As Bob notes below, failing to anticipate costs can be, well, costly. And it's not just at the state level:
"The sobering assessment by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concludes ... that the double-counting of Medicare spending -- as both savings and as a means to shore up the debtridden government fund for seniors' health care -- means the cost is unrealistic."
This should come as no surprise to those who've been following this train-wreck, but it's worth repeating: ObamaCare© has never been about controlling health care costs, it's been about government control of health care itself. This news simply underscores that point; note as well that the innocuous "1 percent over 10 years" is just silly: as we continue to see, this administration has no clue about how to actually (or accurately) predict the full impact of their efforts.
For example:
"The sobering assessment by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concludes ... that the double-counting of Medicare spending -- as both savings and as a means to shore up the debtridden government fund for seniors' health care -- means the cost is unrealistic."
This should come as no surprise to those who've been following this train-wreck, but it's worth repeating: ObamaCare© has never been about controlling health care costs, it's been about government control of health care itself. This news simply underscores that point; note as well that the innocuous "1 percent over 10 years" is just silly: as we continue to see, this administration has no clue about how to actually (or accurately) predict the full impact of their efforts.
For example:
[Chart courtesy Innocent Bystanders]
Posts
