While we do not know how badly the government has underestimated costs this time, the six years of benefits w/ten years of fees leads me to believe the scoring is even less credible than usual.

In what way is this bill good? Forcing people to buy full-coverage (low or no deductible) health care insurance is good? Forcing insurance companies to overcharge younger and lower risk customers and undercharge older and higher risk customers is good? Diverting money from an already expensive and underfinanced Medicare program to this new health care financing plan is good? Increasing the involvement of the federal government in every aspect of patient care is good? Blatant health care industry corporatism (with pharmaceutical, diagnostic imaging, and medical device companies spending more on lobbying than on research and development) is good?

From economic, political, social policy, and heath care quality viewpoints, this bill is an all-around loser. The winners: government bureaucrats, lobbyists, politicians who get lobbied, and copycat healthcare companies (drug and medical device makers who rarely innovate and just create “me-too” drugs or devices). Hospitals may benefit financially in the short-term. So will some physicians. In the medium-term our health care system will look like Canada’s, and in the long-term it will look like Great Britain’s.