Health Care: Making It All Add Up

There’s a real chicken-and-egg conundrum going on up on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are clamoring to see the final health care legislation. But their leaders can’t settle on a bill until they know it gets a favorable “score” from the Congressional Budget Office. But the Congressional Budget Office can’t issue its number until it has a bill. But they can’t finish the bill until they see the score. ….

In other words, there are a lot of numbers flying back and forth across the I395 freeway that separates the Capitol from the nondescript office building that houses the Congressional Budget Office. (Trivia: CBO’s offices are on a floor where J. Edgar Hoover used to store his fingerprint files.)

In today’s Washington Post, Lori Montgomery has a good explanation of why it is taking so long to get to the bottom line:

Democrats hoped to receive the Congressional Budget Office report on the legislation’s budgetary impact late Tuesday night. Because Democrats are using special budget rules, known as reconciliation, to protect the package from a Republican filibuster, the measure must reduce the deficit by at least $2 billion over the next five years and avoid increasing the deficit in any year thereafter. Under normal circumstances, that rule would require the bill simply to contain enough revenue-raising provisions to offset new spending. But, like so much else in the health-care debate, this time it is more complicated.

Instead of being measured against current law, the deficit-reduction potential of the “fixes” package will be measured against the Senate bill, which must be passed by the House before the Senate can approve the fixes. The Senate bill would trim $118 billion from the deficit over the next decade and hundreds of billions of dollars in the following 10 years. For the fixes package to comply with reconciliation rules, it must also promise significant long-term deficit reduction, aides said.

But virtually everything House Democrats want to achieve in their package costs money. For example, Obama and House leaders have promised to increase government subsidies to help lower-income people purchase insurance, to fully close the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug program, and to extend to all states the deal cut with Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D), under which the federal government would pay for a proposed expansion of Medicaid.

Meanwhile, House leaders want to dramatically scale back one of the most powerful deficit-reduction tools in the Senate bill: a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance policies. Obama has proposed to delay implementation of the tax until 2018 and to limit the number of policies that would be subject to the tax.

Obama and House Democrats have proposed to pay for their changes by raising Medicare taxes on the wealthy. They were hoping to reduce deficits further by incorporating Obama’s plan to overhaul the federal student loan program to cut out private lenders.

Those changes are unlikely to match the long-term savings proposed in the Senate bill, aides and lawmakers said, leaving House leaders scrambling to come up with additional sources of cash. Failure to comply with the reconciliation rules would imperil the package in the Senate and could cause big problems in the House, where the votes of many fiscally conservative Democrats hinge on the ability of health-care legislation to rein in soaring budget deficits.

Related Topics: congressional budget office, lori montgomery, reconciliation, Washington Post, Congress, Health Care
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

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

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • http://www.facebook.com/majors.bruce?ref=profile brucemajors

    Q: How is Obamacare like a stool sample?

    A:

    You have to pass it to see what’s in it?

  • bobell

    KT — Okay, so part of using reconciliation is to come up with savings beyond what the Senate bill achieves. And given that the House is trying to do more with less, of course there’s a problem. I mean the following as no criticism of you personally, but I’ve been observing this whole process pretty much since the beginning, and this is the first I’ve heard of this particular glitch.
    .
    Maybe I’m not watching as closely as I thought I was, or maybe the MSM simply didn’t think we needed the info before now (and I thank Ms. Montgomery for explaining it and you for posting her explanation). But right now I feel as if I’m watching a game on tape that was played about a month ago, and I have no idea how the teams that played that game have fared since then.
    .
    I still think both the Dems and the country will be better off with this bill passed, and even a few procedural agonies don’t matter if the goal is reached, but this is really starting to hurt.

  • http://www.facebook.com/majors.bruce?ref=profile brucemajors

    But if Obamacare fascism were so good and would make the country better, shouldn’t you be able to persuade people to support it?

    Isn’t that your theory of how democracy works?

    As it is most voters oppose it and many Congresspeople are only supporting it because of threats and bribes and judgeships for relatives offered by Obama and Pelosi. And that corruption is now “transparently” obvious to the voters.

    Your belief that you should be able to continue to loot the tax serfs without even a pretense of representative government as window dressing is why you and the tax predator ruling class you support are going to end up stripped of citizenship, exiled, or sent to the guillotine.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Of course lost in the clamor is the original target. The bill has to reduce the deficit and and the changes have to reduce the deficit. This simple fact is being lost in the clamor.

    And as far as using public opinion as the sole arbiter of good policy, I need only mention the word “Iraq” to reveal the obvious fallacy that that represents.

  • freeinpa

    No matter what’s in it –it’s still crap!

