Gearing Up For Health-Care Repeal Effort, Republicans Push To Delegitimize CBO Analysis

MIAMI -- The first big threat to the president's health-care reform package did not come during the fabled August 2009 recess of town-hall protests, or when the public option failed to pass the Senate, or when Scott Brown won his Senate seat in Massachusetts. It happened early in the summer of 2009 when the Senate Finance Committee received word from the Congressional Budget Office that an early version of legislation it had produced would cost somewhere around $1.5 trillion.

The score produced howls from reform opponents as well as a months-long, often-painful process for Democratic lawmakers seeking legislative language that scored lower than $1 trillion, a numerical ceiling set by the White House. Ultimately, they made it, producing a bill that cost $940 billion and reduced the deficit by more than $130 billion in its first decade.

Such was the reverence for the CBO, whose nonpartisan scorekeeping has long been considered a chief ingredient of the legislative process.

Until, of course, its findings no longer serve a broader political purpose.

Some of the same Republicans who pounced on that early health-care score have, since taking control of the House of Representatives, made a sustained effort to question the CBO's analytical capacity to judge health-care reform.

"CBO is entitled to their opinion, but they're locked within constraints of the 1974 Budget Act," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday. "Listen, even the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have made clear that this bill will not save the kind of money that was predicted earlier."

There are, of course, constraints on the CBO's ability to judge health care reform, but they cut both ways. The budget office did not, according to reform advocates, adequately score long-term savings from the bill's preventative-care measures -- primarily, Senate aides say, because the budget office didn't have the templates to do so.

But Boehner's comments stood out less for technical concerns than for the tone regarding the budget office itself. The CBO's analysis is not sacrosanct, but it is widely respected and regarded as the impartial referee of legislative differences.

It was unsurprising, then, that Democrats fired back in support of what Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) called "the impartial referee."

"It's incredibly ominous that they are waving away the CBO opinion," Welch told The Huffington Post. "That's catastrophic for any opportunity to maintain budget discipline. If anybody can make up their own numbers, you literally institutionalize an 'Alice In Wonderland' budget process. It is beyond reckless and irresponsible."

Comments

[shangrolah]

05:53 PM on 01/20/2011

Why else is it a bad idea to repeal health reform, even as this post points out, it will add to the budget deficit?

Just examine one issue that nobody paid attention to: For the first time, people in hospice can simultaneo­­­­­usly get drugs and therapy that might save their lives while in hospice. Before they had to make the awful choice as to whether they wanted to have hospice care or to be able to receive care that would save their lives.

From Kaiser Health News:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/May/10/Hospice.aspx

"This dilemma — that you must give up aggressive treatment to get end-of-lif­­­­­e counseling and care — is a major reason many people resist entering hospice, sometimes until just days before they die.

But the new health law could lead to a major change in Medicare policy that allows patients to get treatment and hospice care simultaneo­­­­­usly."

What else? There is also the issue of whether companies should be able to throw off patients when they become ill. Repealing health care reform would end that too.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/reuters_is_excellent_in_diggin.php

[Erik Deerly]

01:27 AM on 01/09/2011

The CBO does budgets for a living. When they project nearly one quater trillion US to be the COST to REPEAL the healthcare law, it is more than "their opinion." The CBO don't swear themselves into office via television, they don't run up $65,000 in golf fees, and they don't routinely act against the best interest of the country simply for political gain. They are bean counters and a true republican should at least appreciate their expertise. This healthcare law has already created more jobs than the GOP has is ten years. Mr Boehner, where are your jobs?

[ehjay]

10:43 PM on 01/08/2011

a correction to my comment. Children are at school 5 days (45 hours) each week.

[ehjay]

10:41 PM on 01/08/2011

Healthcare and Education are areas where Asians surpass Americans, in certain aspects.

