President Obama Lends His Voice to Chorus of Democrats Criticizing Congressional Budget Office Numbers
EmailA question many on Capitol Hill are asking today after watching last night’s ABC News "Prescription for America" health care discussion: Is President Obama preparing to dismiss whatever price tag the Congressional Budget Office eventually places on the final draft of the congressional Democrats’ health care reform proposal?
The reason politicians and their staffers are wondering is because for the first time, last night the president expressed frustration at the way CBO – long regarded as a fair and non-partisan arbiter – makes its analyses.
President Obama’s Budget director, Peter Orszag, is former CBO director. But in recent weeks as the CBO has provided $1-$1.6 trillion estimates for two draft health care reform bills, some Democrats have claimed the CBO analyses aren’t fair.
"One of the things that's disappointing about CBO — and frustrating — is all the work…done on prevention" that the CBO doesn’t factor in, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said last week.
"You don't get the benefit in CBO of cost-savings with prevention programs. They'll tell you how much an anti-smoking program may cost. They don't tell you the benefit occurs when a number of people stop smoking."
Dodd was responding to the fact that the CBO said that draft legislation penned by him and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. would cost $1 trillion over 10 years but add only a net increase of 16 million Americans to the ranks of the insured — leaving tens of millions uninsured.
"The way CBO scores some things sometimes doesn't make a whole lot of sense — I mean, real-life sense," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, according to The Hill.
Last night the president added his voice to that chorus.
Responding to a questioner who asked "how and who will pay for the national health care system," the president outlined the need to do something since "costs are going to keep on going up 6, 7, 8 percent per year, and government, businesses, and families are all going to find themselves either losing their health care or paying a lot more out of pocket. That's going to happen if we do nothing."
CBO estimates at how much the bill will cost, the president said, "have been anywhere from a trillion to $2 trillion. But what we've said is, what my administration has said, what I've said, is that whatever it is that we do, we pay for. So it doesn't add to our deficit." The president promised that "about two-thirds of the cost would be covered by reallocating dollars that are already in the health care system — taxpayers are already paying for it — but it's not going to stuff that's making you healthier." Roughly a third more "will come from new revenue" – a tax increase on wealthier individuals.
"There’s a way of paying for this that doesn't add to the deficits," President Obama said. "All this money that I just talked about, those are hard dollars. We know they are and so we know that this would not add to the deficit. It doesn't count all the savings that may come from prevention, may come from eliminating all the paperwork and bureaucracy because we've put forward health IT, it doesn't come from the evidence-based care and changes in reimbursement that I've already discussed about."
Continued the president, "the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, which sort of polices what all various programs cost, they're not willing to credit us with those savings. They say, ‘That may be nice, that may save a lot of money, but we can't be certain.’ So we expect that not only are we going to pay for health care reform in a deficit-neutral way, but that's it also going to achieve big savings across the system — including in the private sector where the Congressional Budget Office never gives us any credit — but if hospitals and doctors are starting to operate in a smarter way, that's going to help you even if you're not involved in a government system."
A week ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that "it's always been a source, yes I will say frustration, for many of us in Congress that the CBO will always give you the worst case scenario on one initiative and never … any credit for anything that happens if you have early intervention, health care. If you have prevention, if you have wellness … you name any positive investment that we make, that we know reduces cost, brings money to the Treasury in the case of education but never scored positively by the CBO. Yes, it is frustrating."
Pelosi said, "I hope we will see them say, 'This is what we see the cost of something. We have not accounted for the benefits' because they don't and they haven't and it should not be inferred from what they do that they have."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked last week if the White House believes CBO is an effective and reliable arbiter of the scoring of health care proposals, given Democrats’ frustration.
"Maybe some of that frustration is the fact that right now CBO is looking at older proposals or half measures," Gibbs said. "I think the Dodd legislation that originally was scored wasn't a final product. I don't think there were savings mechanisms in there about bending the cost of health care. But look, the President, as I said pretty clearly today, the President is going to look for health care reform that's fully paid for."
By the measurement of the Congressional Budget Office? Gibbs was asked.
