RE: The August Slide: Health Care & Obama

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/

Re: Obama's Epiphany, Pelosi Steps In It & More

Andy said...

good stuff once again Pearce.

Blaine said...

Re: GITMO photos

idk pearce. i have a lot of mixed thoughts on the issue. i think that we need to be accountable for anything that we have done that violates human rights if we are holding other countries to the same standard. now, i do feel that the public should not have total access to the information that needs to be dug up, and that should include photos. you are right in the belief that it would endanger our troops.

Hunter said...

I wouldn't be so quick to commend Obama on his foreign policy stance, Pearce. His executive order to close Guantanamo Bay was clearly a political move, he's breaking lockstep with Bush only superficially. Obama's foreign policy is very much in line with his predecessor's; Obama's administration would still allow detainees to be tried in front of military tribunals and under his own proposed legislation, President Obama still has the power to order "Advanced Interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding (which, I might add, was only used a handful of times as a means of extracting information out of detainees at Gitmo.) The only difference is that those suspected of terrorism will be interrogated on American soil instead of Cuban soil. To me, it seems as though Obama is more pandering than making any meaningful revisions to foreign policy as it relates to terrorism. He condemns Guantanamo Bay but privately embraces the very principles and practices it employed that have drawn so much public criticism. I happen to believe that the use of these "Advanced Interrogation" techniques is a necessary evil in protecting American interests both at home and abroad, so I do not necessarily disagree with Obama's policy decisions. I do, however, think that it's worth pointing out that Obama's policies embody a "more of the same" approach, to whatever end, and do not in my mind warrant praise.

Elizabeth said...

I like that Pearce can recognize positive aspects of the Obama administration even though he bleeds red. I will read his blog because he can clearly see that the party he doesn't belong to isn't always completely wrong.

PG said...

Thanks so much for commenting y'all. I really appreciate that you took the time to do so. 

First, as to Elizabeth's comment, I have a hard time taking anybody seriously, on either side, who is a hard line partisan without exception. It's silly to think that one party is always right on every issue, so I appreciate your recognition of me trying to be more honest and open minded in my assessment of policy decisions. And yes, how ironic that I bleed two different colors depending on the playing field in question. 

Andy, you're awesome, thanks for the shout out; it means a lot. 

Blaine, I think you offer a very thoughtful assessment of the situation. I agree that, to the extent this admittedly imperfect country has done things in the past that run counter to our ideals and moral principles, we need to look at those actions and commit anew to living up to being the world leader militarily, economically and, as important, morally that we desire and profess to be. Now, whether or not the waterboarding of known terrorist fits into that category is a point of legitimate debate, and there are well meaning, good people on both sides. To the extent is is a case in which we need to make a correction, I agree with you completely that there is a way to do it "behind closed doors" that will accomplish the objective without involving a public that does not need to see all of the evidence and endangering our brave troops who are face to face with the terrorists right now as I exercise my freedom to blog my opinion, whatever it may be.

Hunter, I greatly appreciate your comment and specific assessment of the President's foreign policy. You are right on that his executive order to close Guantanamo was a rash and purely political/symbolic move (which Joe Biden essentially admitted recently... of course he did). It really is remarkable how much Obama's war policy has been "more of the same." I happen to believe that, certainly in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is a good thing. On another note, his immigration policy is following in Bush's footsteps as well. I agree that many of his pronouncements have been pandering to the left, which, given the alternative that he actually follow through with them in policy, I can handle. The welcomed surprise was that he did a 180 on some of these pandering policy pronouncements, actually making decisions more along the lines of what I believe to be best for the nation. While ideally he would have understood the real threat this nation faces and the realities of war as a candidate and in the early days of his presidency, I praise him for seeing the light now rather than later and having the courage to essentially admit he was wrong (although I wish he would have a little more courage to actually say it) and change course. 

As Elizabeth observed, I like to acknowledge when the "other side" does something positive. It is intellectually dishonest and petty to disagree with someone simply for the sake of disagreeing or because of who they are. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and try to see the best of intentions, although they can be hard to see at times. We get nowhere by setting up strawman arguments and caricatures of the other side. Washington and the nation at large will make progress when the two parties work together, when possible without sacrificing core principles, toward policy that will improve life, prosperity and security for all Americans.