GOP Pushed For Incomplete Health Care Study, Then Politicized It: Hill Dems

On Monday afternoon, critics of a major health care overhaul seized on a report from the Congressional Budget Office showing that a Democratic reform bill could cost $1 trillion over ten years despite adding only 17 million Americans to the ranks of the insured. But the results are incomplete, and they know it.

The CBO findings made for a traditional attack based around fears that the government would spend larges swaths of taxpayer money with minimum systematic change.

"CBO makes it clear -- the Democrats' plan will force millions of Americans to lose the care they have now," Sen. Mike Enzi, the ranking Republican on the Senate HELP Committee, said in a statement. "Anyone who says that if you like the care you have, you can keep it under this bill doesn't have their facts straight."

House Minority Leader John Boehner sent out an email alert on the report, saying the Democrats "costly plan is exposed." His colleague, Minority Whip Eric Cantor, meanwhile said the CBO score card was "troubling when we're trying to save money that we would be calling for that kind of expenditure."

The CBO's findings, however, are for an incomplete piece of legislation, making the cost-per-coverage estimates much worse than they will ultimately be. Republicans on the committee knew this, according to Democrats. But they pushed for the bill to be studied by the CBO now. And when poor results came back, they ran with them.

"The reality is there are still some outstanding issues, including employer responsibility and a public insurance option," said a Democratic aide to a committee member. "Those are two outstanding issues. So what we did in a good faith effort to find bipartisan consensus, we did not include those elements because we are trying to find common ground. But Republicans wanted there to be a score even though, the reality is, if there is an incomplete bill you will have an incomplete statement."

Another Democratic aide to the HELP Committee member concurred, adding that Sen. Ted Kennedy's office, in an effort to "find bipartisan consensus with Republicans colleagues" filed the bill and allowed it to be scored by the CBO -- not expecting it to be used as partisan fodder.

Asked about these complaints, Enzi's spokesman Mike Mahaffey called his boss' statement "absolutely fair."

Story continues below

advertisement

"This is a report from the CBO saying that it is going to cost a trillion dollars and it is only going to ensure net increase of 17 million patients," he added. "We are not the ones that scheduled a Wednesday markup before the bill is complete and the CBO report is complete."

Democrats both inside and out of government, while cognizant that the CBO's findings did not fully reflect the final bill, were nevertheless distraught that the numbers were now out in the public sphere.

"My impression was that for all the lawyers around, they didn't follow the first principle which is don't ask the question you don't know the answer to," said one high-ranking Hill aide.

Indeed, in private, White House officials were shaking their head at the development. Publicly, press secretary Robert Gibbs sought to distance the president from the legislation. In a statement after the CBO report release, he said, "this is not the Administration's bill."

The CBO's findings do create politically bad optics. In the end, however, the situation could be remedied when a full analysis is released sometime in the next week. Once the bill is scored with a stronger individual and/or employer mandate for coverage, as well as various other details, HELP Committee members fully expect the cost-per-coverage breakdown to improve significantly. For now, progressive activists in the health care debate are holding their breath, hoping that the next CBO findings have more resonance.

"If this was a true reflection of the bill, it would be bad," said one operative. "But it's not -- it's more like they graded a test halfway through the testing period. HELP is rushing language back to them and are hoping for new projections (that include employer and individual mandate) by Friday. That's pretty pie in the sky, I fear. They will revise it though."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[makrom]

Hard to blame this on the Repubs. If the Dems weren't so weak-willed and such terrible leaders, they would not have agreed to this or would have been ready to fire back. Shame on the Dems in Congress. No wonder they have such low approval ratings.

[FaceReality2]

Imagine what the world would be like if we woke up and there were no Republicans.

[TJCole]

Google Professor Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton, he's who we should be hearing from a top Phd expert on Health Care Economics...

he says we can have Universal Health Care for all for $120 Billion per year so many savings by structuring it correctly he's who the bad guys don't want you to hear...!

Professor Uwe Reinhardt.­..Princeto­n...!

[UNLVGOP]

I do not understand. If universal health care is so important to a strong economy...why does Europe's suck so much?

How did we become the strongest and most wealthy nation in the world with it? I find it hard to believe that Universal Healthcare is the answer to our economic situation.

How does insuring about 10 million illegal immigrants make our economy stronger?

[karma13612]

First off, what's with this 'mandate' crap?

I am for single-payer ultimately, but will be happy with a STRONG public option. What is this phrasing I am hearing about mandates?

That is not what I have heard previously.

Is this some repug nonsense?

[kareemachan]

Prolly.

[rigmoten]

Damn these facts son!

Yes sir, I damn thee.

[jonbw]

I run some numbers based on what the CBO released. I determined that including a strong public option could save $250 billion. A weak public option like the Schumer plan would save only about $100 billion.

That is scorable numbers

http://jwalkerreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/public-option-could-save-250-billion.html

[jonbw]

Call and demand a strong public option is scored.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

Would you share those calculations with us?

I would be interested in seeing them as you seem to have gotten the cost down to a mere 7 billion, five hundred million, instead of another trillion dollars.

Please folks, nobody tell President Obama what comes after a trillion.

[FaceReality2]

Recent studies predict that the Republican Party is doomed to permanent minority status and will become a regional party for the uneducated older white southern working class.

The reason IMO? They have told too many lies and half-truths about everything including health care, and they continue to do it. The majority of the people have finally awakened to this fact.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

Sure they have.....