"Unless or until somebody comes up with something different, yes," Gibbs said.
-jpt
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
Sorry, but I will believe the CBO over this Administration and/or Congress ANY DAY! Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama…???? Give me a break! If their lips are moving……………you know the rest.
Posted by: Sunnyr | June 25, 2009, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
Our leaders are nauseating.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | June 25, 2009, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
Well, if the system is going to be broke in 9 years without changes, and you can get 2/3 of the money without putting more money into the system, why don’t you go do that, and then come back to us in 6 years with a request for tax increases.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
There is a study by Dr. Steven Parente of the Univ. of Michigan & the HSI Network which estimates the cost at up to 4 TRILLION dollars. I mistakenly quoted a higher figure earlier, but, hey, what’s a few trillion dollars these days.
By the time this administration is finshed, you might need a trillion dollar bill to buy a loaf of bread.
Posted by: Terry | June 25, 2009, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
Just more smoke and mirrors to take the attention away from the real problems. As with Sunny, I will always trust and believe the figures coming from the non-partisan CBO before anything that comes out of Congress or the President – regardless of which administration it is. The costs are what they are – and – the government cannot take credit for savings in the private sector as the result of private sector initiatives. This healthcare reform will be a disaster for this nation and our healthcare system. Stay on top of them Jake!
Posted by: The BoBo | June 25, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
As a Democrat, I spent most of George W. Bush’s presidency showing my conservative friends the CBO figures. THis is a very dangerous path Obama/Dodd are walking on — we NEED nonpartisan trustworthy sources on the budget!
And it makes sense that preventative care, while great for an individual to prolong a healthy life, doesn’t save money: EVENTUALLY you’re going to suffer an old age malady and need expensive care.
Posted by: Rusty | June 25, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
I’m sorry. This calls for tax cuts. It’s the only way to shrink the deficit.
Posted by: borneo | June 25, 2009, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm
The CBO is not in the business of predicting what will happen “if you have wellness”. They work with numbers. Period. As for the benefits of having health care for all – I agree that there will be some benefits but there will always be people with habits that may be detrimental to their health, as in smoking, drinking, drugs use, STDs, etc., with more people (read kids) joining their ranks everyday. I say stick with the CBO numbers.
Posted by: Rican | June 25, 2009, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
Let’s hear it for the CBO. Presidents of both parties regularly bow to the CBO when it confirms the figures they want and takes issue with the CBO when it does not spit out the figures they want. It’s a game they all play and I deplore it every time they play it, regardless of party affiliation.
President Obama is proving yet again that he is simply another politician, who operates like a politician and thinks like a politician. That statement is not intended as an insult or a compliment, simply as an observation. Same old, same old.
And thanks, Mr. Tapper, for pointing out the difference between what the president is saying this week and what Gibby said last week.
Posted by: moderate | June 25, 2009, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
I’m sorry. This calls for tax cuts. It’s the only way to shrink the deficit.
Posted by: borneo |
——————-
They’re saving millions by not investigating corruption in the legislative branch but CBO won’t give them credit for that either.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | June 25, 2009, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
He’ll replace the personnel to get the figures he wants even if they are wrong. Which they usually are anyway. When you have people on your staff who do not understand the concept of paying their taxes and has been media news actors. All is a Hollywood fantasy playing out on the American people.
Posted by: s63m | June 25, 2009, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
The intitiative hasn’t been forthcoming because governmnet keeps throwing more ‘programs’ and funding into the mix. And we should have learned from the housing fiasco that past cash flow increases don’t prove future cashflow increases. Future ‘unsustainable’ increases projected based on past increases is a terrible reason to throw in more funding. Primary care providers are in a shortage because there are simply not enough to go around.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm
The CBO is never wrong. It’s not like they were touting a $5.6 TRILLION dollar surplus back in 2001 – enough to pay off the debt, save all social security receipts for the future and support Bush’s tax cuts (as Bush publicly and repeatedly cited).
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
Roughly a third more “will come from new revenue” – a tax increase on wealthier individuals.
