One consistent argument in favor of expanding government-run health care in the U.S. goes like this: “We’re the richest country in the developed world, so we should be able to provide universal health care like all the other developed countries.”
Well, we are a heck of a lot richer than we were in the 1930s or 1960s, when Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid rolled out. Despite our significant increase in income, those three programs are bankrupting the nation. And ObamaCare wreaks more fiscal havoc at a significantly faster rate than any of those programs.
With two simple charts, Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center shows how much more expensive ObamaCare will be than Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid — just five years after Congress enacted them.
In one chart, Blahous illustrates that the federal deficit will be about 5.5 percent of GDP five years after ObamaCare’s enactment — versus only 3 percent five years after Social Security’s enactment and less than one percent five years after Medicare’s and Medicaid’s enactment.
Source: Mercatus Center.
In another chart, Blahous illustrates that ObamaCare spending will account for 0.5 percent of GDP five years after enactment. Five years after Social Security’s enactment, it still accounted for a trivial share of GDP; while Medicare and Medicaid together accounted for about 9.25 percent of GDP. Lest this latter figure instill a false sense of security, Blahous reminds us that ObamaCare does not replace Medicare or Medicaid (which now account for a far greater share of GDP than they did in 1970), but adds to their burden.
Source: Mercatus Center