CBO Messes Up Wyden’s Amendment

CBO Messes Up Wyden’s Amendment
By: Jon Walker Saturday October 3, 2009 3:00 pm
Video at link~


Sen. Ron Wyden is considered to be a health care policy wonk. He ranks among only a handful of senators who have dedicated years to studying how best to overhaul our broken health care system. His primary goal is to provide greater choice to Americans in what health insurance they have.

To achieve his goal he created his “free choice” amendment which would have allowed individuals to get a voucher equal to the cost of their employer-provided health insurance. They would take this voucher and use it to buy insurance on the new exchanges.

Sen. Wyden was not happy, while in the course of debating his amendment he was informed that the CBO “somehow” only scored one small part of his amendment. To say this is incredibly unusual would be an understatement.

Independent analysis by the Lewin Group predicted that Wyden's free choice proposal would generate $129.8 billion in revenue for the government. The incomplete/incorret CBO score said the amendment would only save $1 billion.

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/10/03/cbo-messes-up-wydens-amendment/

Video - Wyden Free Choice Act killed by giggling Baucus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORkY3mHGzAI

10 minutes

Dylan Ratigan with commentary from guests and snips from Senate.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/02/kip-sullivan-letter/

"Dear Mr. Elmendorf:

I write to ask for information about the methodology the CBO used to analyze the impact of the public plan (“public option”) in the Affordable Health Choices Act (drafted by the Senate health committee) and HR 3200 (drafted by three committee chairs in the House), and the health insurance cooperatives in America’s Healthy Future Act (drafted by Sen. Max Baucus). The CBO’s discussion of the public plan called for by the Senate health committee bill and HR 3200 assumes the public plan would be available throughout the country. In contrast, CBO’s discussion of the health insurance co-operatives called for by the Baucus bill assumes the co-ops would be unlikely to thrive, or even survive, in many parts of the country.

I can find no information that indicates what evidence, if any, CBO used to reach these conclusions. My statement is based on five letters from you:

..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203696.html

People should always be aware that this "non-partisan", "independent" "consultancy" is a fully owned propaganda arm public relations operation of an insurance behemoth. It's fine to quote what they say, but people should be aware that there is always an moneyed interest motivating their analysis.

Yes, lots of us are aware they're doing the rethugs' bidding.

Immediately shot down Obama early saying reform won't make that much difference, yet even a neutral difference and saving lives seems worth it. Meaning he's been scrambling ever since to make the financial argument.

Does Wyden's really mean free choice or is this a state's control thing, as Ed Schultz feared, in which case Lewin would push the less helpful.

State choice is an easier target for the state wide cartels that already own the state.

"This amendment gives every American the ability to either choose to keep the coverage
they have or pick a plan that works better for them and their family. It guarantees both
choice and portability by creating a path for employers to insure their workers through
the state-based insurance exchange. This amendment also recognizes that employers
play an important role in ensuring that their employees have health coverage and gives
employers a choice in how they fulfill that role. This amendment honors President
Obama’s pledge that everyone can keep the coverage they have while making it possible
for individuals and families who don’t like their current coverage to get a good quality,
affordable alternative at an insurance exchange."

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/091709free_choice_amendment.pdf


Yes, he means free choice. This eliminates any potential "firewall" to the public option, period. It also forces employers to pay some portion of the plan too, which is immensely important if not everyone qualifies for comprehensive subsidies. Without these provisions, the public option may be useless as tits on a boar hog.

Providing some "public option" isn't good enough. Everyone needs EASY access to it, and affordable access (accomplished with the vouchers in the admendment)