====
Does the CBO ever do studies on such mundane things as what taxpayers can actually afford to pay?
So far, we’ve got $250,000+ wage earners scheduled (or proposed during Obama’s campaign) to be responsible for:
- increased tax rates
- increased capital gains tax rates
- decreased tax deductions
- tax on employer-provided benefits
- increased Social Security tax
All while being responsible for paying their own way when it comes to college while personal investments plummet.
Obama, Biden, Geithner, Sotomayor, and others in this administration made money above this threshold while at the same time pleading financial difficulties. They certainly never acted like they had money to spare for all of these additional taxes they seek to pile on others.
Is what taxpayers can actually afford a consideration to anybody?
Posted by: MayBee | June 25, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
“It doesn’t count all the savings that may come from prevention, may come from eliminating all the paperwork and bureaucracy because we’ve put forward health IT, it doesn’t come from the evidence-based care and changes in reimbursement that I’ve already discussed about.”
Hey ABC, how about doing some actual reporting and fact checking the above? And don’t just give us some Republican talking points – is the CBO actually ignoring the indisputable savings that will come from diverting people from the ER and ICU for respiratory failure, to a general practitioner for $10 of antibiotics a month earlier?
Obama made a specific charge that, if true, carries a great deal of merit. Is the CBO ignoring the documented cost benefits of health care reform?
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
The solution for limits on government spending for healthcare programs is to limit government spending on healthcare programs. Does it take bankruptcy to make the legislature understand that?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
The CBO is never wrong…
Posted by: jhw539 |
and only republicans lie.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | June 25, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
Obama made a specific charge that, if true, carries a great deal of merit. Is the CBO ignoring the documented cost benefits of health care reform?
=========
Obama made a charge.
A specific charge would have included actual numbers with the claims he’s making.
If he doesn’t want to accept CBO numbers, his administration better put up their own. And they’ll need to show their work.
Posted by: MayBee | June 25, 2009, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
from diverting people from the ER and ICU for respiratory failure, to a general practitioner for $10 of antibiotics a month earlier?
—————–
It’s the same old trap for politicians, jhw539. They always think, like you, that helathcare professionals are so stupid, all they need is a little intelligence to manage healthcare. Remember HMO’s? That was business professionals thinking the same thing, and finding out that nature is more complicated than their undestanding. Now you have one part of one part of one small example, and even that example will show up back in the ER again since either they won’t be able to wait for an appointment, or their underlying issue will arise again a month later. And that gives you 1 or 2 trillion dollars of confidence?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 1:44 pm 1:44 pm
But not to be a naysayer, if these wonderful new policies will save so much money, why not put them out there without all the additional funding? OR is it like the kid that told his Dad how much he would make on a newspaper route if only he had a new car?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm
Isn’t Nancy Pelosi and Obama touting the favorable numbers by the cbo on their Cap and Trade bill….even with the WJS calling it the biggest tax increase in history? can’t have it both ways
FYI..ABC ObamaCare special struggles for viewers; Delivers sickly rating, last place….
Posted by: Obamas brownnosing media network | June 25, 2009, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
MarkLeavanworth:”And that gives you 1 or 2 trillion dollars of confidence?”
Every other first world nation in existence pays half to a third what we do per capita for health care. Every other first world nation in existence has some sort of national health care program.
Is this a coincidence?
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
MayBee:”A specific charge would have included actual numbers with the claims he’s making.”
The charge:
“It doesn’t count all the savings that may come from prevention, may come from eliminating all the paperwork and bureaucracy because we’ve put forward health IT, it doesn’t come from the evidence-based care and changes in reimbursement that I’ve already discussed about.”
He is clearly saying that are crediting zero dollars to those savings. Those are specific claims. Do you accept that claim as factual and true? Or would you also like to see it fact checked?
If it is true, then the next logical question would be to have him hang savings numbers on each of those items, debate the veracity of the underlying assumptions on those savings numbers, and then correcting the CBO estimate.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
is the CBO actually ignoring the indisputable savings that will come from diverting people from the ER and ICU for respiratory failure, to a general practitioner for $10 of antibiotics a month earlier?
