Jonathan Kantrowitz

Jonathan Kantrowitz

Political activist, health nut

CBO: repealing health care reform would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion

The House of Representatives is planning to consider a bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the major health care legislation enacted last March—that is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 that are related to health care. CBO has not yet developed a detailed estimate of the budgetary impact of repealing that legislation, although it is working with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to complete such an estimate in the near future. Because Congressional deliberations on H.R. 2 are beginning, CBO today issued a less-detailed preliminary analysis of that legislation.

Because CBO and JCT estimated that the March 2010 health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period and in subsequent years, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase budget deficits. The resulting increase in deficits projected for fiscal years 2012 through 2019 is likely to be similar in size to—but not exactly the same as—the reduction in deficits that was originally estimated to result from the enacted legislation.

The forthcoming detailed estimate will reflect a number of developments that have occurred since CBO and JCT produced the cost estimate for the March 2010 legislation, including changes in the economic outlook, technical revisions to CBO’s projections of program spending, the initial steps that have been taken to implement the new laws, and enactment of legislation that modified those laws. Those developments will probably not have a major effect on the overall budgetary impact of repealing the legislation. In addition, CBO has seen no evidence to date that the steps that will be taken to implement the March legislation—or the ways in which participants in the health care and health financing systems will respond to that legislation—will yield overall budgetary effects that differ significantly from the ones that CBO and JCT projected earlier. We cannot predict whether the various changes that will be incorporated in the detailed estimate will increase or decrease the estimated impact of H.R. 2 on federal deficits through 2019.

The estimate for H.R. 2 will differ in one significant way from the estimate for the enacted health care legislation. The original estimate covered the period from 2010 through 2019, the period used for Congressional budget enforcement procedures when the legislation was being considered; new estimates will span the period from 2012 to 2021.

Today’s letter describes—in broad terms and on a preliminary basis—CBO’s assessment of the effects that repealing PPACA and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act would have on federal budget deficits, the federal government’s budgetary commitment to health care, the number of people with health insurance, and health insurance premiums in the private market. (Repealing the provisions of that legislation would also have a variety of other effects on the health care and health insurance systems that this letter, like previous CBO cost estimates, does not address.)

Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade

As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes.

Those projections do not include any potential savings in discretionary spending, which is governed by annual appropriation acts. By CBO’s estimates, repeal of the health care legislation would probably reduce the appropriations needed by the Internal Revenue Service by between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years. Similar savings would accrue to the Department of Health and Human Services.

There is no clear basis for projecting other effects of H.R. 2 on discretionary spending. PPACA contained a number of authorizations for future appropriations, which, if left in place, might or might not result in additional appropriations. For example, most of the authorizations were for activities that were already being carried out under current law or that were previously authorized and that PPACA authorized for future years. Thus, repeal of the PPACA authorizations might or might not result in discretionary savings associated with those authorizations.

Impact on the Federal Budget Beyond the First 10 Years

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.

As with all of CBO’s cost estimates, these estimates—both for the first 10 years and beyond—reflect an assumption that the provisions of current law would otherwise remain unchanged throughout the projection period and that the legislation being considered would be enacted and implemented in its current form. CBO’s responsibility to the Congress is to estimate the effects of proposals as written and not to forecast future legislation. However, current law now includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. If those policies or other key aspects of the original legislation would have subsequently been modified or implemented incompletely, then the budgetary effects of repealing PPACA and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act could be quite different—but CBO cannot forecast future changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates.

Effects on the Federal Budgetary Commitment to Health Care

CBO uses the term “federal budgetary commitment to health care” to describe the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care. H.R. 2 would roughly reverse the outcome projected for the original legislation, diminishing the federal budgetary commitment to health care over the next decade and increasing it in subsequent years.

Effects on the Number of People with Health Insurance

Under H.R. 2, about 32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).

Effects on Health Insurance Premiums

If H.R. 2 was enacted, premiums for health insurance in the individual market would be somewhat lower than under current law, mostly because the average insurance policy in this market would cover a smaller share of enrollees’ costs for health care and a slightly narrower range of benefits. Although premiums in the individual market would be lower, on average, under H.R. 2 than under current law, many people would end up paying more for health insurance—because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and H.R. 2 would eliminate those subsidies.

Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher under H.R. 2 than under current law. Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through small employers might be slightly higher or slightly lower (reflecting uncertainty about the impact of the enacted legislation on premiums in that market).

Bookmark and Share
Posted in General | Add a comment

David Walker On Social Security

I appreciate David Walker responding to my first post on his views. I tried to respond within the comments to that post, and was only able to partially do so. For some reason I could not post the source – link in my response, so here it is:

Source for his quote:
David Walker Explains Social Security’s Future

Bookmark and Share
Posted in General | Add a comment

Truth in trans fats labeling needed

Ingestion of trans fat is a known public health concern. Top national health organizations, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and American Heart Association, suggest trans fats be ingested in limited quantities. However, current FDA labeling protocol and policy prevents the public from accessing the true amount of trans fat contained in their food products.

Current law requires that fat content of greater than five grams be listed in one gram increments, less than five grams be listed in .5 gram increments, and lower than .5 grams as containing zero grams of fat. Meaning, if a product has .49 grams of trans fat, the label can list the trans fat content as zero, thus masking a significant amount of trans fat that can exceed recommended limits and potentially lead to various adverse health effects.

Trans fat consumption has been linked to increased risk of coronary artery disease, diabetes, and sudden cardiac death. Because the daily recommended amount of trans fat from processed foods is only 1.11 grams, one would only need to consume a few deceptively labeled trans fat foods to exceed the healthy recommended intake. As few as three deceptively labeled trans fat items would exceed the healthy recommended intake; for example, consuming three serving sizes each with .49 grams of trans fat, totaling 1.47 grams. Despite what seems to be a small amount of trans fat to ingest, research shows that increasing daily trans fat consumption from .9% to 2.1%, or from two grams to 4.67 grams, will increase one’s risk of cardiovascular disease by 30%.

In an effort to adhere to its mission and responsibility in “helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their health,” the FDA should revise its labeling protocol in order to prevent misleading the public about the amount of trans fat they are consuming. The FDA should require food labels to report trans fat content in smaller increments, enabling consumers to recognize significant levels of trans fat in food products and allow one to properly manage their consumption. The suggested change will increase awareness of accurate food trans fat content, empower informed food choices, and improve public health outcomes.

Bookmark and Share
Posted in General | Add a comment

Connecticut Residents Urged to Test Homes for Radon, the Leading Cause of Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers

The Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) is urging Connecticut residents to test their homes for radon gas, the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers in the United States.

Radon, a naturally-occurring radioactive gas formed from the natural decay of uranium, is found in rock, soil and water. While radon in outdoor air poses a relatively low threat to human health, radon can enter homes from the surrounding soil, and become a health hazard inside buildings.

“Radon is present at elevated levels in about one out of every five homes in Connecticut,” stated DPH Commissioner Dr. J. Robert Galvin. “However, because you can’t see or smell radon, people often are unaware that there might be a silent killer in their homes.”

Radon gas can be found in any home or building, including schools and offices. Scientists have long been concerned about the health risk of radon, but never before has there been such overwhelming evidence that exposure to elevated levels of radon increases a person’s risk of developing lung cancer. DPH and the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommend that homes with radon levels at 4.0 pCi/L or higher should be fixed. However, radon exposure at any level poses some health risk; therefore, homeowners may want to consider reducing radon levels that are greater than 2.0 pCi/L.

Federal health officials estimate that radon is responsible for more than 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year. Only smoking causes more lung cancer deaths. Breathing radon over prolonged periods can present a significant health risk. If you smoke and your home has radon, your risk of lung cancer can be higher. Because radon does not have an odor or cause symptoms, you may not know you are exposed. As such, all Connecticut homes should be tested for radon and action should be taken to reduce high levels.

Testing homes for radon is simple and inexpensive. Radon test kits can be purchased from the American Lung Association of New England for $12. Simply call 1-800-LUNG-USA or 860-289-5401 and order yours today.

