Bill Gross says Health-Care to add $562 Billion to Deficit over 10 years

This isn't really new and it isn't Gross making that prediction... It's based on Douglas Holtz-Eakin's op-ed in the New York Times from a couple weeks ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html
[rquoter]...

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

...[/rquoter]

 

One thing that can't be stated enough these days is:

Rich does not equal smart.

 

I'd be surprised if we have the same law in spirit within ten years.

Even if no laws are passed, court rulings will be crucial.

 

When you think about it, that's not that much money. You can't even fight one war with $562 billiooon dollars. Ok, maybe one war against Iceland.

 

I'll be shocked if the politicians have the willpower to actually stick to the medicare reimbursement cuts these budgets always contemplate but to date have never enacted. That is why I'm so skeptical about the bill being a deficit reducer when we actually get to the cost cutting steps. Weren't hospital exempt from the cuts as well?

 

Do you know what would happen to the debt/gdp ratio if the status quo were kept? Hint - it ain't going down.

 

I can understand that skepticism, but I would hope any changes to the bill that would cause it to cost more (like skipping or postponing specific spending cuts) would be offset at that time with revenue increases or spending cuts elsewhere. I think you've got to do the best you can now to make a plan that will reduce the deficit with a reasonable and acceptable solution and put the onus on the politicians in charge later to justify the extra cost if they choose not to allow part of the plan to be implemented.

 

While that's probably true, that was going to occur regardless of the bill or not. So that's not an additional cost of the bill.

And the bill does make significant changes to reimbursement rates for Medicare that should force actual improvements. It gives an independent panel the ability to implement cuts - if Congress doesn't like those cuts, it has to find the equivalent in savings elsewhere or the cuts automatically go into effect.

 

I don't need to be Bill Gross to know that Medicare wasn't going to be able to pay for itself without HCR.

And LOL about "we must trust the bond market!!11!!!!" - I don't even want to get into the silliness of that statement.

 

Your appeal to authority had me going for about five seconds. Just subtract about five seconds from that total.

If you'd bothered to read your own thread, you'd read that his "insight" is the product of (edit) an NYT subscription.

I get it on Saturday Sunday, does that mean I have insight too?

 

This is an outstanding point.

This BBS can debate all day long whether the bill that passed was the best answer to the problem, but the fact remains that the status quo was not sustainable.