============
Again, I will bring up the MediCal experience where doctors are so under reimbursed (cost savings, you know) that MediCal patients end up in the emergency room for care anyway.
Also, this seems a tough study to quantify. Anecdotally, my relatives have excellent health care coverage. Yet they won’t go to the doctor because they don’t want to hear anything is wrong with them. In my family alone, I’ve seen someone go days before going in for what turned out to be a heart attack, another waited weeks for a festering infection that almost ended up in amputation, and still others who haven’t had check ups in years. It isn’t cost or lack of doctor availability keeping them out of the doctors office.
The CBO would have to come up with some way to determine how people’s behavior will actually be changed.
Posted by: MayBee | June 25, 2009, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm
MayBee:”So far, we’ve got $250,000+ wage earners scheduled (or proposed during Obama’s campaign) to be responsible for:
- increased tax rates
- increased capital gains tax rates
- decreased tax deductions
- tax on employer-provided benefits
- increased Social Security tax”
Taxes are at a historically low and unsustainable level on these folks. I fail to see the need for hysterics about returning to the taxation levels of the late 90′s (and far lower than the average tax rates under Reagan).
“Obama, Biden, Geithner, Sotomayor, and others in this administration made money above this threshold while at the same time pleading financial difficulties.”
Citation please. I have never, ever, heard Obama plead financial difficulties after he (relatively recently) entered this bracket.
\
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
~Responding to a questioner who asked “how and who will pay for the national health care system,” the president outlined the need to do something since “costs are going to keep on going up 6, 7, 8 percent per year, and government, businesses, and families are all going to find themselves either losing their health care or paying a lot more out of pocket. That’s going to happen if we do nothing.”~
______________
Right, but Mr. Simpleton TOTUS, doing “something” doesn’t mean that your naive and lazy answer of following other horrible, rationed and financially unsustainable ideas being suffered by populations in other countries is the correct answer. How about actually being willing to seek brilliant, groundbreaking and visionary answers? Doing something should mean tackling the actual problems of cost containment and not destroying our choice platforms.
I love the “transparent” corruption and shallow manipulations the Democrats are attempting to shower down on most of the tried and true Govt. watchdog arbiters… but of course. Wouldn’t want facts or hard numbers to get in the way. In the words of one of the few truly respectable Democrats in recent history, Daniel Patrick Moynihan ~ “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” The CBO’s business is hard numbers and facts, not fuzzy math, such as “guesstimate savings” or “save or create a gazillion jobs.”
Posted by: BK | June 25, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
Every other first world nation in existence pays half to a third what we do per capita for health care.
Posted by: jhw539 |
——————-
How much will we spend per capita for donkey care?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | June 25, 2009, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm
Every other first world nation in existence pays half to a third what we do per capita for health care. Every other first world nation in existence has some sort of national health care program.
Is this a coincidence?
—————————
jhw539- Every nation tries to figure out healthcare all the time. We have so much socialization in our system already, you can hardly call it ‘free-market’. And any nation you look at has gone through so many changes and so often, you can hardly say they have ‘one’ system. Take a look at how many innovations in other systems have come from our investments. The fact is, we’re at the end of the exapnsion of an empire which every other nation has been gleaning off of. Now we’re stuck with the bill. No sense throwing our freedoms in after it.
Don’t you think it would be better to get all these so-called savings first, and then raise taxes? Or is it better to first take away people’s right to choose how they invest their earnings? I notice you keep avoiding that question.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
Citation please. I have never, ever, heard Obama plead financial difficulties after he (relatively recently) entered this bracket.
=========
The Obamas have made over $200,000 for every year for which they’ve released tax information- beginning with $240,505 in 2000.
2001- $272,759
2002- $259,394
2003- $238,327
2004- $207,647
2005 – $1,655,106
2006- $983,826
FWIW, $240,505 in 2000 would be equivalent to over $300,000 today.
If you look up past Obama speeches- including some covered here- you see both Obamas discuss their financial difficulties as they worried about saving money for their daughters’ colleges, having clunky cars- all of which took place post 2000.