Radon problems can be fixed by qualified radon contractors for approximately $1,200. A homeowner should hire a qualified radon mitigation (reduction) contractor to decrease airborne radon levels to at least below 4.0 pCi/L, and preferably below 2.0 pCi/L. Visit the CT DPH website for a list of qualified radon mitigation contractors.

To learn more about radon, visit the DPH Radon Program web site or call (860) 509-7367. You can also visit the EPA web site at www.epa.gov/radon

Bookmark and Share
Posted in General | 1 Comment

My Other Blogs

I am a man of many interests – perhaps one or more of them match up with your interests as well.

I have written recently about my health blog: Health News Report and provided links to various sections of my Fairfield County Restaurants blog.

My most popular blogs are my Education Research Report and Archaeology News Report.

I also blog about

- Renaissance Faires

- Soccer and Baseball

- American Mating Habits

- Fairfield Real Estate

and quite a few more topics.

Bookmark and Share
Posted in General | Add a comment

David Walker’s Surprise

David Walker, Jim Himes friend and adviser, has earned a reputation in national policy circles as the ultimate deficit hawk, and advocate of cutting Social Security benefits.

Now he has weighed in on Connecticut’s budget crisis.

He makes 3 points – 2 rather to be expected from someone who claims to “represent the sensible center,” and is one of three chairs of Connecticut’s “No Labels” chapter, but in fact represents right wing talking points in fiscal matters. The third is quite a surprise until you realize that he lives in Bridgeport (he bought Chris Shays home, but is very unhappy about his tax bill.)

Here are his 3 points:

1. Lower taxes for the wealthy – why? “Wealthy individuals also have the option of moving out of the state.”

2. Restructure the state’s current pension and retiree health plans, including for existing employees. (Good luck with that one – they do have contractual rights you know – or do you?)

3. Here’s the surprise: “We must also deal with the current de facto discrimination in the way that property taxes are imposed in our state. City residents pay much higher property taxes per the fair market value of their property due to the failure to provide an adequate tax equalization system in the state.”

To rework an old saying – where you stand on property taxes depends on where you lie down!

Bookmark and Share
Posted in General | 2 Comments

HAPPY NEW YEAR and Best Wishes

To Connecticut’s new Governor (the one on the left) and Senator ( the one in the middle)::

Bookmark and Share
Posted in General | Add a comment

How to Cure a New Year’s Hangover


Exercise and B vitamins can help cure a hangover, but coffee won’t help.

Before the party:

– Plan to drink moderately — a maximum of five drinks for men and three drinks for women during a minimum three-hour period.
– To prevent inflammation, take an anti-inflammatory drug such as ibuprofen or Aleve.
During the party:
– Eat first, and then drink, not the other way around. Food slows the absorption of alcohol.
– Drink slowly.
– To prevent dehydration, drink a glass of water after each alcoholic drink.
– Take a B vitamin supplement.

After the party:

– Do not drink and drive.
– Get as much sleep as possible.

The morning after:

– Take another B vitamin.
– Drink lots of water.
– Exercise (if you can stand it). During vigorous exercise, blood circulates three times as fast as it does when you are sitting on the couch. And the faster you circulate blood through your liver and kidneys, the faster your body will remove the toxins.

What doesn’t work:

– Coffee will make you more alert, but it won’t prevent or help a hangover.
– Forget “hair of the dog” — the notion that having a drink can relieve a hangover. It will only make you feel worse.

Bookmark and Share
Posted in General | Add a comment

Recent Comments

Categories

More blogs

Sean Bowley

SPB's High School Football

News, analysis, commentary and features on Connecticut high school football by Sean Patrick Bowley.
Lennie Grimaldi

Only in Bridgeport

Award-winning journalist Lennie Grimaldi cracks open the juicy stuff in Connecticut's largest city.
Danielle Travali

Ruby Red Stilettos

Holly is a quirky, stiletto-clad writer, foodie, health nut in search of good friends and good fun.

Joe's View

Joe is the Connecticut Post's entertainment writer.

Archives

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan «-»  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  
Note: The blog is written by a reader and is not edited by the Connecticut Media Group. The blogger is solely responsible for content.