I was at a very interesting seminar this past week on disparities in healthcare and if the current healthcare bill being proposed would deal with these issues. What stuck with me out of this entire seminar was one simple line.

While the actual act of passing the healthcare bill will be a grand victory, it will also end up being one of the greatest failures.

The point the lecturer made was that many of the programs being created or revamped have not been tested. Add this to the fact it was written in such a hurry and you've a cocktail of problems unforeseeable and foreseeable for the years to come.

Well, after reading the CBO report, I don't know why I should accept what the Washington Journal article has to say.

On the House bill, a CBO letter to congressman Paul Ryan states: CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting H.R. 3962, by itself, would reduce federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period through its effects on direct spending and revenues.

http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/ press/2007/pr20091119cboscore.pdf (letter from CBO to Paul Ryan)

On the Senate bill, the CBO letters to Reid: According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $130 billion over the 2010–2019 period... (And here's the kicker on the senate bill) The estimate includes a projected net cost of $599 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $848 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $149 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $100 billion in net savings from other sources. Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $491 billion and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $238 billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf (report)

Who should I adhere to? Some opinion article in the Washington journal or the reports themselves? HMMMMMM, that one is reaaaaalllly hard. Come on Joe.

First and foremost, neither bends the health-cost curve downward. The CBO found that the House bill fails to reduce the pace of health-care spending growth. An audit of the bill by Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, found that the pace of national health-care spending will increase by 2.1% over 10 years, or by about $750 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bill grows just as fast as the House version. In this way, the bills betray the basic promise of health-care reform: providing quality care at lower cost.

Second, each bill sets up a new entitlement program that grows at 8% annually as far as the eye can see—faster than the economy will grow, faster than tax revenues will grow, and just as fast as the already-broken Medicare and Medicaid programs. They also create a second new entitlement program, a federally run, long-term-care insurance plan.

Finally, the bills are fiscally dishonest, using every budget gimmick and trick in the book: Leave out inconvenient spending, back-load spending to disguise the true scale, front-load tax revenues, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending cuts to doctors and hospitals that have no record of materializing, and so on.

If there really are savings to be found in Medicare, those savings should be directed toward deficit reduction and preserving Medicare, not to financing huge new entitlement programs. Getting long-term budgets under control is hard enough today. The job will be nearly impossible with a slew of new entitlements in place.

In short, any combination of what is moving through Congress is economically dangerous and invites the rapid acceleration of a debt crisis. It is a dramatic statement to financial markets that the federal government does not understand that it must get its fiscal house in order.

What to do? The best option would be for the president to halt Congress's rush to fiscal suicide, and refocus on slowing the dangerous growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He should call on Congress to pass a comprehensive reform of our income and payroll tax systems that would generate revenue sufficient to fund its spending desires in a pro-growth and fair fashion.

Reducing entitlement spending and closing tax loopholes to create a fairer tax system with more balanced revenues is politically difficult and requires sacrifice. But we will avert a potentially devastating credit crisis, increase national savings, drive productivity and wage growth, and enhance our international competitiveness.

In order predict how successful Nationalized Health Care will be, we should look at:

1. Medicare

2. Medicaid

3. Social Security

4. Post Office

5. AMTRACK

6. Fannie Mae

7. Freddie Mac

well... you get the picture ;)

The problems of nationalized health care will only demonstrate and exacerbate the failure of government policy.

Therefore, ration care will only ensue.