I love the way you’ve decided a question about what taxpayers can afford is “hysterics”.
Posted by: MayBee | June 25, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm
“My household expenses have doubled every year for the last three years, therefore I must double my revenues to get ready for next year.”
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
from Jake Tapper’s Barack’s Salad Days post:
“I have been truly blessed over the last few years – it hasn’t been a long time,” Obama said. ” I mean, before I wrote this book, or before this book started selling about four years ago, you know we were living in a condo. Myself, Michelle and our two girls.
“And we, you know, had two cars, but one of them was kind of beat up and we didn’t have a garage so you’d have to, in Chicago you gotta shovel your car out of the snow and scrape the ice,” Obama continued. “And we didn’t know how we were going to afford college education for our kids ‘cause we had been paying down student loans for ten years between the two of us….
============
Sasha Obama was born in 2001. When Obama was worried about how to pay for kids college, living in a small condo, and driving a clunky car, he was making $259,000 +.
Posted by: MayBee | June 25, 2009, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
MarkLeavenworth:”We have so much socialization in our system already, you can hardly call it ‘free-market’.”
Wow. That’s a discussion stopper – we’re just not talking about the same reality.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
Maybee:”So far, we’ve got $250,000+ wage earners scheduled … Obama, Biden, Geithner, Sotomayor, and others in this administration made money above this threshold while at the same time pleading financial difficulties.”
Maybee:”The Obamas have made over $200,000 for every year for which they’ve released tax information”
Glad you cleared up the specific extent of your exageration.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
OH, I should cut expenses? Well give me the revenues I need first, and I promise I’ll cut expenses.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
Glad you cleared up the specific extent of your exageration.
==========
I gave you the entire list of their income per year, jhw.
Posted by: MayBee | June 25, 2009, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
“FYI..ABC ObamaCare special struggles for viewers; Delivers sickly rating, last place….”
“The ABC News special edition of Primetime “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” drew 4.7 million viewers last night, attracting the network’s largest audience in the 10 o’clock hour in 6 weeks. The conversation about health care with President Obama, moderated by Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, built on its Total Viewer lead-in by 12% (4.7 million vs. 4.2 million). “
Posted by: Ryan C | June 25, 2009, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
jhw539- You avoided the question again. Do you live in a reality where you would call our medical system ‘free-market’? Maybe you’re onto something, though. How did this whole debate get shifted to putting healthcare somewhere between what we have now, which is almost socialized anyway (and that is the source of the current problems) and ‘socialized’ medicine? We really should be pushing to de-socialize medicine, if we need to cut expenses.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
MayBee:”I gave you the entire list of their income per year, jhw.”
And rather than carry on this side track with counter points of present value of 2002 dollars or combining Barak’s income with Michelle, I’m satisfied the facts are adequately out there.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 2:36 pm 2:36 pm
And rather than carry on this side track with counter points of present value of 2002 dollars or combining Barak’s income with Michelle, I’m satisfied the facts are adequately out there.
========
they are indeed.
Posted by: MayBee | June 25, 2009, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
And rather than carry on this side track with counter points of present value of 2002 dollars or combining Barak’s income with Michelle, I’m satisfied the facts are adequately out there.
========
they are indeed.
Posted by: MayBee | June 25, 2009, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
The pitiful fact is that it’s up to goods-producing China and the oil-producing Arabs to determine how much we can spend on healthcare.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
MarkLeavenworth:”Do you live in a reality where you would call our medical system ‘free-market’?”
Yes, our current health insurance system as free market as our food market. And FAR more relevant to the discussion, our system is the most free market of any of the first world nations. That -the comparative level of government involvement- is the fundamental basis of the benchmarking analysis that strongly suggests further government intervention would reduce costs.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
Then, jhw, you don’t need to increase funding to cut costs. And if there was some kind of ‘investment’ argument, there’s no need to increase taxes to cover an investment that pays for itself.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
MarkLeavenworth:” there’s no need to increase taxes to cover an investment that pays for itself.”
