What’s the big deal? I mean, we already knew Democrats were full of crap when they claimed covering an additional 34 million people would leave us in better fiscal health. Saturday Night Live even mocked the claim, which should tell you something about just how laughable it was even to the left.

Well, the big deal isn’t what the conclusion of the new study was but rather who came to the conclusion. Try Barack Obama’s own Department of Health and Human Services.

President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The mixed verdict for Obama’s signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

And what do you know, those kooky conservatives were right!

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

“During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage,” wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary. “Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare … reductions is doubtful.” Foster’s office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

The legislation was never going to decrease costs. You don’t create a new entitlement program for 34 million people and then expect costs to go down. As DrewM. says, this whole thing was about covering poor, mostly Democratic voters at the expense of everyone else.