  • http://www.facebook.com/majors.bruce?ref=profile brucemajors

    Yes Paul obviously you and Paul Krugman and Bamie should get to make everyone’s decisions, from diet to reproduction, for them.

    Thanks for being honest about it.

    It makes it easier to compile the list of names for the citizens tribunals.

  • newfreedomblog

    Would “Public Opinion” be when Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry all stood up in the Senate, arm in arm and said in unison, “Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, ATTACK ATTACK.
    .
    Is that what you mean when you say “I need only mention the word Iraq”?

  • freeinpa

    No, the original target was to “bend the cost curve” of health care down. The typical vote buying is what has ballooned the deficit number and without smoke,mirrors, tax increases and service cuts the claim of “deficit reduction” of heath care spending would put any corporate executive in jail.

  • nathan7777

    Funny how polls show the public evenly split on this health insurance reform bill, and yet you say most of the voters oppose it. Funny how even though polls show the public evenly split on this bill, a solid majority of the public likes each individual concept in the bill. Funny how you don’t know any representatives and senators personally, and yet you claim to know why they are voting for it. Funny how this bill doesn’t raise taxes on 95% of the American public and yet you say we are looting the tax serfs. Funny how you say there’s not even a pretense of representative government here when all of our current government was elected by the people, with votes, and as part of representative democracy.
    .
    Isn’t all of this funny, brucemajors?

  • newfreedomblog

    “Because Democrats are using special budget rules, known as reconciliation, to protect the package from a Republican filibuster, the measure must reduce the deficit by at least $2 billion over the next five years and avoid increasing the deficit in any year thereafter.”

    .
    This shouldn’t be that difficult should it? 500 BILLION is being taken away from Medicare, right? That is certainly more than 2 Billion.
    .
    Oh, that’s right. They said they are not taking any money away from Medicare so they wouldn’t upset Seniors.
    .
    Ok, let’s double count money. I have heard on the news that there is much double counting going on. Showing money in Social Security and payroll taxes as income, and then showing the same dollars as taxes in the healthcare bill in order to not raise taxes against the middle class that Obama promised he wouldn’t do.
    .
    Does that have any bearing on this at all. There were many other examples of double counting of money too, but the show I watched went pretty fast to keep up with it all. Anyone have any information on that?
    .
    This is really a difficult situation for the Democrats to be in isn’t it? For over a 100 years they have never cut any spending, I am sure they are lost in a giant forest of tax payer funded money trees, and do not have a clue as to how to cut spending. It’s just not in their genetic makeup.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I mean that its very easy to get large numbers of Americans to believe things that simply aren’t true. The same people who report that they don’t support the HCR bill, respond oppositely when they are asked about the specific provisions IN the HCR bill. It’s not rocket science but ignoring the effect IS yet another fine example of the dishonesty that has characterized the opposition from the get-go.

  • newfreedomblog

    Do you mean dishonesty like this…
    .
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/obamas-health-care-news-conference/
    .

    “President Obama tried to sell his health care overhaul in prime time, mangling some facts in the process. He also strained to make the job sound easier to pay for than experts predict.
    .
    Obama promised once again that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.” But congressional budget experts say the bills they’ve seen so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
    .
    He said the plan “that I put forward” would cover at least 97 percent of all Americans. Actually, the plan he campaigned on would cover far less than that, and only one of the bills now being considered in Congress would do that.
    ..
    He said the “average American family is paying thousands” as part of their premiums to cover uncompensated care for the uninsured, implying that expanded coverage will slash insurance costs. But the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation puts the cost per family figure at $200.
    .
    Obama claimed his budget “reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion” compared with where it was headed before. Not true. Even figures from his own budget experts don’t support that. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $2.7 trillion increase, not a $2.2 trillion cut.
    .
    The president said that the United States spends $6,000 more on average than other countries on health care. Actually, U.S. per capita spending is about $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country. Obama’s figure was a White House-calculated per-family estimate.”

    .
    There is so much more in this great article, but really, what’s the point. We have been lied to, numbers have been double counted, now in order to pass this bill they are playing legislative games. “Change the Rules” they chant.
    .
    Nancy doesn’t want to see the final bill, she wants to use her bag of tricks to pass this bill saying “well when they finally do get this bill, the American Public will LEARN to love it”.

