Bush 41 Health Secretary Backs Baucus Bill

“It ignores all cost savings in the bill, such as tax credits, and ignores the conclusion of nonpartisan government analysts,”
The CBO has been a persistant thorn in the side of Democrats, getting flak for killing the liberal wing’s dream of a major public option and ignoring the Whitehouse’s pleas to consider cost savings from better prevention care and relief of ER loads. I have serious problems with some of the CBO’s past work, but I believe that their analysis is conservative in this case – the Baucus bill will cut the deficit and get coverage up to 94% of citizens.
Frankly, I’m happy to see some last minute lies and smear from the insurance industry; it makes me think they weren’t entirely successful in buying off Baucus.

This is hardball business. Remember the phony science brought out by the Tobacco Institute saying that there was no conclusive evidence that smoking caused cancer. Remember the Petroleum Institute coming out with phony science saying that global warming doesn’t exist. Same thing here. Money will buy you the scientists or accountants you need to muddy the waters. Don’t be fooled again by the greedheads.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | Oct 12, 2009 11:36:00 AM
***
Exactly. Ezra Klein has a useful post up regarding the deceptive industry report. For googling purposes, here’s a quote to google: “The report was farmed out to the consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has something of a history with this sort of thing…tobacco….It’s perhaps no surprise that the patently unreliable results were all in the tobacco industry’s favor. He who pays the piper names the tune, and all that. All that makes it a bit hard to respond to this analysis. Seriously engaging with its methodology probably gives it more credit than it deserves, making this seem like an argument between two opposing sides as opposed to a predictable industry hit job.”

Hm. Something tells me trying to deflect criticism toward Price Waterhouse isn’t going to work.

“This is a self-serving report paid for by opponents of health reform and was prepared by a firm that specializes in tax shelters,”
=======
I really can’t believe that the White House once again went after a private company. A respected private company at that. What an odd response.
This bill helps “reduce the deficit” in large part because there are so many fees built into it. If the administration cares to explain how those fees will be paid without citizens having to ultimately pay them, I’d love to hear it.
Instead, they deliver a lame line about Price Waterhouse specializing in tax shelters.

Actually, I’m hoping this will work out well for progressive goals. Wasn’t it AHIP that was pushing aggressively to keep any form of the public option out of the final legislation? I believe so, but after this, perhaps, fingers crossed,the White House — and others– will fully realize the insurance industry is not an ally interested in reform, and we can move forward with a stronger individual mandate and a robust public option.

On a fun note, from Planet Washington at McClatchy:
“Got 17 hours free? Eager to learn every nuance of the Senate Finance Committee bill? Your plea has been answered. Thanks to [the hear the bill website which you can google], you can now listen to actors read the bill. The committee is scheduled to begin final debate and voting on the measure Tuesday, starting at 10 a.m.”

Maybee, why can’t you understand that a report paid for by the health insurance industry would have biased results?
=======
I don’t dispute the results could be biased. That’s not a good reason for the Office of the President of the United States to make a smarmy criticism of a private company rather than address the contents of the criticism.
Who do you think is *unbiased* in all of this? The politicians?

“You know what they could have done? Left criticizing Price Waterhouse as a company out of it, and directly addressed the numbers in the study.”
MayBee | Oct 12, 2009 1:10:36 PM
Uh, they did address the numbers issues and actual flaws in the report. But if you’re just looking for fodder for your two minute hate, I suppose you may have missed it.
“It ignores all cost savings in the bill, such as tax credits, and ignores the conclusion of nonpartisan government analysts, who found that it will cover 94 percent of Americans and help to reduce the deficit.”

Um, I have to say here that MayBee actually has a good point.
Despite the fact that there was some actual meat to the criticism that MayBee apparently missed, there was also a bit of obfuscation on the part of Douglas.
The PWC study, however flawed, focused on the price of insurance. Douglas wants to respond with talk about its affect on the deficit.
These are totally different issues, and Douglas should know better.
But the central issue still goes unaddressed: why does the US pay more than twice as much as comperable countries for the same result?
The worst part of this study is the assumption on the part of the insurance companies that they have some sort of god-given right to gouge their captive market.

