Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that …17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.
But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP’s alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It’s already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It’s already made its compromises with reality. It’s already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.
The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.
The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms.
“Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care, including for those with pre-existing conditions, at a price our country can afford,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.
The GOP plan would have the smallest economic impact on the large group market that serves people working for large businesses that have access to the cheapest coverage. Those premiums would decline by zero to 3 percent, the CBO said.
To repeat myself from yesterday, this is basically a plan that works well for you if you never get sick. Instead of wasting money on taxes and or premiums to cover your own illness or that of your fellow Americans, you’ll have more money in your pocket to spend on NBA League Pass or what have you. If you’re uninsured or at risk of losing your insurance, this plan does nothing for you. If you’re insured and putting your insurance to use by getting sick, this plan is a disaster, offering you less coverage.
Not surprisingly, Democrats are grousing that it doesn’t do much to expand coverage. But that wasn’t the point. The aim was to look at the overwhelming majority of Americans who have insurance or who might want to (not be forced to) buy insurance and make it cheaper.
We’ll see if Pelosi allows a vote on it, or if she can even muster the 218 to pass her gargantuan measure. And after Tuesday, she might need some votes to make up for potential defections from Virginia. There are a couple Democrats who might want to preserve their re-election prospects.
Now, nothing in the GOP plan will satisfy someone who thinks that the current system requires immediate reform. And the GOP plan is ultimately unsatisfying to me because it defers a lot of the hard choices. On the other hand, if you think that the Democratic plan is worse than the status quo, maybe a little deferring is a good thing.
And there’s the political problem for Democrats: Although the Democratic plan is more comprehensive, expands coverages, and arguably fixes more problems — while potentially creating others — the Republican plan is likely better for more folks who already have insurance. It is also likely be perceived as being better for seniors because, unlike the Democratic proposals, it doesn’t cut Medicare. Folks who already have health care and seniors are not just the vast majority of voters, they also vote in vastly greater numbers than the primary beneficiaries of the Democratic plan.
I was complaining a little while back that Republicans didn’t have a response to Team Obama on health care. I take it all back. The GOP plan is pretty good, if you apply the right yardstick. The question for the electorate is: which yardstick are you gonna apply?
So, yes, the Republican health care bill will lower premiums overall. But many people in poor health will see their premiums go up. And many people will get lower premiums only because they’re getting inferior coverage. Meanwhile, more than 50 million people will have no insurance whatsoever.
Note: Are wondering what CBO is likely to say about premiums in the Democratic plans? Good question. Watch this space for some answers soon.
November 6, 2009...6:53 pm
And Now It Is The GOP’s Turn…
Ezra Klein:
Susan Ferrechio at The Washington Examiner:
Matthew Yglesias:
Jennifer Rubin at Commentary:
Von:
Jonathan Cohn at TNR:
Leave a Comment
Filed under Health Care, Legislation Pending
Tags: Commentary, Ezra Klein, Health Care, Jennifer Rubin, Jonathan Cohn, Legislation, Mark Levin, Matthew Yglesias, Susan Ferrechio, The New Republic, Von, Washington Examiner