Corporate Media Runs with Half the Story on Health Bill

What else is new?

The headlines today were brutal on the health care front. The CBO chief's testimony that the reform bills currently on the table won't contain costs has shifted the Village chatter into shrill keening about deficits and costs and all the things the wealthy beltway celebrities love to pretend are important to average people just like them.

But there's a little problem with the reporting. First, the bills the CBO scored aren't complete. Second, the CBO didn't score the savings to the economy as a whole, which is the actual point of health care reform savings. From the Wonk Room:

Part of Elmendorf’s message is painfully obvious: investing in health care reform by providing Americans up to 400% of the federal poverty line with subsidies is going to cost the federal government a good deal of money — somewhere between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion, to be exact. Progressives have always argued that in order to reduce the growth of health care costs in the long term and avoid the kind of catastrophic spending levels that could swallow-up our entire economy, we’re going to have to bring everyone into the health care system. As Elmendorf points out, that shows up on the federal books.

But the budget outline that passed the Senate Budget Committee requires a fully funded health reform bill, and both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee are proposing different options to pay for reform and ensure that the bill does not add to the deficit. For his part, Elmendorf, is isolating the ledger of the federal government from the context of the entire system. In other words, since many of the savings from reform won’t be reflected in the federal budget, Elmendorf does not consider them. But modernizing the health care system (implementing electronic medical records, health information technology) and reforming the way Medicare and Medicaid reimburse providerswill save money for the system as a whole. As Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin and David Cutler pointed out in a recent analysis,these savings can total to some $2 trillion. In fact, even the industry is on record as saying we can reduce the growth rate in annual health spending by1.5 percentage points a year over the next 10 years, lowering spending overall health care spending by $2 trillion (this represents a 20 percent reduction in projected growth.)Elmendorf is looking at the trunk of the elephant and not the whole.

This is an obvious point, but one that seems to have been overlooked in the reporting.

Meanwhile, there is a new call for delay from centrist Democratic Senators. And one of the people arguing for delay is Ron Wyden, whose plan dday endorses below and suggests that progressives rally around. Perhaps Wyden hopes to build some consensus around his plan which is why he's among those seeking delay.


Digby is the proprietor of Hullabaloo.
Sign Up!
Get AlterNet's Daily Newsletter in Your Inbox
+ sign up for additional lists
Select additional lists by selecting the checkboxes below before clicking Subscribe:
Election 2018