Growls

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO, along with staff of the Joint Committee, on Taxation released a preliminary analysis of the Senate Finance Committee’s proposed health care reform bill, yesterday (requires Adobe Reader). Note that it is a preliminary analysis; as the CBO warns:

“That analysis reflects the specifications posted on the committee’s Web site on October 2, 2009, corrections posted on October 5, and additional clarifications provided by the staff of the committee through October 6. CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.”

Unfortunately, the CBO warning, which appeared in the first paragraph of their letter, is not reported by Lori Montgomery and Shallagh Murray in today’s Washington Post although the online story includes a link to the CBO letter. Montgomery and Murray start their puff piece by writing:

“Congressional budget analysts gave an important political boost Wednesday to a Senate panel's health-care overhaul, projecting that the $829 billion measure would dramatically shrink the ranks of the uninsured and keep President Obama's pledge that doing so would not add "one dime" to federal budget deficits.”

A sober presentation of the CBO’s preliminary analysis is presented by Yuval Levin in the National Review Online’s blog, The Corner. He explains:

“It’s preliminary because there isn’t yet an actual text of the bill, only legislative specs. The bottom line: CBO estimates that bill would cost $829 billion over the next ten years, but that because of the new taxes and penalties, various Medicare cuts, and cost-control measures the bill promises, it would actually reduce the deficit projection for the next ten years by about $81 billion, from $7.14 trillion to $7.06 trillion — assuming all those taxes, cuts, and measures were in fact carried out as proposed.”

Levin also says, “One striking feature of the letter is the tone of skepticism about the likelihood that the cost-saving measures laid out in the bill would in fact be enacted and effective,” and cites the following language from page 12 of the letter, including:

“These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments.”

So, did the Post leave the difficult parts of the CBO letter to its readers to decipher? And does the Post plan to do any reporting on the three pages of "additional clarifications provided by the staff of the Senate Finance Committee" as an attachment to the CBO letter? Or is this just the latest example of their "top-sheet reporting?"

UPDATE (10/9/09): Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and co-author of "Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It," has an op-ed scheduled for today's Investor's Business Daily (IBD). Tanner writes that while the Baucus bill is an improvement over the Senate's HELP committee bill, that's a "low bar," adding "the Finance Committee bill still represents a radical government takeover of the U.S. health care system." Tanner writes:

"Let's start with the price tag. According to the report just released by the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will cost roughly $829 billion over the next 10 years. And, significantly, it is even projected to reduce the budget deficit over 10 years by $81 billion. Of course, both those numbers are misleading.

"The $829 billion cost is for the next 10 years, 2010-2019, but the most expensive provisions of the bill don't take effect until July of 2013. The cost over the bill's first 10 years of actual operation is closer to $1.3 trillion.

"In addition, the bill assumes that Congress will implement a 21% reduction in Medicare payments that is already scheduled under current law. The only problem is that Congress has been supposed to make those reductions since 2003 — and never has. There is no reason to believe it will do so this time either.

"Most importantly, the bill does not achieve its deficit reduction by controlling spending or reducing health care costs. In fact, by the end of the 10-year budget window, the cost of the program is expected to be growing at 8% per year. But revenue from the bill's new taxes would be growing between 10% and 15% per year." (emphasis added)

UPDATE (10/9/09): At American Thinker, Stephen Bennett asks: "I don't get it. How can the establishment media and the Democrats say the Baucus Bill scored well and is cost positive health care legislation? By running a con game, of course. Yesterday, the CBO scored the Senate’s version of Health Care, the Baucus bill. The verdict: the bill will cost $829 billion yet knock $81 billion off the federal deficit. Does that make sense to you? Not if you’ve been able to cut through the propaganda." In addition to answering his question, he adds "As bad as the Baucus bill is, the House Health Care Bill is even worse."