Today I received an email from one of my Senators telling me that he was not going to support the public option because the deficit was too large and spending money on health insurance reform was not as good a use of funds as directing money towards job creation.
This idea that health insurance is too expensive in a time of deficit is one that's popular among conservative politicians and pundits, so it's worth breaking this out.
This is 1.3 trillion dollars:
$1,300,000,000,000
This is the high estimate of the cost of providing a public option for ten years.
$909,917,000,000 and rising.
This is the ongoing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, from 2001 onward.
This is 1903.1 billion dollars:
$1,903,100,000,000
This is the estimated cost of Bush's tax cuts from the years 2001-2010.
This is 41.5 billion dollars.
$41,500,000,000
This is the estimated cost of Bush's tax cuts for 2010 alone.
If we look at only one year of expenses, this is what we see:
Wars + ten years of tax cuts = $2,813,017,000,000 = $2.8 trillion dollars.
Cost of funding a public option for ten years = $1.3 trillion dollars.
Moreover, here is the deficit as of today: $11,797,976,820,226, or $11.7 trillion dollars.
If we take the public option total across ten years, and divide it by ten, we get $0.13 trillion dollars a year.
So, enacting the public option would require expenditures equal to about 1.11% of the overall deficit for one year.
Yes, you read that correctly - that is equivalent to one point one one percent of the deficit.
Moreover, that is just for the public option, which is not the most cost-effective approach.
One report noted in 2005 that if we adopted a national single-payer plan,
This fiscal analysis of the impact of four scenarios for health care
reform found that the single payer model would reduce costs by over
$1.1 trillion over the next decade while providing comprehensive
benefits to all Americans.
Tell me again about how health insurance reform is too expensive to fund?
Recent Comments