And no need to have anyone control access to the common meadow, it belongs to everyone…
For a while I thought you might work for one of the conservative think tanks, but while they are quite partisan they have a far better grasp of macro economics.
If the government (empowered and funded by citizens) invests $1 trillion that saves it’s citizens $2 trillion, that is a very good investment. But it does not pay for itself now does it?
Better that I pay $250 for a doctor’s visit out of my pocket than I pay $100 in taxes for that doctor’s visit, is that your argument?
Posted by: jhw539 | June 25, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
jhw539- for awhile I thought you worked for a foreign political group, but they have a far better grasp of politics. The problem is that the government funded systems are going bankrupt, not that there are families going bankrupt.
1)If the government takes in 1Trillion in taxes and spends it on an ‘investment’ that saves taxpayers 2Trillion, then instead of mandating a 1Trillion tax for healthcare (raising the total ‘investment’ to 3Trillion), the people should be mandating that the government pay out 1Trillion in Christmas tax bonuses.
2)If the doctor needs $250 per visit to stay in business, and the government only pays him your $100 (assuming, and this is a very long stretch of the imagination, that your $100 makes it all the way through the government system and back around to your doctor), then there will be even more doctors to fill the current shortage, is that your argument?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
It’s interesting how much Team Obama would like to spin the numbers and want to ignore valid research in trying to sell their health care plan:
A 2008 report conducted by researchers from the Urban Institute for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation examined the first Families USA study, and found its claims to be unconvincing. They concluded: “[W]e are highly skeptical that the high and growing cost of private insurance is strongly related, if at all, to the amount of uncompensated care delivered by private providers or to the growing number of uninsured people.”
Jack Hadley, the lead researcher on the KFF study, told us that to assume that the insured end up paying for all uncompensated care is “clearly an exaggeration.” According to KFF, the amount of uncompensated care that providers could shift to the privately insured is much less, only $8 billion, not the $42.7 billion Families USA said could be passed on to premium payers in 2008. The KFF number is less than 19 percent of Families USA’s, and by our figuring that implies a per-family increase in health insurance premiums of less than $200 a year, not $1,000.
Posted by: Sadie | June 25, 2009, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to complain about the CBO numbers… there are much higher numbers being put out by other independent institutes… as usual, the WH/Congress really do not want to look at the consequences of their policies or their limits in ‘fixing’ problems. Here’s only one of many samples:
Health Systems Innovations Network, a consulting group, went ahead and estimated the full cost of a bill that included the subsidies and Medicaid expansion, and reduced the number of uninsured by 99 percent. With these assumptions, they estimated the cost at a staggering $4 trillion over 10 years, resulting in the shift of 79 million Americans to government-run health care. The report does not include possible tax increases or spending offsets, but notes that, “this would be a challenging proposal to finance with budget neutrality.”
President Obama, in a speech to the American Medical Association on Monday, declared of the price tag of health care legislation: “it is a cost that will not – I repeat, not – add to our deficits.”
UPDATE: I just spoke with Steve Parente, principal at HSI, who explained that the main reason why the group’s estimate is so much higher than the CBO is that it assumes more people will buy coverage with government help. “We see a lot of people taking advantage of that subsidy, because it goes so far up the income threshold,” Parente said. To be clear, 500 percent of the poverty level translates into income of $110,000 for a family of four. He also said HSI would revise the estimate if a new version of the legislation proposed new cost savings. However, he said it’s difficult to estimate savings from the adoption of information technology and increased prevention. IT, for instance, could turn into an “unfunded mandate” on doctors and hospitals, while not all forms of prevention are created equal. Flu shots, for instance, are relatively cheap, but providing mammograms to some age groups can be quite costly.
Posted by: Sadie | June 25, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
“Here’s only one of many samples:”
From the American Spectator blog.
Some of you may remember the American Spectator for their decade long smear campaign against the Clintons.
