The Cost of Health Insurance Reform
People generally quote the non-partisan CBO score when trying to figure out how much a bill will cost us. But Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes that, since the CBO is quite transparent, showing how it calculates its scores, Congressional Democrats are gaming the system to make the Senate bill look far cheaper than it really would be.
For some time, I’ve suspected the answer is that congressional Democrats have very carefully tailored their individual and employer mandates to avoid CBO’s definition of what shall be counted in the federal budget. Democrats are still smarting over the CBO’s decision in 1994. By revealing the full cost of the Clinton plan, the CBO helped to kill the bill.
Since then, keeping the cost of their private-sector mandates out of the federal budget has been Job One for Democratic health wonks. While head of the CBO, Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag altered the CBO’s orientation to make it more open and collaborative. One of the things about which the CBO has been more open is the criteria it uses to determine whether to include mandated private-sector spending in the federal budget. The CBO even published a paper on the topic. Read this profile of Orszag by Ezra Klein, and you’ll see that those criteria were also a likely area of collaboration with lawmakers.
The Medical Loss Ratios memo is the smoking gun. It shows that indeed, Democrats have been submitting proposals to the CBO behind closed doors and tailoring their private-sector mandates to avoid having those costs appear in the federal budget. Proposals that would result in a complete cost estimate — such as the proposal by Sen. Rockefeller discussed in the Medical Loss Ratios memo — are dropped. Because we can’t let the public see how much this thing really costs.
Crafting the private-sector mandates such that they fall just a hair short of CBO’s criteria for inclusion in the federal budget does not reduce their cost, nor does it make those mandates any less binding. But it dramatically reduces the apparent cost of the legislation. It is the reason we’re all talking about an $848 billion Reid bill, rather than a $2.1 trillion Reid bill.
All the promises of reducing the total deficit or paying for the bill with Medicare cuts are as much smoke and mirrors (and outright lies) if the base cost of the bill is fudged. You’re being led down the primrose path by folks who know full well you wouldn’t support it if you knew how much it was really going to cost.
Filed under: Government • Medicine
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Leave a Reply