Health Care

Op-Ed: From a Fiscal Standpoint, Alarm About Health Care Reform

Pioneer Press | May 15, 2010

 

As co-chair of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (yes, I know it sounds like an oxymoron), I helped organize a Washington conference this month titled 'What would a fiscal crisis look like in the United States?'

The event was attended by budget and economic experts, including former directors of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Participants were in agreement on one basic point: The current fiscal path of the U.S. government is unsustainable. Our current debt-to-GDP ratio is over 60 percent - higher than at any time since World War II - and based on unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid this ratio will soon reach 100 percent. It appears that without some serious restraint, and soon, we are on course to become another Greece.

That is why, from a fiscal standpoint, the more I look at the recently passed health reform law, the more alarmed I become. My concern relates primarily to the many phony financing mechanisms included in this new program - which offers health coverage for 30 million uninsured Americans (either by adding them to the Medicaid program or by offering them government subsidies to buy insurance).

  • First, there appears to be a double count of some of the savings achieved in the federal student loan program. The budget savings are accomplished by eliminating banks from offering student loans, thereby saving the cash subsidy paid to banks. The resulting cost savings — perhaps $70 billion over 10 years — are primarily used to help offset the costs of expanding Pell grants to needy students. But it appears that some of these dollars — maybe $20 billion — may be double-counted to help finance the new health law. In any event, the student loan provision just didn't belong in the health bill, but that is the way Congress works.
  • Second, the health reform law creates a new long-term care insurance program. Like Social Security and Medicare's payroll tax, a dedicated tax is created to collect and set aside money to pay these long-term care benefits in the future. But these dollars will be spent as fast as they are collected to pay for other health programs. This is the same budget approach now plaguing the Social Security Trust Fund, which was raided to pay for non-Social Security programs over the years. In the least, it is deceptive accounting to pretend that we are pre-funding the long-term care program when this money is not being honestly saved for that purpose.
  • Third, the health reform law also raises new Medicare tax revenue and uses these dollars for new health programs — while at the same time crediting these dollars to the Medicare Trust Fund. Again, like the long-term-care tax, you cannot simultaneously spend these dollars now and save them for Medicare later.
  • Fourth, extra taxes are anticipated in coming years due to additional income that will be subjected to the Social Security payroll tax. Not surprisingly, these new revenues are also double-counted to cover new health program costs while at the same time being credited to the Social Security Trust Fund. Once again, you cannot spend these same dollars twice.
  • Fifth, about 40 percent of the new costs associated with health reform are covered by anticipated savings in the Medicare program. It is an unavoidable fact, however, that Medicare is already becoming a drain on the general fund budget — a problem that will only grow worse as baby boomers retire. Trimming Medicare costs and then spending those savings on a new program does not help us get out of our fiscal hole.
  • Sixth, it bears noting that Congress is now pursuing — with separate legislation — a Medicare "doctor fix." This legislation — which is almost certain to pass — is designed to restore physician payment levels under the Medicare program. This "fix" is projected to cost about $280 billion over the next 10 years - which alone exceeds (and therefore wipes out) the projected $138 billion surplus over 10 years that CBO scored for the health law.
  • Finally, just a few days ago CBO released a new report estimating the bureaucratic cost to implement the new health programs. These expenses are unavoidable - but were not included in earlier estimates of the law. These expenses add at least another $115 billion over 10 years to the price tag for health reform.

When you add it all up, the federal government's long-term fiscal imbalance will very likely grow worse as a result of the health law. Before health reform, we were looking down the road at a fiscal cliff. Instead of hitting the brake, we have stepped on the accelerator.

So, what would a fiscal crisis look like in the United States? We may soon find out.

Copyright 2010, Pioneer Press

 

CRFB Reacts to the State of the Union Address

CHAIRMAN
Bill Frenzel
Tim Penny
Charlie Stenholm

 
PRESIDENT
Maya MacGuineas
­­­
 
DIRECTORS
Barry Anderson
Roy Ash
Charles Bowsher
Steve Coll
Dan Crippen
Vic Fazio
Willis Gradison
William Gray, III
William Hoagland
Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Jim Jones
Lou Kerr
Jim Kolbe
James Lynn
James McIntrye, Jr.
David Minge
Jim Nussle
Marne Obernauer, Jr.
June O'Neill
Rudolph Penner
Peter Peterson
Robert Reischauer
Alice Rivlin
Martin Sabo
Gene Steuerle
David Stockman
Paul Volcker
Carol Cox Wait
David M. Walker
Joseph Wright, Jr.
 

SENIOR ADVISORS
Elmer Staats
Robert Strauss


CRFB Reacts to the State of the Union Address
January 27, 2010


The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget commends President Obama for his focus on deficit reduction in his State of the Union address, and hopes that he will follow through by pressing Congress to enact medium- and long-term deficit reduction policies over the next year.

As the President remarked tonight, we find ourselves in a “massive fiscal hole… a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve.” And he argued, rightly so, that “if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery.”

The President offered three proposals, in particular, which would be promising steps in the right direction:

  • A three-year non-security discretionary spending freeze, beginning in fiscal year 2011, and enforced by a veto, if necessary;
  • A bipartisan fiscal commission – created by executive order and fashioned after the Conrad-Gregg proposal – to provide a specific set of solutions to our fiscal problems;
  • The reinstatement of statutory pay-as-you-go laws (although as we’ve mentioned before, we are concerned about the large number of exemptions).

“We are thrilled that President Obama understands the threat of ever-rising debt, and is making some concrete proposals to begin to address it,” said Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Budget. “But actions speak louder than words. In the coming weeks and months, we urge the President to bring together members of both parties and begin taking concrete actions to stabilize the debt once the economy recovers.” 

 

Click here for a pdf version of this release.

For press inquiries, please contact Kate Brown at (202) 596-3365 or brown@newamerica.net.

 

Red Ink Rising

Download this document

In Red Ink Rising: A Call to Action to Stem the Mounting Federal Debt, The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform calls on policy makers to stabilize the national debt through a six-step plan. Crafted over the past year by former heads of the CBO, OMB, GAO, and the congressional budget committees, the plan reflects a bipartisan approach to avoiding the tremendous global risks of America's expanding debt, without destabilizing the economic recovery. Red Ink Rising is the first of two major reports to be released by the commission.

Download this document

Newly Updated Charts Comparing Health Care Reform Bills

Download this document

With new legislation recently released and estimated in the Senate, US BudgetWatch has updated the health care comparison charts and graphs. In this version, we compare, on a number of metrics, the bill being considered in the Senate to the legislation which recently passed the House.

Click here to download the previous version of these charts, which compared the (now-passed) plan put forward by the House Democrats to the House Republican plan and the Senate Finance Committee legislation.

Download this document
Syndicate content