“Editor Tyrrell travelled to Kazakhstan in 1999, along with several other conservative journalists, with his travel expenses paid for by the Carmen Group, a Washington D.C. lobbying firm paid by the authoritarian Kazakh government for PR work. Kazakhstan’s president Nursaltan Nasarbayev had recently barred his most viable opponent from contesting a presidential election and shortly after sent the opponent into exile. Tyrell, contradicting the opinion of human rights groups and the US State Department, provided a substantially upbeat assessment as to the state of freedom of expression in Kazakhstan in a Washington Times op-ed after he returned from his trip. Neither Tyrell nor the other conservative journalists who reported on Kazakhstan disclosed that their expenses for the trip had been paid by the Carmen Group”
Their opinion is for sale to the highest right wing bidder.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 25, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
More from Hadley
“Adding in taxes and health care costs changes the story. According to Hadley, “The savings that will accrue from covering the uninsured will be primarily in the form of lower taxes to pay for government-funded uncompensated care, not lower premiums for private insurance. These savings are a legitimate potential source of funding to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.” The Kaiser study found that insured adults “spend about $350 per person through taxes, donations, and payments for private health care and private insurance to subsidize care received by the uninsured.” That’s close to Families USA’s estimate of the average cost to insured singles. Kaiser didn’t give a per-family estimate, but a $350 per person cost is generally consistent with a cost of $1,000 per family.”
Posted by: Ryan C | June 25, 2009, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 25, 2009 3:51:10 PM
Ryan, you are too funny! :)
Did you miss the taxes part? How about VAT taxes and the taxes businesses are forced to pass on to clients/customers, raised federal and state taxes, and as infinitum…. you are really a hoot! :)
Posted by: Sadie | June 25, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
“The savings that will accrue from covering the uninsured will be primarily in the form of lower taxes to pay for government-funded uncompensated care, not lower premiums for private insurance.”
———–
I can’t say I’m sure about your points, but if the above is true, that simply expanding government coverage of the uninsured is enough to lower taxes, what was the argument for raising taxes to pay for it?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
“I can’t say I’m sure about your points, but if the above is true, that simply expanding government coverage of the uninsured is enough to lower taxes, what was the argument for raising taxes to pay for it”
That was not my point but Hadley’s.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 25, 2009, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm
And we, you know, had two cars, but one of them was kind of beat up and we didn’t have a garage so you’d have to, in Chicago you gotta shovel your car out of the snow and scrape the ice,” Obama continued. “And we didn’t know how we were going to afford college education for our kids ‘cause we had been paying down student loans for ten years between the two of us….
============
Sasha Obama was born in 2001. When Obama was worried about how to pay for kids college, living in a small condo, and driving a clunky car, he was making $259,000 +.
Interesting indeed, since today that makes him rich. Now back then, making those $$$ and he is “worried” about paying for college. Yet today, anyone making those kinds $$$ is now obligated to give more to the cause!
Verrrrry Interrrrresting…….
Posted by: Mike_C | June 25, 2009, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm
Ryan C- I guess the question is if you are with those who believe a government overhaul of healthcare that cuts government expenses must be payed for with increased taxes?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
I’m looking for some simple numbers. How much money will we save by spending this $1 or 2 Trillion?
The fact that we’re having to decide on how to PAY for the savings should be an indicator that it’s not a cost reduction effort at all.
Posted by: Lightduty | June 25, 2009, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
Better that I pay $250 for a doctor’s visit out of my pocket than I pay $100 in taxes for that doctor’s visit, is that your argument?
Posted by: jhw539 | Jun 25, 2009 3:02:21 PM
—
Sorry, the doctor can’t see you until August.
But you could go to a different doctor, but he won’t accept Public Plan insurance, because it doesn’t cover the cost of the procedure. That’s what’s currently happening to lots of Medicare and Medicaid users.
But I’m sure this plan will work just as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Health System. GOODY!
Posted by: Lightduty | June 25, 2009, 5:10 pm 5:10 pm
Kaiser has put out a side by side comparison tool for all the competing health care plans being discussed.
Google
Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals
Posted by: Ryan C | June 25, 2009, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
They should have called it ‘major Kaiser bail-out proposals’
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 25, 2009, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm