Where Costs are Savings

"That's right. Brantley is Whitfield. Whitfield is Brantley."
--Brantley Foster (The Secret of My Success)

House Republicans are out of the gate w/ spending cut and deficit reduction proposals. Democrats are predictably resisting.

One mode de resistance is claiming that any GOP efforts to repeal the recently passed health care law violates Republican promises to cut the deficit--since govt projections show that the health care law will save over $100 billion over the next 10 yrs.

Excuse me briefly while I enjoy my daily giggle compliments of bureaucratic ineptitude.

There has never been a large scale government sponsored social welfare program enacted in this country that has saved money. The primary reason for this is that, by definition, these government sponsored programs are not driven by markets. They are driven by bureaucratic planners. With certainty, we can forecast with certainty that costs of this program will increase and quality/innovation will decrease.

When Medicare was first enacted, the cost for the first year was $3 billion. At the time, the House Ways and Means Committee forecast that Medicare would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual 1990 Medicare expenditures clocked in at about $107 billion--nearly a 10 fold miss.

In 2010, Medicare and Medicaid expenditures accounted for over $700 billion--about 20% of the $3.6 trillion (!) in total Federal govt outlays.

Repealing the health care law is wholly consistent with breaking the spending habit. Hopefully the young turks will not fall victim to political drivel to the contrary.