The actual meat of the criticism is in the last paragraph of this post:
“it excludes all the provisions that will actually lower the cost of coverage – tax credits, grandfathering for existing policies, increased enrollment in private coverage and administrative savings from a more efficient mechanism for purchasing coverage.”
PWC pretends that the tax will have no effect except to raise prices, despite their explicit acknowledgement that this isn’t going to be the case.
PWC brings up the issue of the problem with a weak individual mandate, and they do have a point. Of course, you can’t impose a mandate without a strong public option, which isn’t in the bill.
While HR676 is the best option on the table, and would be the best for both the deficit and for individual costs, it most likely will not pass. That is an unfortunate byproduct of the fact that congress does not respond to what voters need, but rather what their contributors want.
A strong public option has to include rates tied to Medicare, a large initial group, the ability of large employers to participate, and any government subsidies going to the public plan and not to private insurers.
None of these criteria are met by the Baucus bill, and that is its major flaw.

FYI: To anyone interested.
I’ve read several reports that people are being hired to monitor the news blogs (like this one) and place comments in support of Obama’s agendas and to rebut conservative comments. What a job! I wish I could get paid for reading the news and commenting. :)
It sounds weird, but then again so does a presidency that is more concerned about being on Facebook, etal, and looking good rather than delivering good work. It’s sad – I wish they did not prefer style over substance.

The Congressional Budget Office is part of the smoke and mirrors game this time. Their finding that the Baucus Bill might add spending, but it will improve the budget deficit is nonsense. They know it; everyone knows it.
First, there is no Baucus Bill. There is a “plain-English” outline of over 200 pages. But the real bill has not been written. Semi-legible though it is now, Senate staff will turn the current into legalese to be the real bill. Of course the result will not be exactly the same. CBO must expense out the real bill, not this.
Second, CBO assumed that we will go for increased taxes on Cadillac health plans and every medical device used like sheep. They dutifully accept Baucus’s assumptions about his proposed taxes being enacted and Americans going along and not changing their habits to avoid new taxes. But people always change their behavior when the incentives change. His claimed increased tax revenues are likely to be very short. But that happens with every tax increase.
Note that the tax on medical devices will be hidden somewhere in the cost stream, but such taxes are always pushed on until the end user pays it.
Third, Baucus pulled a very obvious trick. He put all the tax increases and cuts to Medicare up front – in the next two to three years. But the new benefits are delayed for three to four years. The cost estimate Congress uses is the next ten years. But this start up is not an accurate picture of a typical ten years. The increased costs are greatly understated. [Yes, I know the rules say to cost out 10 years...]
If you understate the increased costs and overstate the revenues how can you claim to have an accurate picture? This “bill” will clearly increase the deficit that Obama promised to reduce and will increase taxes that almost everyone pays.

The title of this post should be:
“Insurance Companies Threaten to Speed up Premuim Increases if Health Reform Passes”
Posted by: Flash Override | Oct 12, 2009 2:58:16 PM
Nice, accurate reading of the report.

We are going to start paying for this as soon as it is passed, but it is not going into effect until 2013. 3 years headstart to cut a deficit. What happens when there is no longer the head start? Who is PAYING for the “insurance credits”? If the bill isn’t going to be implemented until 2013, what’s the rush? Why can’t they put the final copy on the internet for 5 days (Obama’s promise) and let people see it?
Community Organizer Objectives
1. Pick A Target
2. Focus on It
3. Personalize It
4. Polarize It
Seems today’s target is PWC from the White House.

CBO has analyzed tort reform.
“Enacting a comprehensive set of medical malpractice reforms would reduce nationwide health care spending by 0.5* percent, according to a report released today by the Congressional Budget Office. Over 10 years, the changes would reduce federal deficits by $54 billion.
Roughly 0.2 percent of the savings would come as a result of the reduction in providers’ malpractice insurance premiums, while an additional 0.3 percent would come from “slightly less utilization of health care services,” CBO noted.
CBO’s estimate takes into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.
The estimates are based on a package of reforms “similar” to the following:
– A cap of $250,000 on awards for noneconomic damages;
– A cap on awards for punitive damages of $500,000 or two times the award for economic damages, whichever is greater;
– Modification of the “collateral source” rule to allow evidence of income from such sources as health and life insurance, workers’ compensation, and automobile insurance to be introduced at trials or to require that such income be subtracted from awards decided by juries;
– A statute of limitations—one year for adults and three years for children—from the date of discovery of an injury; and
– Replacement of joint-and-several liability with a fair-share rule, under which a defendant in a lawsuit would be liable only for the percentage of the final award that was equal to his or her share of responsibility for the injury.”
Please note this is the right wing biggest idea when it comes to healthcare reform.