Healthcare: Doctors are in the hospital all day and in their clinic from 4 pm to 7 pm in the evening, 6 days a week. Not because of a law or greed, but from a sense of responsibility and duty that is instilled in them as children (see education). There are no exorbitant drug costs or physician fees. The entire cost for a mastectomy in a city hospital is $400.00 (four hundred). It appears to me that many entrants see the medical field as an avenue to quick riches which is America's problem.

Education: Although not well paid teachers are highly respected by parents and children, Children remain within the confines of the school from 7:00 AM until 4:00 PM (9 hours) 6 days every week, and they usually have evening homework. It appears to me that it is America's lack of diligence, by teachers and students, that accounts for the problems in many areas of American culture. Adults behave as they are taught as children.

Healthcare and Education are areas where the people benefit from gov't regulation. The preponderance of evidence from Canada, Britain, Australia, Europe, Russia, and Asia appear to prove that fact.

[gustafson]

10:05 PM on 01/08/2011

Where Are The Jobs?, Mr Boehner??????????

[Reginald Stephenson]

04:40 PM on 01/08/2011

I, for one think the opposition started much earlier than the CBO estimate, it was bound to receive criticism whether the initial projection would've been 1.5 trillion or 850 billion; mainly because of the 750 billion dollar stimulus package that had been recently passed. These actions, in relatively close proximity solidified the far rights' position that spending was ramped and out of control and that it would be considerably elevated over remainder of the administrations' first term (even though the stimulus bill was a Bush creation).

[IntelligentDiscussion]

03:23 PM on 01/08/2011

The report was trick figures. The healthcare does not reduce the deficit has Democrats touted and let me tell you why.

The CBO report only accounts for the first 10 years, it does not figure the cost indefinitely or even over the next 20 years, one decade only.

That being said here's some provisions in the law that would make the law appear to reduce the deficit. The moment the bill was passed we were being taxed on it through the various small tax increases. Now as we all know the major provisions from the law don't start toll 2014, so were paying for it for 10 years, but getting 5 years in benefit. So of course the 10 year figure would say the cost was lower.

You see the manipulation here?

[AggieReal]

08:44 PM on 01/08/2011

The only real manipulation is Dr's, Pharma and Insurance companies sucking the US Gov and citizens dry...

[Erik Deerly]

01:41 AM on 01/09/2011

Wow. The whole country is out to get you! Not us, just you.

[IntelligentDiscussion]

09:59 PM on 01/09/2011

I didn't mean to come off appearing to have a paranoid attitude about it. I was merely stating that when Nancy Pelosi stood up and said " I will not support the healthcare law if it raises the deficit by a single dime" that she lied and use funny math to prove her point.

Do you have any comment on my actual statement or are you merely deflecting as most Liberals do when facts are presented?

[playsindirt]

02:32 PM on 01/08/2011

I'm not a fan of the funny papers but today there was a Dilbert that caught my eye and I think it perfectly captured the difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress and, in particular, their views with regard to health care reform. Dilbert was having a conversation with a co-worker who stated that he disagreed with Dilbert and Dilbert said “......You think you disagree with me, but you're mistaken. You're simply experiencing an illusion caused by the limits of your comprehensive. If you were able to fully comprehend both the problem and my recommended solution, you would agree with me. So what appears to be a difference of opinion is just you wrestling with your own defective brain.” Dilbert then goes on to ask rhetorically “Have you noticed that clarity makes people angry?”

[politicaljunkie41910]

03:47 PM on 01/08/2011

Good one. I must start reading Dilbert. That's exactly what we are experiencing with the GOPers who get their news and information from Faux News and Glenn Beck University.

