Universal Health Care, What will it Cost?

Do you believe that the new health care bill will save $143 billion over its first 10 Years? If so, I have bad news for you--it won't. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this projected "savings" assumes that Medicare spending per beneficiary increases "significantly more slowly" than it has historically. This assumes that Medicare reimbursements to physicians are significantly reduced.

Rationing can take many forms. Reducing reimbursements to physcians and hospitals, if Congress has the will power to do so, is one form of rationing. Less available care translates into less care.

To put these projections into perspective, when Medicare was signed into law (1965) the projected annual cost of Medicare in 1990, 25 years in the future, was $12 billion. The actual cost of Medicare was $13 billion 10 years later in 1975. It was actually $98 billion in 1990, more than 8 times the projected cost. What does this tell us about the probable accuracy of the projections associated with the new health care bill of a one trillion cost over its first 20 years?

Unfortunately, however, this is just the tip of the ice berg. The current projected cost of unfunded or underfunded future costs of social security and care for the elderly is in excess of $100 trillion. To put that in perspective, the federal government will need to run a $2.0 trillion surplus for the next 50 years in order to cover the costs of these existing programs. What are the odds that will happen?

By now, we should all know that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." Someone has to pick up the tab. In this case, increasing taxes alone will not get the job done. The only realistic solution is to ration care. Is anyone ready to begin the hard work involved in developing a "rational" rationing system?