the can down the road towards a more prosperous future are not looking particularly solid right at the moment.
