Saving Elmendorf a Beating

Senator Kent Conrad today made an unusual request of the Congressional Budget Office: a 20-year cost estimate on the latest draft of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’ bill reforming the nation’s health care system. “We’ve got to have somebody look at this objectively and try to tell us: do we bend the cost curve the right way,” Conrad told reporters just off the Senate floor today. “I mean really when you think about it that is absolutely key to this whole effort. If we’re not bending the cost curve the right way it’d be a profound mistake.”

Indeed, none of the other four bills that have been marked up have shown long term savings by the CBO. And the agency, headed by Doug Elmendorf, has taken a beating by Dems and outside groups for refusing to score savings that an emphasis on prevention might bring about and, as the Institute of Medicine put it, “stingy” scoring.

While the Office and Management and Budget, a division of the White House, will put out its own scoring – those estimates are usual perceived as skewed to whatever end the president wishes. The CBO, meanwhile, is viewed as more objective and thus their endorsement much sought after. Conrad’s request hints that the CBO’s 10-year score of Baucus’ bill doesn’t yet show cost savings. Estimating 20 years out is hard to do and often unreliable but if the CBO comes back with a score that shows significant savings Baucus can declare victory and Elmendorf will be saved from another round of recriminations.

Baucus today said he expects to unveil his final draft of the legislation tomorrow ahead of a mark up scheduled for next week. And David Axelrod, the President’s top political adviser, came to the Hill to walk Dem senators through the current polling numbers on health care. “This is a real struggle and David’s in there, Axelrod, saying we’ve got to try and get something,” said West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller after sneaking out early from the lunch meeting. “So the new bench mark is: well, if we can do something, if we can do anything, then we can say that we did health care reform. And that’s a very large moral, theoretical, philosophical, practical and political question.”

Axelrod, on his way out, took exception to Rockefeller’s characterization of his remarks: “Our goal is not motion for motion’s sake. Our goal is to help people who have insurance gain some stability and to help people who don’t have insurance get insurance at a price that they can afford.  You have to be very focused on those goals.”

The sticking point du jour is affordability: whether, say, a family of four making $65,000 a year would be able to afford $8,500 premiums. “Obviously affordability is something that we’re going to pay great attention to,” Axelrod said before climbing into an SUV with dark-tinted windows that would bear him back to the White House.

Echoed Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, “that’s something that we’re looking at very seriously right now.”

Even as Dems contemplated what the political landscape might look like if they don’t get a bill or if they go it alone (or essentially alone if they just get Maine Republican Olympia Snowe’s vote), Baucus remained convinced he can still deliver GOP support. “I think there’ll be Republican support when the bill is reported out of committee at the very latest,” he told reporters after the lunch. “Now maybe earlier there may be a Republican or two who might announce support, I don’t know, but I think by the time we report the bill out we’ll have Republican support.”

But, in trying to lure Republicans, Baucus may be bleeding Dems — many of whom gave him an earful at a meeting last night. “No way in its present form would I vote” for Baucus’ bill, Rockefeller told a conference call with reporters this afternoon.

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: axelrod, baucus, CBO, douglas elmendorf, health care reform, Congress, Democratic Party, Health Care, Senate, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Morning Must Reads: Secret

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    SAUL LOEB / AFP / Getty Images

    A Tale of Two Economies: Mitt Romney vs. Republican Governors

    The great recession has left the state of Ohio battered and bruised–and Mitt Romney would have you believe it’s Barack Obama’s fault. Writing in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer on May 4, Romney advised Ohioans that the President has delivered them “paltry results,” and that their state is in need of “a fundamental change in direction.”

  • textee

    Are Obama and his useful idiots (i.e., the Washington/New York press corps) still repeating their thoroughly discredited and debunked lie that “preventive care” will “reduce costs”? What about their (false) allegation that a surgeon is paid “$50,000″ for a leg amputation? What about their lie that under the Democrats’ socialized medicine scheme the pro-America community won’t be paying for Democrats’ abortions? What about Obama’s claim that there are “57 states”?

  • deconstructiva

    Jay, thanks for this. You rock. However, I think you meant “cost curve” in Conrad quote, not “coast”. I would prefer “coast” myself, thinking of sunny beaches, surfing, and hot girls in bikinis, but I digress. We’re here to help encourage you and be your spell check.

  • homerhk

    It’s funny, HuffPo is reporting this as something that’s bad for the overall bill, i.e. that reporting 20 years ahead will not show a reduction in the deficit, even if the first ten years might. Funny how something so apparently factual can viewed completely differently.

  • http://www.twitter.com/jnsmall Jay Newton-Small

    thanks for outpointing, I’ve fixed. JNS

  • spob

    “And the agency, headed by Doug Elmendorf, has taken a beating by Dems and outside groups for refusing to score savings that an emphasis on prevention might bring about . . . .”

    But preventive care, on the whole, is more expensive.

  • rustyreturns

    All stuides with any relevancy have shown “preventative” health-care will take many years to show any cost-savings, if at all.
    .
    I for one would like to see Obama’s estimations and proof of cost savings within the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
    .
    If there are such great savings to be had, why not implement them NOW! Why do we have to wait for a healthcare reform bill?

  • carotexas1

    Jay this morning the house had hearings and the AMA, AARP and the Nurses all strongly supported the house bill with a strong Public Option. They did not seem to like the Senate Finance bill. Did you attend this hearing?

    I was not aware that the CBO scored the house bill longer than ten years.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    An’ has anyone, anyone a’ all a’ TIME heard any sort o’ vague, b’hind th’ scenes, per’aps unsourced or anonymous’ sourced wisp o’ a rumor tha’ thar mi’ be some – li’ near 70% – o’ doctors in America who be supportin’ a public option?
    .
    I thought I were hearin somethin’…
    .
    If any o’ ye be happenin’ t’ hear anythin’, in b’tweem investigatin’ jackass stories, ye’ll be lettin’ us know, ri’?
    .
    Yarr!

  • stuartzechman

    Jay Newton-Small:
    .
    Thanks so much for reporting on this.
    .
    I’m just wondering if you could clear a small area of confusion up for me:

    Conrad’s request hints that the CBO’s 10-year score of Baucus’ bill doesn’t yet show cost savings.

    What is “cost savings”?
    .
    I’m looking here at the OECD numbers for what developed (rich, like us) nations pay for health care
    .
    http://tinyurl.com/n7s2qp
    .
    , and I see that we’re paying way, way too much. It’s almost like we’re being overcharged systemically, as if there’s some sort of “health care housing bubble” that hasn’t quite burst yet.
    .
    Does “cost savings” mean our nation soon paying significantly less than the current $7,290 (2007) plus per person per year that Americans are paying for health care?
    .
    Does it mean paying close to what other countries like Germany –$3,588– pays, or France –$3,601– pays, or the UK –$2,992– pays, or Italy –$2,686– pays?
    .
    Does “cost savings” mean paying less than $7000 per person per year ever?
    .
    Thanks so much in advance, Jay Newton-Small, for helping me understand what kind of savings we’re talking about, and whether it’s the kind of savings that means Americans will be continuing to get ripped off –or not.

  • http://whatchannelareyouwatching.com Stephen Fofanoff

    Yes, they will only be paying for Republicans’ abortions. That was part of the compromise to bring more Republicans on board.

  • tomerguez

    > We’re here to help encourage you and be your spell
    > check.

    A good spell check and grammar check program is Spell Check Anywhere (SpellCheckAnywhere.Com). It adds spell check to all programs.

blog comments powered by Disqus