“It sounds weird, but then again so does a presidency that is more concerned about being on Facebook, etal, and looking good rather than delivering good work. It’s sad – I wish they did not prefer style over substance.”
That’s no way to speak of Candidate Palin.

Economists Forum:
“[T]here are solid grounds for believing the US economy will experience a second dip followed by extended stagnation that will qualify as the second Great Depression. Some indications to this effect are already rolling in with unexpectedly large US job losses in September and the crash in US automobile sales following the end of the programme.”

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.

“PRINCETON, NJ — Barack Obama appears to have gotten a bounce in support after he was announced as the Nobel Peace Prize winner on Friday. His 56% job approval rating for the last two Gallup Daily tracking updates is up from a term-low 50% as recently as last week.”

And don’t forget the new Ipsos/McClatchy poll:
56% Approve (30% Strongly Approve)
40% Disapprove (23% Strongly Disapprove)
Ipsos/McClatchy was tied with CNN for most accurate pollster in the 2008 Presidential election results.

“This is like the primaries when the obama campaign trotted out all the big endorsers like Edwards, Dodd, Daschle, and Richardson to sway public opinion away from Hillary Clinton. We found out later each of these had major problems from corruption to tax evasion.Good thing they didn’t endorse Hillary. But they all were paid back after obama was elected.”
ROFLMAO!
Of course Edwards & Dodd got nothing and right wingers sunk Richardson and Daschle from their cabinet jobs.

My favorites are the dopes who actually think their existing premiums won’t increase under the Baucus bill; they confirm that there’s a sucker born every minute.
Do any of these dopes know what community rating is? Guaranteed issue? Have any of them taken a look at what has happened to premiums in the states that have imposed these requirements on insurers?
We will always have yokels with us who believe that there’s a free lunch out there, and someone else will pay for it. That’s what the Brits thought, until earlier this year the NHS told those approaching old age to plan on taking care of themselves at their own expense, since the free-lunch wagon is running out of other people’s money.

ALL THE DEBATES ON THESE ISSUES ARE A WASTE OF TIME. THE DOLLAR IS GOING DOWN LIKE A ROCK ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCALE – MOSTLY DUE TO OBAMA’S FINANCIAL POLICIES. THERE WON’T BE ANY ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS LEFT AFTER OBAMA FINISHES WITH HIS TRIED AND FAILED SOCIALIST POLICIES.

…”And that’s the political problem for the Obama administration. Its benign neglect of the dollar is another example of an economic policy — along with TARP and the $787 billion stimulus — that the White House thinks is helping the economy, but many Americans find wrongheaded.”
Today, October 12, 2009, 22 minutes ago | Fascist Hyena
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gosh. Isn’t it amazing that when Bush took office he inherited President Clinton’s ‘balanced budget’ and ‘dollar index’ at 120.
8 years later Bush had more than ‘doubled’ the ‘national debt’ and tanked the dollar all the way down to 72! The dollar was at 82 when Barack took office and is 76 now. Not to mention spending $1 trillion on a ‘for no good reason war’!
So, let’s see…Bush subtracted 120-72=48 points (or -40%) during his term, and Barack has so far subtracted 82-76=14 (17%). So it looks as though Barack has -23% to go before he even gets close to comparing to Bush!
But it gets better…just to help the next administration, Cheney and Bush decided to crashed the stock market…for the 2nd time!
And, then they initiated the $1 billion ‘Wall Street Bailout’…so they wouldn’t be compared to President Hoover!
How about those forward thinking Republicans!

Peace Prize? Probably embarrassing for Obama in that all he has really done is to make a lot of speeches. Actually, this prize was not about Obama. It was just a chance for the Norway five to push their agenda via a European thinking president. DUH!!

“The eloquence of Christopher Hitchens:”
I see he is back in fashion because he is beating the war drums for Iran after a couple of years in the wilderness for daring to criticize Bush.

“Personally I like the right wingers who are trying to convince other less gullible Americans that insurance companies have the American people’s best interest at heart.”
Like every private institution in America, they have their own self-interest at heart, as do the farmers who grow your food, the manufacturers who make your televisions, I-pods, toasters, light bulbs, automobiles, bread, house, condoms, surfboards, pencils, CD’s, movies, prescription drugs, shotguns, cheese, silverware and etcetera ad nauseum. In each and every case, their self-interest is to provide you with something you like at a price you are willing to pay–otherwise they go out of business. It is no accident that three-fourths of Americans with health insurance (roughly 90% of US citizens) are happy with it. They will cease being happy with the prices they are required to pay should Baucus become law.
It is a good idea to understand Adam Smith’s elementary truisms before discussing economic matters with literat grown-ups.

