DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**dosugxxx** · 03-10-2009, 05:06 AM

OK, you're boring me now.

edit:

The Medicare Trustees assume lower future health cost growth for two reasons. First, they argue that some of the historical growth in health costs was due to non-recurring factors, like the spread of health insurance, that are unlikely to contribute to growth in health costs in the future. Second, GDP growth is projected to slow in future decades, and the Trustees implicitly assume that the rate of health care cost growth will slow commensurately. ...

Consequently, we assume here that future health cost growth, in the absence of policy changes, will be more similar to the rates projected in the CBO scenario that assumes a continuation of historical trends than to the rates projected in the CBO scenario that is based on the trustees’ assumptions, and we use the higher growth scenario as our base case. Nonetheless, given the substantial uncertainty involved in projecting health care costs, it is worth considering what the nation’s fiscal future would look like if costs grew at the lower rate projected by the Medicare Trustees.

Using the lower health cost growth assumptions would substantially reduce the projected growth in Medicare and Medicaid and the overall fiscal gap. Even so, the national debt would still increase dramatically over the coming decades, reaching 166 percent of GDP in 2050 (instead of the 231 percent of GDP it reaches in our base projections). Likewise, the nation would still face a large fiscal gap through 2050 of 2.1 percent of GDP (compared with 3.2 percent of GDP under our base case projections).

Interesting. Using the Medicare Trustees' assumptions would definitely put off the "lunatic fantasy" date...

edit 2: The CBPP report also mentions a GAO scenario that "differs from the other scenarios listed ... because it assumes that temporary tax provisions, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, expire as scheduled." This scenario yielded a .5% decrease in the fiscal gap through 2050 as compared to the CBPP projection and seems more defensible given that Obama is likely to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

03-10-2009, 05:06 AM	#31
dosugxxx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 497 Senior Member	OK, you're boring me now. edit: The Medicare Trustees assume lower future health cost growth for two reasons. First, they argue that some of the historical growth in health costs was due to non-recurring factors, like the spread of health insurance, that are unlikely to contribute to growth in health costs in the future. Second, GDP growth is projected to slow in future decades, and the Trustees implicitly assume that the rate of health care cost growth will slow commensurately. ... Consequently, we assume here that future health cost growth, in the absence of policy changes, will be more similar to the rates projected in the CBO scenario that assumes a continuation of historical trends than to the rates projected in the CBO scenario that is based on the trustees’ assumptions, and we use the higher growth scenario as our base case. Nonetheless, given the substantial uncertainty involved in projecting health care costs, it is worth considering what the nation’s fiscal future would look like if costs grew at the lower rate projected by the Medicare Trustees. Using the lower health cost growth assumptions would substantially reduce the projected growth in Medicare and Medicaid and the overall fiscal gap. Even so, the national debt would still increase dramatically over the coming decades, reaching 166 percent of GDP in 2050 (instead of the 231 percent of GDP it reaches in our base projections). Likewise, the nation would still face a large fiscal gap through 2050 of 2.1 percent of GDP (compared with 3.2 percent of GDP under our base case projections). Interesting. Using the Medicare Trustees' assumptions would definitely put off the "lunatic fantasy" date... edit 2: The CBPP report also mentions a GAO scenario that "differs from the other scenarios listed ... because it assumes that temporary tax provisions, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, expire as scheduled." This scenario yielded a .5% decrease in the fiscal gap through 2050 as compared to the CBPP projection and seems more defensible given that Obama is likely to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
	Quote