Obama healthcare could worsen U.S. debt: Republican study

WASHINGTON Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:41am EDT

Obama healthcare legislation supporters rally on the sidewalk during the third and final day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington, March 28, 2012. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Obama healthcare legislation supporters rally on the sidewalk during the third and final day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington, March 28, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Instead of curbing government spending, President Barack Obama's healthcare law could add up to $530 billion to the federal debt over ten years, a Republican expert on U.S. government benefit programs said on Tuesday.

A study by Charles Blahous, a George Mason University research fellow and the Republican trustee for the Medicare and Social Security entitlement programs for the elderly, challenged the administration's contention that the 2010 law would reduce healthcare costs.

But the Obama administration defended the law as a cost-saver and sharply criticized the report by Blahous, an economic policy adviser under former President George W. Bush.

Known as the "Affordable Care Act," or by conservatives as "Obamacare," the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.

The Supreme Court is weighing whether Congress overstepped its authority to regulate commerce in approving the law. The justices heard arguments in the high-stakes case two weeks ago.

Republican presidential candidates have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House in the November election. Conservatives denounce the sweeping overhaul as an unwarranted government intrusion.

Obama and the Democrats believe the law will control skyrocketing costs and curtail government "red ink."

White House health adviser Jeanne Lambrew said Blahous' analysis wrongly charges that some savings are "double counted." She said government estimates from the Office of Management and Budget and from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office show the 2010 law would lower federal deficits over a 10 year period.

"This new math fits the old pattern of mischaracterizations about the Affordable Care Act when official estimates show the health care law reduces the deficit," Lambrew, deputy assistant to the president for health policy, wrote in a blog post on the White House website.

But Blahous, who also served as the deputy director of the National Economic Council under Bush, said in his research that the law is expected to boost net federal spending by more than $1.15 trillion and add between $340 billion and $530 billion to deficits between 2012-21.

"Relative to previous law, the (healthcare law) both exacerbates projected federal deficits and increases an already unsustainable federal commitment to health care spending," he concluded.

The analysis, first reported by the Washington Post late on Monday, also comes a month after the Congressional Budget Office cut the estimated net cost of the healthcare law by $48 billion to $1.08 trillion through 2021.

(Reporting by John Crawley and Susan Heavey; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Vicki Allen)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (120)
Marla wrote:
Assuming this assertion is true, and the healthcare would cost more, I’m okay with that. We can just spend a whole lot less on waging war to make up the difference!

Apr 10, 2012 2:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
QuantumForce wrote:
‘a George Mason University research fellow and the Republican trustee’

We better believe this LOL

Apr 10, 2012 4:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ricochet wrote:
Hmmm. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency, drops its estimates of the cost by 48 billion.

The *Republican* trustee, *former economic adviser to GWB,* says it will exceed costs.

Which should I believe, especially in what’s shaping up to be a nasty election year. Hmmmmm… Of course, depending on what the Supreme Court decides, it could be moot (or partially moot.)

(For what it’s worth, if we had a Democratic adviser to a Democratic trust saying it would save X amount, I’d still take the CBO’s assessment over one with reason to be heavily biased.)

Apr 10, 2012 4:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Recommended Newsletters

Reuters U.S. Top News
A quick-fix on the day's news published with Reuters videos and award-winning news photography and delivered at your choice of one of four times during the day.
Reuters Deals Today
The latest Reuters articles on M&A, IPOs, private equity, hedge funds and regulatory updates delivered to your inbox each day.
Reuters Technology Report
Your daily briefing on the latest tech developments from around the world from Reuters expert tech correspondents.