A new CBO report on the health proposal coming out of Washington shows a significant reduced cost while magically insuring more people. Anthony Randazzo from the Reason Foundation lays out the problems with what Democrats are pushing, even if Washington managed a smaller price tag for the proposal:

Whew, health care will only cost $611 billion! That's the line in Washington right now. An estimate from the CBO on the draft legislation from the Senate health committee is $1 trillion less than its estimate of a previous draft version. Of course the massive cut has the effect of making $611 billion seem like a small number, as the massive numbers coming out of Washington increasing dull away the enormity of the spending numbers. What's another billion or so? is now common thought. And a million dollars... well, that's just candy money.

Yesterday, I tried to argue that from an economic theory perspective, the health care costs don't make much sense. The analysis is largely apart from the debate of the effectiveness of a government plan, though it is worth noting that the CBO also suggests that $611 billion would only cover 39 percent of the uninsured. And that likely means more spending in the future, so don't get too comfortable with the $611 billion.

There is no talk of the long-term funding issues with Medicare, which has unfunded liabilities of $31.8 trillion (p.28). So while we hear a lot about these supposed savings, the long-term is still in question. And don't forget, taxpayers were told that Medicare expansion in 2003 would cost $400 billion over the first 10 years. In 2005, the cost was reassessed at $1.2 trillion in the same span. The second decade of the program was even more costly at $2 trillion.

Also, if you don't have or don't want health insurance coverage, you face a $1,000 fine. Of course they don't call them fines, they call them "shared responsibility payments." That has a nice collectivist ring to it, doesn't it?