  • newfreedomblog

    No Mr Dirks, the people have been hood-winked enough over time to know that in most cases our Government Representatives are dishonest. They spin information all the time to make it palatable to the people.
    .
    Let me repeat one more time, and many this time you will understand.
    .
    This Bill is a BAD bill. Period. People understand it, very clearly, despite the complexity of it. They have said “NO”.
    .
    We agree that reform needs to occur. We believe and agree that denying coverage due to Pre-existing Conditions must be stopped. We “individually” agree with Democrats that this practice must stop, and laws passed to make it illegal. No question, no argument.
    .
    We agree that life-time caps on Insurance is also equally as bad as Pre-existing Conditions. We agree passing legislation to stop this practice is the type of reform needed. No question, no argument.
    .
    We agree that children under the age of 26 should be allowed to stay on their parents insurance. No question, no argument.
    .
    Where we disagree is on all the spending. The spending of TRILLIONS of dollars before trying other options which do not cost one red cent to the tax payer, and may in fact reduce the cost of insurance by hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
    .
    The last point of contention is how to insure the millions who currently go without insurance. The exchanges, which we agree with, MAY offer affordable healthcare coverage. It may not. BUT, is healthcare a “right”, just like the rest of my rights under the bill of rights, I say “NO”. Here we disagree, and shall continue to disagree until hell freezes over.
    .
    Should Unions receive special deals? Absolutely NOT.
    .
    Should Big Pharma get a special deal? Absolutely NOT.
    .
    Should there be Cornhusker Deals and Lousianna Purchase Deals made? Absolutely NOT.
    .
    Should a new entitlement program be set up? Absolutely NOT.
    .
    Should are Seniors lose over 500 BILLION dollars in healthcare benefits in order to pay for the 13 million people now un-insured, most of them illegals? Absolutely NOT.
    .
    It does not take a 2700 page bill which no one can understand all of the complexities or be able to estimate the future ramifications of to pass reform.
    .
    It needs to be simply broken down into smaller more easily understood and managed components. That is the argument. That is the fight. That is why we say.
    .
    KILL THE BILL

  • carotexas1

    I wonder if adding a strong Public Option would help?

  • freeinpa

    You mean like telling people premiums will go down?

    Even folks in favor of reform doubt it.
    =

    “There’s no question premiums are still going to keep going up,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. “There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today.”

  • diecash1

    For over a 100 years they have never cut any spending, I am sure they are lost in a giant forest of tax payer funded money trees, and do not have a clue as to how to cut spending. It’s just not in their genetic makeup.

    How do you remain so undeniably and consistently ignorant RustyBlogWhore? Perhaps you’ve heard of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, yes? Probably not since it directly contradicts your idiocy.

    Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (VT-I)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against), and the Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month’s vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993
    ..
    Every Republican voted against this measure……every single one of them. In case you forgot or likely didn’t know, this budgetary measure was responsible for making the budgetary surpluses under Clinton possible.
    ..
    Tell me again how the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility? Yeah, that’s right, they’re not.

  • nflfoghorn

    Ha ha ha! So scatalogically funny, guys. Maybe you ought to consider the same description for your opinions.

  • newfreedomblog

    Careful freeinpa, those like Mr Zilchman on this site want citations for remarks like that. They do not believe that cost of healthcare insurance will go up, and in some cases by 40% after this bill is passed.
    .
    They believe in the tooth fairy too. They think by requiring insurance companies to get rid of pre-existing conditions, allowing younger family members to stay on policies of their parents and having a limitless/the sky is the limit policy it will not cost any more money to the insured individuals.
    .
    Where does this money come from? How will the insurance companies be able to afford to increase benefits, but keep costs down?
    .
    Do we pay for it as tax payers? Credits and such?
    .
    Do the insurance companies eat that extra cost? Do they simply go out of business because no business would be able to sustain this type of cost?
    .
    Is it the backdoor to a Universal…..oh wait….here it comes Mr Zilchman…. get ready DEMOCRAT SPONSORED SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PLAN?
    .
    That is the question.

  • diecash1

    They do not believe that cost of healthcare insurance will go up, and in some cases by 40% after this bill is passed.

    I believe SZ asked you for some proof of this spurious claim yesterday RustyBlogWhore and you came up empty as your posts tend to do. What’s the problem with facts anyway? You don’t have any? In that case, you should stick to bloviation since it’s what you do best.

  • afguy

    carotexas,
    .
    It probably would but, as you know, someone has already declared it not “to have the votes to pass”.
    .
    You know, like the present plan didn’t, BEFORE they started to work their a$$e$ off to get the votes to pass it.
    .
    If I didn’t know better, I’d think SOMEONE just didn’t want to have to actually, you know, PUT THE PUBLIC OPTION TO A VOTE.
    .
    Afraid what might happen, maybe?

  • newfreedomblog

    Yes you are correct diecash, this bill did reduce the deficit. But, how?
    .