Ah. Finally. Since we all knew the insurance industry’s analysis of the Baucus bill wasn’t credible (well “all” except a few partisans who were upset that the WH pushed back and took a swipe at a private company in the process, as if that company wasn’t fair game despite their past work in favor of the tobacco lobby), it was important for the sake of health care reform to get some credible numbers together before the vote tomorrow, and John Gruber, and MIT health economist, has done that. You can download the findings via a link at Ezra Klein’s blog on the issue. Here’s a quote from Gruber: “Conclusion: The non-partisan analysis based on information from the CBO shows clearly that for those facing purchase in the non-group market, the SFC bill will deliver savings ranging from several hundred dollars for the youngest consumers to over $8500 for families. This is in addition to all the other benefits that this legislation will deliver to those consumers – in particular the guarantee, unavailable in most states, that prices would not be raised or the policy revoked if they became ill.”
As Klein points out, Gruber’s analysis is free from the same glaring deficiencies that were in the AHIP “report.”

“Fans of the eloquence of Hitchens might also enjoy his 2004 article in Slate, “Not Even a Hedgehog: The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan”
*chuckle*

“SUN SPOTS!!!! DUD!!!
Posted by: Manitu | Oct 12, 2009 8:48:30 PM”
Figure out how to use the caps locks before you go ahead an contradict your posts on science topics.

Fans of the eloquence of Hitchens might also enjoy his 2004 article in Slate, “Not Even a Hedgehog: The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan”
Posted by: Danny | Oct 12, 2009 8:28:35 PM
Great article! LOL. I read that back in the day but had forgotten all about it. Per Hitchens: “The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump.”
But I really love this, which many rightwingers seem to have totally forgotten: “Reagan allowed Alexander Haig to greenlight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, fired him when that went too far and led to mayhem in Beirut, then ran away from Lebanon altogether when the Marine barracks were bombed, and then unbelievably accused Tip O’Neill and the Democrats of “scuttling.” Reagan sold heavy weapons to the Iranian mullahs and lied about it, saying that all the weapons he hadn’t sold them (and hadn’t traded for hostages in any case) would, all the same, have fit on a small truck. Reagan then diverted the profits of this criminal trade to an illegal war in Nicaragua and lied unceasingly about that, too.”
Their shiny hero.

…”And that’s the political problem for the Obama administration. Its benign neglect of the dollar is another example of an economic policy — along with TARP and the $787 billion stimulus — that the White House thinks is helping the economy, but many Americans find wrongheaded.”
Today, October 12, 2009, 22 minutes ago | Fascist Hyena
…So, let’s see…Bush subtracted 120-72=48 points (or -40%) during his term, and Barack has so far subtracted 82-76=14 (17%). So it looks as though Barack has -23% to go before he even gets close to comparing to Bush!
Today, October 12, 2009, 2 hours ago | ErnestNM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OH…I made a BIG mistake.
82-76=6…or (-7%)!
Well, let’s see…that is Bush -40% on the dollar and Barack -6%.
Damn Fascist Hyena, I don’t think Barack could ever get close to failure of the Bush administration!

In each and every case, their self-interest is to provide you with something you like at a price you are willing to pay–otherwise they go out of business.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
it’s amazing how many post ‘facts’ but don’t seem to understand that one’s health insurance is not the same as buying Ipods or whatever.
They ‘don’t go out of business’ if you have a situation like North Dakota, and others, ‘where the state’s Blue Cross Blue Shield provider has, by various estimates, a roughly 90% share of the market….’ you pay whatever they can get away with charging, or you have no insurance.

While the bill is far from perfect, it does enact badly needed reform and acts as a starting point for further improving the health care system. It is best to keep the current bill in mind as the “version one” that has bugs and will need real tweaking.
While many fear the government takeover of the system, the health care industry has not been competitive enough to offer cost containment on its own nor to provide enough insurance products at the lower end of the cost spectrum for those with lower incomes, as this report shows clearly, so the bill will at least shake the insurance industry and result in some positive changes for many of the insured and uninsured.