New CBO study: Public health care option won't dominate system (proves Repubs misinforming public)

[kpete]

Source: CNN

July 27, 2009
New CBO study: Public health care option won't dominate system
Posted: 06:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — House Democrats on Monday hailed a new report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that they said proves Republicans are misinforming the public about the effects of health care reform.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders said at a news conference the report shows that a government-funded public option for health insurance would increase the number of people getting employer-provided coverage. Most Republicans contend a government option would wipe out private competitors.

"We've heard that the reform would represent a government takeover of health care," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said of Republican claims. "In point of fact, exactly the opposite is true."

Pelosi repeated her insistence that the chamber would pass a bill that contains the public option, but she softened on the timing, saying it would happen when appropriate. Previously, Pelosi had pushed for a House vote on the measure before the chamber goes on August recess at the end of this week.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/27/new-cbo-study-public-health-care-option-wont-dominate-system/

[redqueen]

1. Blue Dogs & Repubs in Congress don't care about facts.

Or the American public.

Their only concern in watering down health care reform is the profits for private insurers. They are sold-out.

[Igel]

11. What are the "facts"?

This is one problem with politics and education in the US: They haven't taught people for the last 60 years or more to distinguish between important categories.

The CBO report, like the Lewin-originated report, contains assumptions concerning the effects of proposed legislation, and then, given those assumptions, infers future behavior.

The facts are that a given piece of legislation has been proposed; another fact is that the CBO makes a certain set of assumptions and inferences. Their assumptions are not a facts, they are assumptions. The assumptions may be partially based on inferences concerning the future effect of proposed legislation, but the legislation is not yet a fact and the inferences may be no more valid than the Lewin inferences. The inferences that the CBO report makes are inferences; it is a fact that the CBO has made them, but that doesn't make the inferences true.

When supposedly intelligent people can't separate assumptions from inferences, and inferences from facts, there are no grounds for discussion. All that's left is faith, not facts, and that's a sorry premise for much of anything outside of church.

However, the problem is actually a bit more acute. A lot of people can make the necessary discrimination when confronted with something they don't want to accept. That they *can* do so and apparently decide *not* to do so makes it not just a failure of education, but a self-imposed blindness. It's a common enough failing among conservatives and, well, a common enough failing among liberals. Since it removes grounds for discussion and makes listening to one's opponents not only pointless but apostasy, it completely undercuts the kind of bipartisanship that Obama reportedly ran on. (Perhaps, for those people, he didn't so much intend to run on bipartisanship but to run over bipartisanship, the more roughly shod the better.)

The intelligent, thinking response is to consider the two reports and ask, "Which of the two has better assumptions? Can the assumptions be checked in any way and improved upon, or is it a crap shoot?" Only after that can you begin to worry about the logic involved in inferences. But still, there will be no facts except to the extent that there are speech acts.

[redqueen]

12. The fact is that a public option will lower costs.

I thought that was pretty obvious.

As for your word salad about inferences and assumptions... poppycock.

Would you say it would be reasonable to stop trying to change our lifestyles because we're affecting climate change, because the idea that we are is all a bunch of assumptions and blah blah blah?

Pfft. Nonsense.

Oh, and you can stuff your 'oh I'm so smarty smart smart!' act where the sun don't shine. You're comparing the CBO report to the Lewin report? Really? :rofl:

[DJ13]

2. Any public option that wont dominate the system is a weak public option

Do it right and the insurers wont be able to compete.

I think even Pelosi's version of a public option is soo weak she is telling the truth that it wont compete.

[Laelth]

13. Hear, hear. I want a public option that WILL dominate the market.

If it doesn't, it stinks, and isn't worth alienating voters with the "you must buy insurance" mandate.

:dem:

-Laelth

[msongs]

3. congress = prostitutes for sale to the highes corporate bidder lolollolol nt

[Nevernose]

4. Since when have facts had anything to do with a Repub's position?

As a matter of fact, the Republicans can pretty much be counted on to take whatever position is opposite reality, morality, and/or common sense. They've hit the trifecta on the health care issue.

