Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CBO Messes Up Wyden’s Amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:14 AM
Original message
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/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. knr - video
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. Kip Sullivan's letter to the CBO...
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:

..."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Just a small note: the Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group insurance mafia
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. That's the 'esteemed' group Grassley likes to quote.
Yes, lots of us are aware they're doing the rethugs' bidding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. The CBO has been far from neutral, or negative on this process.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Wyden's amendment was the state choice. I didn't like it. He's free to bring it to the floor.
State choice is an easier target for the state wide cartels that already own the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. "Does Wyden's really mean free choice"
"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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is one of the most important admendments up for debate
Providing some "public option" isn't good enough. Everyone needs EASY access to it, and affordable access (accomplished with the vouchers in the admendment)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC