MSNBC Reports: "The day after the Congressional Budget Office released its new estimate of a $1.5 trillion budget deficit for this fiscal year, CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that health care is the biggest driver of the budget problem."
Smart stuff from Ezra Klein: If the Democrats' legislation fulfilled its goal of covering almost every American and also managed to pay for itself, it was suddenly much harder to oppose. So last week, as the Republicans sought to make their case that the health-care bill should be repealed, a lot of their arguments were aimed at undercutting the numbers coming out of the CBO.
The agency's product is nothing more than "budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline," conservative wonks Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Joseph Antos and James C. Capretta wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says the CBO's numbers are based on "smoke and mirrors." Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), angry that the CBO thinks tax cuts reduce tax revenue - no doubt the agency has also been known to say that the sun rises in the east - has called for the CBO to be abolished.
The sad reality is that it's not hard to discredit budget estimates in 30-second sound bites: You just say whatever you want and trust that your opponent doesn't have anywhere near enough time to explain the issue. Take Republican criticisms that the "doc fix" isn't included in the CBO's scores, and that if it were, the health-care bill would increase the deficit. It's absurd. In 1997, congressional Republicans capped the rate at which Medicare could increase payments to physicians. But their cap was too low. Now they want Democrats to fix it for them and pile the costs onto the bill. It's a little like saying that the cost of the war in Iraq should be added to health-care reform.
But you'll notice it took a moment to explain that. It's easier to just say that the score is full of "smoke and mirrors" and then make some authoritative-sounding point about Medicare payments. Who's got the time to check it out?
You can play whack-a-mole with this stuff all day. But beneath it is something more insidious: an effort to discredit the last truly neutral, truly respected scorekeeper in Washington. The facts don't support the particular case the Republicans want to make, so they're trying to take down the people who supply the facts. But once that's done, it can't easily be undone. And the true loser will be the very thing Republicans claim to care most about: the deficit.
If getting the CBO's seal of approval ceases to matter, then political parties will cease to try. That's when the "smoke and mirrors" will really begin: when bills just have to sound good rather than pencil out. When there are no skeptical budget experts sending legislation back to the authors with a note that says "Sorry, not there yet." When policy debates are decided by who can yell the loudest rather than who can write the best bill.
The bargain that both parties have struck with the CBO is that they'll accept the short-term setbacks the agency imposes on them because, in the long run, it's better for the system to have someone keeping score. Right now, Republicans are breaking that bargain. They're not merely saying that the CBO's guess is bad, or that the CBO is right but the bill is bad for other reasons, but that the CBO's whole system is, in the words of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), "Garbage in, garbage out." Civil? Maybe. Wise? Definitely not. Pay attention, folks.
GOP claims 650,000 lost jobs from "ObamaCare," and cites the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as the source. But the CBO never produced the number. What follows is a story of how statistics get used and abused in Washington.
Read it all at Yahoo! News
From Think Progress we learn some more about what repealing the Affordable Care Act would cost us:
– 32 million Americans will lose coverage compared to current law: “Under H.R. 2, about 32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).” (p. 8-9)
– Increases deficit by $230 billion over 10 years: “Consequently, over the 2012–2021 period, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections for that period.” (p. 5)
– Huge deficit increases over next decade: “Correspondingly, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.” (p. 7)
– Individuals would pay more for health insurance: “Although premiums in the individual market would be lower, on average, under H.R. 2 than under current law, many people would end up paying more for health insurance— because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and H.R. 2 would eliminate those subsidies.” (p. 9-10)
– Average health care benefits would be worse: “In particular, if H.R. 2 was enacted… the average insurance policy in this market would cover a smaller share of enrollees’ costs for health care and a slightly narrower range of benefits.” (p.9)
– Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance would increase: “Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher under H.R. 2 than under current law, reflecting the net impact of many relatively small changes.” (p. 10)
From TPMDC
A preliminary analysis from CBO may have sealed the deal. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is preparing to move ahead with a "robust" public option--one that reimburses hospitals and providers at Medicare rates, plus five percent--in the House's health care bill. She is briefing her caucus about the plan's savings tonight, and, pending the approval of a sufficient majority of members, will adopt the measure as part of the complete reform package The bill remains nominally more expensive than the Senate Finance Committee proposal, but would cover 96 percent of all Americans, providing greater bang for each federal dollar spent. And, aides note, the bill that comes to the floor of the Senate will be a hybrid of the Finance and more expensive HELP Committee bills, so the price is expected to rise.
