Danny said...ROFL don't know why I bother since I'm convinced rationality is not what the right is looking for in this specific debate (again, I'm talking about health care *only*...how I wish issues could be looked at separately and not in the spoke of partisanship) but for what it's worth and because misinformation kills me...
I could shed some accurate light on more but I'll just shed light on the main piece of evidence for most of your post: Lewin Group study.
If only you provided a link to the accurate PRIMARY source of the Lewin group study, rather than the Heritage Conservative's analysis of the bill. Sigh. Since not, I'm here. The Lewin group study analyzed variations of a public plan when this whole debate started. They did not analyze the actual bill. (You won't be happy to know, or perhaps you do know, that the CBO did analyze the ACTUAL bill and came out with some fairly "nice" numbers that go against what you say...more on that later after I talk about Lewin study). The number you mention from the Lewin Group assumes that the public plan is going to include large employers also. To my knowledge, that is not true. I'm pretty sure that's not true actually. Large employers are not going to participate in the exchanges. Even your number is wrong. I'm surprised you chose the 80mill. Lewin group estimated that 100 million people would end up enrolling in the public plan IF IF IF IF larger firms participated in the exchanges.
Now, to the CBO (the people you used as evidence when the said the bill would cost too much but I guess refuse to use as evidence now...). The CBO analyzed THE BILL OUT THERE NOW (aka no large firms participate in exchange), and predicted that approx. 5 million people would switch from employer coverage to public plan.
Now, before my next point, all the above is based on fact. But to go even further, it is worthy to note that the Lewin Group is owned by a private insurance company (United Health), but I'm not even claiming bias in my argument (which I could). Interesting that now the Republicans can't play the bias card with the CBO estimate bc 1. would look like fools and 2. they used the CBO to their advantage in prior arguments! So now what should they do? IGNORE THE CBO AND GO TO LEWIN WHO IS ANALYZING SOMETHING NOT ON THE TABLE! WOOHOO FOR HONESTY.
Also, congratulations in advance since now the right-wing "ObamaCare" slogan will FINALLY have some merit to it!!! Obama is going to give a talk to Congress this week as I'm sure you know. Up until now it has actually been the congressmen making the decisions and the bills (yeah, remember that "death panel" part of the bill. that was put into place by a Republican from Georgia. The irony...). Yup, this wasn't the Clinton years where Clinton led the charge. This was a way different approach but leave it to who else than the right-wing to simplify health care into death-panels, socialism, and ObamaCare rather than acknowledge the complexities.
To end on a positive note, looking forward to the Whole Foods stuff next week. Unbelievably absurd reaction from the left... (but, again, bc I can't get over it, if you compare absurd relatively to the right-wing "kill your grandma, forced abortions" nonsense in this hc debate it pales in comparison).
Pearce Godwin said...Danny, thanks for the comment. I've researched your claims and would like to respond. You highlight important truths and complexities, but you are incorrect in your criticism. While I clearly have a conservative point of view on the issue, I seek to be honest, straightforward and avoid evidence filtering. Confirmation bias is dangerous in decision making as well as policy assessment. Thank you for ensuring that I hold to this aim.
First of all, contrary to what you claim, the Lewin Group did analyse the July 15th draft of the actual bill. What I linked was a memo written by Lewin outlining their study.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/upload/Lewin_public_plan_National_all.pdf
The same document is cited by each fact check I've read. If a more primary, raw report on the study exists, I haven't seen it. And yes, Lewin is owned by UnitedHealth, which is good reason for a critical reading of their methodology and conclusions but no reason to dismiss their findings out of hand. WaPo addresses their ownership http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202216.html Lewin acknowledges that it creates a perception of a conflict of interest but vows that it has no effect on their work. Politifact.com notes "Lewin Group is respected by many health care analysts and operates with editorial independence, but it is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which also offers private health insurance."
I have also found the CBO analysis you cite and found the reasons for the discrepancy with Lewin's analysis interesting. You are correct that one of the two major points of divergence is the assumption of eligibility, small employers only vs. everyone. The other is the pricing gap between the public plan and private insurance. Lewin assumes the public plan will cost consumers 20% less than private insurance; the CBO assumes 10%.
The actual bill does not answer these questions, rather leaving them up to the "Commissioner." Therefore, we cannot know which analysis is more accurate and likely to prove true if implemented. We can use common sense, logic and contextual evidence to make a good guess. Lewin assumes that in year 3 the Commissioner will open up the exchange to all employers, which is allowed by the bill. See page 2 of the memo linked above.
I think the CBO is a very solid authority on legislation and would not selectively use their analysis. However you must understand that the CBO analyses only what is spelled out without making assumption about future behavior, no matter how likely or rationally anticipated based on contextual evidence. The Lewin Group took this extra step to analyse what the bill would most likely mean in practice as time goes on. I believe their assumptions are based on sound reasoning. Refer to my writing on the original purpose of the public option... it's not meant to be restricted to individuals and small employers. Also, my number is not wrong. I used the number Lewin found, under their reasonable assumptions, would lose their private insurance and move to the public option, 83.4 million, the number you refer to is an estimate of all people on the public option, 103 million.
For a more detailed explanation of the difference in the two studies, read the Investor Business Daily.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333674253179704
They explain that the devil is in the assumptions and logically show why Lewin is likely closer to the truth of what will happen. Lewin has also addressed the CBO report and explained the discrepencies.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/01/morning-bell-the-road-to-government-run-health-care/
I linked this piece in my original post.
You are free to think the public option would be wonderful, but the bottom line reached by both Lewin and CBO is that Obama's assertion that "you won't lose your private insurance" is categorically false. Americans deserve the truth of what Obamacare would mean. Then they should decide if it's a good idea for the country.
I'm thrilled that Obama has finally decided to stand up and lead on his signature issue. The fact that he has, indeed, left the sausage making to the Democratic leaders in congress on healthcare, the stimulus, the omnibus, etc. unchecked has demonstrated troubling weakness and lack of firm principles. Barack Obama is the President, not Nancy Pelosi; he should act like it on these domestic issues.
As for death panels and other claims made some conservatives, while often inflammatory and sometimes gross exagerations, there is almost always some truth and validity behind the claims which is cause for legitimate concern.
On "death panels"- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082003035.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
And Palin defending her phrase http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
Liberals acknowledge that she had a point, and she has won the argument.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html
On abortion funding- http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
On other fears- http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/24/morning-bell-myths-and-facts-about-obamacare/
No comments:
Post a Comment