[BillyRaySartre]

01:15 PM on 01/08/2011

A repost from another article:

If you are a friend of John Boehner's on Facebook this is on his profile:

John Boehner’s favorite songs:
1. “Tears of a Clown” Smoky Robinson and the Miracles”
2. “Crying” Roy Orbison
3. “96 Tears” ? and the Mysterians
4. “Its My Party and I’ll Cry if I Want to” Sung by Leslie Gore
5. “Cry Me a River” Joe Cocker

John Boehner’s favorite movies:
1. The Crying Game – Neil Jordan
2. Cry Baby – John Waters

John Boehner’s favorite musicians:
1. Drivin and Cryin (favorite song “I’m Going Straight to Hell”)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOnkaZjFHss&feature=related

John Boehner’s favorite books:
1. “Lying, Crying and Dying” Dominic Martel
2. “Crying Wolf” Peter Abrahams
3. “Crying: A Natural and Cultural History of Tears” Thomas Lutz

[Shawn P Williams]

01:07 PM on 01/08/2011

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

-Doctor Who

[joebaggadonuts]

11:13 PM on 01/08/2011

Explains the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and Jared Lee Loughner, and a lot of other things.

Great quote.

[Erik Deerly]

01:48 AM on 01/09/2011

Brilliant! F&F We could stand more Doctor Who and less Dr. Strangelove around here.

[Boomerwoman]

12:50 PM on 01/08/2011

The Republicans were for it (CBO) before they were against it.

[Erik Deerly]

01:51 AM on 01/09/2011

Exactly! And they keep doing that... the 'for it then against it' thing.

[Chicagoperson]

12:25 PM on 01/08/2011

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/health_care_hypocrites/?r=6616&id=14825-3427721-ppcZFgx

A petition that asks those in government who oppose health care to give up their own government funded program.

[Captimprobable]

12:12 PM on 01/08/2011

It must be amazing to simply say, "nope, don't believe it" at every turn, not offer any in-depth reasons or analysis why, beyond a talking point occasionally...and have people believe you.

Amondale posted earlier, they blame Fox for the "belief basis of reality" and I completely agree. Many of the pundits, guests and show hosts on Fox, while discussing the "subject of the moment" inject a lot of opinion and tie together "happening A" with "happening B" in many, many cases...in the most abstract way or that seems to make the most sense, based on personal, ideological, or thinly veiled religious inference, and let it fly...based on those things...as proof.

You cannot conduct inquiries, investigations or disavow something......just cause. That's the second grade approach to life. You're allowed to do that as a kid, because you haven't acquired the skills and critical thinking to address things more in depth. So you get a pass as a kid. That doesn't fly as an adult.

Fox perpetuates this constantly. "Doesn't feel right? Doesn't jibe with your personal outlook? Then by all means, join us in feeling the same way and let us offer the most arbitrary and abstract sources, both personal and hand picked, to give validity to your preferred beliefs."

Proof? Fox rarely and I mean RARELY apologizes for their gaffes and outright misreporting. Which leads the viewer to believe the gaffe is and remains correct.

[raechel]

12:07 PM on 01/08/2011

Matt Taibbi's new article about Boehner in Rolling Stone - read it!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-the-crying-shame-of-john-boehner-20110105?page=1

[PharmaCan]

01:32 PM on 01/08/2011

Very good article!!!

Fanned & faved for the link!

[Robert Masters]

11:47 AM on 01/08/2011

The healthcare reform law does not show any savings whatsoever. If you read the law it clearly only creates a bureaucracy with mandates and authority to produce savings.

Since the law does not show how those savings would be produced the CBO scoring is based on underlying assumptions of where the savings might occur. The CBO is therefore scoring any fantasy put in front of it. The fantasy needs no basis in reality because one only needs to point to the law giving the power to the administration to do it.

The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that we have 300 millioon people who will make their own decisions and use services as they see fit and overuse if allowed to overuse. Costs will not disappear because an official say it should. Businesses will not provide services if they cannot cover costs. etc etc.

The CBO could never accurately score anything under these conditions and the fact that a bunch of professional liars called politicians rely on their score does not make it valid. Anyone here compare the score of the CBO on medicare with the outcome? It was off by many times the original score.