Meanwhile, since the Weiner Amendment for Single Payer will get a vote on the floor, the CBO is in the process of scoring it.
From Daily Kos a report on a Washington Post story:
Congressional budget analysts have given House leaders cost estimates for two competing versions of their plan to overhaul the health-care system, concluding that one comes within striking distance of the $900 billion limit set by President Obama and the other falls below it.
House leaders have been working to lower the cost of the $1.2 trillion health-care package they offered in July. The report from the Congressional Budget Office, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, puts the cost of one plan at $859 billion over the next decade and the other at $905 billion.
....
Both packages are based on the original House framework, which proposes to extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans by expanding Medicaid eligibility and subsidizing private insurance for people who lack access to affordable coverage through an employer. Each would expand the ranks of the insured to more than 95 percent of Americans by 2019, and each would create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.
From TPM LiveWire:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), formerly of the ill-fated Gang of Six senators on the Senate Finance Committee that had been charged with crafting health care reform legislation, said on Fox News this morning that his committee's health reform bill might have to be scrapped and created again from scratch.
We're expecting a preliminary cost estimate on the package from the CBO later this afternoon. But Grassley said that if CBO's analysis shows that the health care package won't be deficit-neutral and won't reduce health care inflation, then the proposal is in trouble.
"If we get figures back today that don't do that, then we're going to have to go back to the drawing board as a committee and make changes that accomplish both of those things, otherwise we've wasted a whole six months."
Grassley also took a shot at the White House, saying the Obama administration broke up the Gang of Six.
"The White House pulled the rug out from under us," Grassley said.
Congress Daily reports new CBO estimates show a strong public option would save an additional $85 billion compared to a weak one. Those who oppose the public option -- Republicans and a diminishing group of Democrats -- really are on the wrong side of this debate. The public option isn't about creating an expensive new government program that would give Ronald Reagan nightmares -- it's about making health care insurance cheaper and better for more people.
The public option is a simple idea, it's a good idea, and it's popular. There is no reason it shouldn't happen. Read it all at Daily Kos
Todays kerfuffle over the phony release of the grossly incomplete CBO report, is a reminder that what we really need is a complete and honest analysis of all the major health care proposals out there.
Complete is the key word here, because most of what is being talked about, regardless of whether it is Enzi and Grassley, or Baucus and alas sometimes Obama, is just the Federal government cost. That is a dishonest, incomplete picture.
What about the costs to State government?
What about the costs to Employers?
What about the cost to Individuals/families/households...?
What about total costs to the U.S., in dollars and as a percent of GNP, showing whether it will really control total costs?
Fortunately, such an analysis and report was done in early 2009, but since it confirmed an inconvenient truth, it has been largely ignored.
What we really need is a complete, honest, side-side comparison of all proposals, including single payer.
That comparison must NOT bee limited to just the costs to the Federal government, but also the total costs (e.g., currently about 2.5 trillion and 17% of GNP) as well as the costs to State government, employers, and individuals and household of different income levels.
The closest we have is the analysis and report done by the liberal leaning pro-reform Commonwealth Fund think tank, which supports the Obama "Building Blocks" approach, with both individual and employer mandates and a moderately strong public option (essentially the same as Jacob Hacker, HCAN, Campaign for America, Edwards and Clinton from the campaign, etc). Their partner in analysis is the industry gold-standard Lewin Group (which is actually owned by United Health and so if biased, certainly is biased against single payer as well as strong public option. The Building Blocks plan, like the Obama and Baucus plan, would increase costs overall, and to the federal government and for employers. The Wyden plan dumps even heavier on employers.
Regardless of what the CBO or GAO or beltway mainstream may say, being "revenue neutral" and saving the Federal government money is not the most important goal of health care reform.
We do need to control costs, but it is overall total costs that are what really count.
And, we also need to provide coverage that is truly Universal for all people, Comprehensive in covering all health needs, and does not bankrupt you if you get sick. Thanks to DrSteveB at Daily Kos - Click here to read it all and see the great charts.
|