    “It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals. (In other words it INCREASED TAXES, but did not CUT SPENDING)

    It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations. (In other words it INCREASED TAXES, but did not CUT SPENDING)
    .
    The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
    Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon. (In other words it INCREASED TAXES, but did not CUT SPENDING)
    .
    The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised. (In other words it INCREASED TAXES, but did not CUT SPENDING)
    .
    The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
    Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments

    .
    You see diecash it did not cut one red cent of spending. All this did was raise taxes. AND, was the cause of the enormous spending that continued under Bush II.
    .

    “Another proposal was offered in the House of Representatives by John Kasich (R-OH). He sponsored an amendment that would have reduced the deficit by cutting $355 billion in spending with $129 billion of the cuts coming from entitlement programs (the actual bill cut entitlement spending by only $42 billion). The amendment would have eliminated any tax increases. The amendment failed by a 138-295 vote with many Republicans voting against the amendment and only six Democrats voting in favor of the amendment.

    .
    No matter how you spin it diecash, Democrats SPEND SPEND SPEND and never CUT. They INCREASE TAXES so they can SPEND MORE.
    .
    Is that too difficult for your little brain to understand?

  • newfreedomblog

    I posted the link this Morning. Go back and read it dimwit.

  • diecash1

    You see diecash it did not cut one red cent of spending. All this did was raise taxes. AND, was the cause of the enormous spending that continued under Bush II.

    Really? This bill passed by the Democrats in 1993, which achieved tremendous budgetary surpluses and supported a thriving economy that created more than 20 million new jobs under Clinton somehow forced W and his band of idiots to start an unnecessary war in Iraq, pass a $1.3 trillion tax cut for the wealthy during a time of war (unprecedented idiocy there) and then pass another tax cut for the wealthy while expanding the size of the Federal government more so than at any time since the 1960s and it was the Democrats’ fault? Your idiocy is astounding. You should never feel the need to call anyone a dimwit again as no one could possibly be dumber than you, not even W.

  • carotexas1

    afguy, from the beginning I did not think that there was a chance for single payer or medicare for all. When the President began talking a Public Option to give competition to the insurance companies he convinced me that this was at least possible. I was very disappointed when he backed out of this. I think if he had pushed it we would have it in the bill.
    .
    I think they cannot put through insurance regulations with reconciliation so I am interested to see where the President thinks that this bill has controls on the insurance companies.

  • newfreedomblog

    Yes, dimwit diecash.
    .
    Your only hope is pinned on always “blaming Bush”.
    .
    The entire Government is out of control. Both Democrats and Republicans can now be blamed for outrageous spending.
    .
    We have spent our way into Bankruptcy my friend. Thanks to our elected officials your children and grandchildren will never enjoy the country that you have been so lucky to have lived in.
    .
    It’s gone. Say goodbye and continue to spout out your liberal talking points. Then ask yourself, “what did it get me or my family”?

  • stuartzechman

    The link you posted was to the AHIP “study,” Rustyblog.
    .
    What’s next?
    .
    Exxon’s “study” on climate change?

  • stuartzechman

    At this point, I think that we have to assume the possibility that Obama has mislead liberals about his intentions –or “preferences,” that highly malleable term– with respect to the inclusion of a public plan.
    .
    If you look at how closely the process they’ve insisted on follows the Dole-Daschle plan, and then you read this: (link to CBS news story):

    Daschle and Dole are two founders of the Bipartisan Policy Center, which has made health care its signature issue. The center’s report, which the founders intend to discuss with Congress, takes a broad approach to addressing health care challenges like delivery, cost, coverage and financing — in a manner that is politically palatable for both the left and the right. The policy center spent a year and a half conducting research, analysis, public policy forums and targeted meetings and workshops with health care experts to come up with their approach.
    .
    “We’ve offered some solutions that may offer ways in which to compromise on some of the tough issues,” Daschle said.
    .
    The report does not recommend a public plan, a sticking point for many Democrats.
    .
    We compromised on that substantially,” said Daschle, President Obama’s first nominee for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle withdrew his nomination in February amid tax problems.
    .
    The report does recommend creating state or regional health insurance exchanges, and implementing a federal fallback if the exchanges are not set up in a timely manner. It also suggests an individual mandate and other solutions like limiting out-of-pocket premiums and investments in comparative effectiveness research.

    , it seems as if their blueprint for passing HCR was this, and that this plan specifically calls for the dropping of a public option.
    .
    I can’t say this with certainty, but it looks more and more like the best explanation for a number of phenomena we’ve witnessed during this long process.

  • diecash1

    Not surprisingly, you missed the point. You blamed the Democrats for the reckless spending under W (which you now conveniently decry) while I pointed out that your contention was patently ridiculous. If W was in the WH and the Repubs controlled both houses of Congress, who should be blamed?
    ..
    I know I can always count on you to miss the point RustyBlogWhore.

blog comments powered by Disqus