From http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/

"Today's Gallup Poll [June 15, 2009] reports that 40% of Americans identify their political views as conservative, while 35% say they're moderate and 21% call themselves liberal. Though Democrats won control of Congress and the White House last November, the percentage of self-identified conservatives is up from last year, when 37% of Americans put themselves in the conservative bracket."


Keep dreaming until the 2010 midterms. I pray you will be in for a rude awakening.

[ladyearth]

This is what I cannot understand. Republicans hold their right-to-life position dearly. The United States ranks an estimated 34th in the world in preventing infant mortality. If the health care system as it now exists is the best in the world, why is the United States ranked 34th in preventing infant mortality? It seems logical to me that the Republicans, in their dearly held right-to-life position would jump on this glaring discrepancy between their right-to-life stance and the infant mortality rate in the United States and DEMAND health care reform that insures every American and performs to the expectation that the United States would rank first in the world in preventing infant mortality.

[speciallady2003]

The WHO ranks the US 37th in overall health care--far from the best in the world. The first 36 ALL have universal coverage.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

Must be why everyone is flocking to Cuba for heart sugery, cancer treatment, hip replacements, etc.

[Psyche78]

Blame ACOG and the AMA for that one...the medical model of obstetrics that we currently use in the U.S. leads to more, unnecessary, and expensive intervention that results in poorer outcomes for mother and baby. Studies have shown that utilizing midwives, who use fewer interventions on the whole, for low-risk pregnancies and reserving obstetric doctors for high-risk pregnancies leads to better outcomes and tremendous cost-savings.

[RoloTomassi]

Stop messing around with half measures and do the right thing--sign Bernie's petition:

http://sanders.senate.gov/petitions/index.cfm?uid=7fd59f2e-88e1-477a-8eaf-762a5b050809

Everything else leads to a means of skirting the real solution for the sake of maintaining profits gained by gaming others' misfortune.

[dashcat]

Thanks for the link. I signed it and emailed it to friends.

[skylights]

I guarantee that even after the final bill is evaluated by the CBO, the GOP will still be pretending the incomplete bill is the final bill. Expect even ads attacking the straw man of the earlier bill. Republicans lie, because they believe the end justifies the means, and because they know from experience that lying works. We need to put a stop to this.

[mad1nola]

This is why you never put your plan out until you have worked out all the details. That is the only thing that bugs me about this administration. They always come out with outlines instead of detailed plans. I understand the public wants answers but it does no good to come out with just half a plan. I am only interested in the finished product not the brainstorming.

[econ1]

I would expect that the number will be higher when the study is complete.

$1 trillion for 17 million people is less than $6,000 a year.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

So, by your math, the annual costs per person is less that $6K per year, using the CBO's numbers, and you say that will likely go up.

I, like about 120M others, have employer assisted (NOT provided) healthcare, for which I'm paying near $300/month for a family of four. That's $3,600 a year.

But the gummit, old Uncle Sam, will provide coverage for a mere 17 million more people, at almost twice what my private plan is charging, and it will take them until 2019 to provide coverage to those 17 million additional folks.

Questions for you:
(1) I'm supposed to support a plan without a clue as to coverages, deductibles, etc?
(2) Where are the savings we've heard is the reason for this effort?
(3) It's projected to cost twice as much as my current plan, and that's calculated per individual.
What's the projected cost for a family of four? $7,000? $8,000?
(4) Where is the effort for a constitutional amendment to give the government the right to tax me to pay for this? That power for the federal government certainly isn't in the constitution.

Oh, I foget. that's why we have these tremendous fights over the next Supreme Court nominee; because we all now blithely assume the constitution means whatever the 9 folks in black robes say it means, as opposed to the meaning of the clear language in which it's written.

[chameleon59]

If YOU'RE paying $3,600 a year, your employer is paying that much again if the company is paying half - many pay 80%, so bounce that up there higher. If you're going to argue based on the cost to insure, then at least use accurate figures. Your $300 a month is only part of the cost of your health insurance.As far as the Constitution goes, how is it in the interests of the General Welfare for our country to let thousands die for lack of money to pay for proper health care?

[Nomccain]

Well, who's' surprised at that? Not me! The Repubs have fought every thing President Obama wanted to do and can be counted on to say "NO" to anything proposed. Now, along with the rich lobbyists on Capitol Hill, they want to undermine any progress on health care reform as well. This party literally disgusts me and I look forward to the day when the democrats have a solid majority in both the House and Senate and can steamroll these obstructive jerks and make some progress..

[SangZe]

We'll never see a solid majority. This is as close as it will ever get. The dims have been given their chance, and they are in the process of blowing again, as usual.

[deepshade1]

I look forward to the day the Democrats use the majorities they already have to do the right thing. If we don't get decent health care, we have the Democrats in Congress to thank. They are not doing a good job for us. I don't know how we hold them accountable without losing everything. It's not like our voting for Republicans would teach them a lesson without hurting the country unbearably. But, really, they have to get the message soon or they will squander everything the people who elected them thought we had accomplished.

[timberdoodle]

The other solution would be to cater to the Republicans and set up a single payer system for Democrats only and then all the Republicans can carry on with what they have now and be happy to save the insurance companies and make them richer.

[jmpurser]

It would be nice to make the GOP live in the country they deserve but it's one nation and we need to run it like one.

[barksalot]

The country we deserve is the one you want to tear down.