Why on earth would anyone believe that the federal government running health care will cure the high cost problem in the industry? I mean what has government ever run that even works well? Our monetary system is a mess. The economy is in the toilet. Our schools are sub-par. Welfare programs have not alleviated poverty. Our prisons are bulging at the seams, filled with too many non-violent drug offenders.
But, here we are debating whether Congress and the Administration should totally control one-sixth of our economy in an effort to lower costs and provide universal health care coverage for America. The proposition to me is ridiculous - folks have only to look at the federal government’s track record when it comes to programs and cost overruns to see that.
There have been thousands of examples through the years and the following is by no means the most egregious. In the realm of transportation, cost overruns are automatic with federally funded projects. Take the “mixing bowl” highway interchange project in Springfield, Virginia for instance. It was estimated by state officials to cost $241 million. At its completion, the project ended up costing $676 million. Of course, the most notorious transportation cost overrun was Boston’s “Big Dig”. Initially estimated to cost a mere $2.6 billion, the project’s final cost was $14.6 billion.
Uncle Sam’s fiduciary experiences, when it comes to energy projects, are not much better. Take the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project of the 1970s for instance. The project experimented with nuclear fission and was forecast by the Atomic Energy Commission to cost $400 million. Throughout the decade its cost estimates steadily increased to $4 billion. Eventually the program was scrapped, but not before taxpayers dished out $1.7 billion.
Without question, cost overruns in Social Security are legendary. The old age pension system has required many reforms in its 74-year history because of insolvency. When it was established in 1935, its financing only required a contribution one percent of wages from the employee, with a matching one percent from the employer. Over the years, reform has eventually raised those contribution levels to 6.2 percent each. The most significant amendments to the system came in 1983, when an earnings penalty for wages above a certain level, a delay in the cost of living allowance for six months, reduced benefits for those who retire early, and a higher retirement age were enacted. All were measures to shore up the insolvent trust fund used to pay benefits. Today, the outlook is even bleaker for Social Security. Faced with millions of baby boomers retiring and a much smaller workforce to finance the system, it will be almost impossible for Uncle Sam to come up with an estimated $45 trillion in future unfunded liabilities.