Rising costs' You bet!
Mr. Peter Orszag, Director
Office of Management and Budget
Ms. Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director
White House Office of Health Reform
Dear Mr. Orszag and Ms. DeParle:
Recently in The Washington Post you argued that President Obama's health-care reform — the one that passed on March 21 — "won't break the bank."
You'll pardon my skepticism. When Medicare was created in 1965, its champions predicted that, by 1990, taxpayers would be spending $12 billion annually (adjusted for inflation) on it. In fact, in 1990 Medicare cost American taxpayers $107 billion. (Its annual cost today is nearing $500 billion.)
That is, Medicare's actual cost was eight times (!) higher in 1990 than its projected cost. That's not a rounding error or a small mistake. It's huge. It's game-changing — or should be in a rational world.
Think of the matter this way: Suppose you're shopping for a house and the mortgage banker assures you that in the future, your monthly mortgage payment will be $1,000. So you buy the house because it's worth, to you, a monthly mortgage payment of $1,000. But next year your monthly mortgage payments turn out to be $8,000. Would you still think you got a good deal• Isn't it possible — indeed, likely — that had you known that your mortgage payment would be vastly higher than what you were told it would be, you wouldn't have purchased that house?
The story is the same with Medicaid. Projected to cost $238 million during its first year, Medicaid in fact cost more than $1 billion during that year. And today, as The Wall Street Journal reported last Oct. 21, "Medicaid now costs 37 times more than it did when it was launched — after adjusting for inflation."
Of course, these are hardly the only two programs whose actual costs have far outstripped their advertised prices.
This cost escalation isn't surprising. Government officials operating these programs do not spend their own money; they spend other people's money. And who, pray tell, spends other people's money as wisely as his or her own?
In addition to the lack of discipline that results from spending other people's money, once any such program is in place, a bureaucracy is immediately created that becomes a vocal constituency not only for maintaining the program, but for expanding it. And this expansion is endorsed not because of any real urge to help the public, but rather because expansion means larger budgets and more power and prestige for the officials who operate the program.
Given both the history and the logic of government programs, I simply cannot believe that your cost estimates — however careful your accounting might be — will prove to be correct.
So I challenge you to put your money where your words are. Let's make a real bet.
Pick any year in the future between 2021 and 2046. Tell me your estimate today of how much Uncle Sam will spend on health care that year. I'll bet each of you $5,000 that Uncle Sam's actual expenditures on health care in that year — adjusted for inflation — will be at least 25 percent higher than your estimate.
If Uncle Sam's health care expenditures in that year are less than 25 percent higher than you project them to be, I'll congratulate you as I mail you your checks. If those expenditures are 25 percent higher than you project them to be — or more — I'll contribute my winnings to a private health-care charity, as I predict that the need for philanthropic contributions along those lines will be great.
Do we have a bet?
Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.