[Oceansaway]

5. K&R...n/t

[Kingofalldems]

6. Republicans posing as blue dog Democrats are not amused

by this, huddling to think up some new lies.

[indimuse]

7. This *misinfo* is

CRIMINAL if you ask me! They should ALL (entire family...et'al) lose their Health Care that WE...WE pay for!!! Enough Is Enough!!

[ProudDad]

8. This is bad news

The only plan that would work would BE a "public option" that DOES DOMINATE SYSTEM...

Single-payer, HR676 - like the civilized world already has!!

Everybody in, nobody out, no co-pays, no deductibles, no exclusions.

Preventive based, needs base, HEALTH CARE...

Not a bullshit compromise to the evil enterprises who created the world's most inaccessible health care at the highest price!

HR676 - Universal Health Care for All!

[prostomulgus]

14. I agree with you except for the "no co-pay" part.

Co-pays should be income-based. Yes, the unemployed, unwed teen mom should not have a co-pay. But the Bill Gates' of the world should pay full costs (or at least have a very large co-pay).

If there is a premium, it too should be income-based. Again, the unemployed pay nothing, the rich pay a lot.

IMHO, this is the only way to make the system fair.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Everybody in, everything is covered, 24-7.

[ProudDad]

22. I don't agree

the reason single-payer systems work in the civilized world is because it's entirely, completely, absolutely communitarian...Everybody in, nobody out and the same easy access to care.

Co-pays inhibit access to care...

I think a progressive tax is enough...

[Puppyjive]

9. Congressman send out lies

I got an email from Congressman Walden in Oregon. He states that the current administration wants a full government takeover of the health care industry.

Here is the deal: We have people who have no experience in health care determining our fate in healthcare reform. We keep electing people who have lots of money, own lots of things, and have no idea how the other 98% of Americans really live. We need to build a Congress that truly represents America and the current group does not. How many doctors or nurses are on the health care reform committee? How many insurance lobbyists have ties with the congressman on these committees? This is not democracy, this is the uppercrust stomping on the rest of us.

[damntexdem]

10. What a shame that it won't.

If the competition were truly free, it likely would.

[Joanne98]

15. Democrats cite CBO to boost healthcare case

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives pounced on a congressional budget analysis to bolster their plan for a government-run health insurance option on Monday, as party leaders said they were closer to agreement on healthcare reform.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the public option proposed by Democrats would not drive private insurers out of business and most people would still choose to get their medical coverage through employers.

The public option has come under heavy fire from Republicans who say it will devastate the private insurance industry.

"We're moving closer to a point where we can hold insurance companies accountable," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, told reporters, repeating her frequent prediction that once a bill hits the floor for a vote "it will win."

President Barack Obama's drive for healthcare reform has stalled in the Senate and House, which are controlled by his fellow Democrats, amid criticism from all sides about the cost, scope and funding of the more than $1 trillion measure.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090728/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare

---

The report by the Congressional Budget Office said the public option proposed by Democrats would NOT drive private insurers out of business.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Thank god what Dean et al said isn't true. The public option won't lead to single payer!

Bait and Switch

http://www.healthcare-now.org/bait-and-switch-how-the-%e2%80%9cpublic-option%e2%80%9d-was-sold/#comments

[Oregone]

19. Nice article. Stark contrast between what is and what was supposed to be.

How "incremental" is this all anyway? :)

All-or-nothingers vs Nothing-at-allers.

[dflprincess]

20. So incremental that the CBO says by 2019 only 10 million people will be on the public option

I liked the response that said if we want something "incremental" it could be a plan to add groups to Medicare incrementally.

[Xipe Totec]

17. it would not drive private insurers out of business...

Hew! that's one bullet dodged.

Glad to see that congress is looking out for their constituency...

:sarcasm:

[strategery blunder]

18. I *WANT* the private health insurance industry to be "devastated."

Sellout Congressfuckers. :grr:

[Zorra]

21. +1