[ElcinBoris]

I'm not blaming the CBO; no one can accurately project government spending over the next ten years, let alone the next 80. I just think its funny that you put stock in such an obviously questionable projection.

[Injurnerona]

Neither work.

BTW, you still haven't given a good reason why reducing the costs of one entitlement program won't counteract the rise in costs for another entitlement program, from a fiscal perspective.

[CatLuvkaLover]

Good answer. I'm totally convinced now.

edit: Let me put the question another way, one you might be more tempted to actually answer...

How many years out do I have to accept those questionable projections of Medicare/Medicaid spending to get to the point where your assertion that counteracting increased healthcare spending with lowered Social Security spending is a "lunatic fantasy" becomes true?

[mikefertynnz]

That's not an answer.

Anway, I think I'm on solid ground in questioning the validity of an extrapolation of federal healthcare costs 75 years into the future.

[erepsysoulperj]

Every other system produces longer lifespans and lower infant mortality rates.

We ration healthcare as well. 1/4 of Americans are uninsured; while 3/4 of Americans are underinsured.

These are reasons to support universal healthcare in the United States. They are not reasons to think universal healthcare in the United States will actually succeed in reducing healthcare costs, however.

[Hokimjers]

I posted the first graph for a reason.

Yes. It's from a lefty think-tank and better supports your partisan views. It's the same reason right-wingers (ie. people far to the right of me) link to studies by the Heritage Foundation.

And yes, I happen to think that absent any mechanisms to control costs, the trend of rapidly increasing health care costs over the past few decades is likely to continue indefinitely.

That's a pretty big assumption. In the future, you might want to try talking down to me when you have better logical support for your claims of lunacy.

[searkibia]

Yes. It's from a lefty think-tank and better supports your partisan views. It's the same reason right-wingers (ie. people far to the right of me) link to studies by the Heritage Foundation.

It's the same data as the CBO, you hack.

[jisee]

Same data. Different assumptions and projection.

No. For the measurement that I'm talking about - comparing SS with Medicare/Medicaid costs, it's the same thing.

[carletoxtrs]

Ok, so we're back to your total ignorance about health care policy.

[Nundduedola]

You should be comparing the amount spent on SS to the amount of unfunded spending above tax revenues, not total spending on Medicare/Medicaid. No wonder you aren't making any sense.

No, Ben. I shouldn't be.

[dosugxxx]

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.

[Qnnoshxj]

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.

[adunnyByday]

Take two ASA and call me in the mornin.

[viiagrag]

After Brown presented Obama with a pen holder crafted from the timbers of the 19th century British warship HMS President (whose sister ship, HMS Resolute, provided the wood for the Oval Office's desk), Obama offered up ... 25 DVDs of American movie classics. C'mon. Which would you rather have, a lousy pen holder, or copies of Girls Gone Wild I-XXV?