Fox News' Emanuel advances Lieberman's dubious claim about public option increasing debt
On Fox & Friends, correspondent Mike Emanuel advanced the falsehood that a public option will increase the national debt by adopting Sen. Joe Lieberman's claim that it "could rack up major debt, sending the country into a recession worse than the one we're currently in." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that health care bills with a public option reduce or have no major impact on the deficit; moreover, every proposed bill with a public option thus far has required enrollees to cover its costs through premiums, rather than have the plans be paid for through federal revenues.
Emanuel repeatedly advances Lieberman falsehood on public option, calls it an "interesting take"
From the November 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (host): Clearly, Harry Reid is going to be involved in this, Mike Emanuel. Do we know what other senators could play a vital, pivotal role?
EMANUEL: Well, it's interesting. Senator Joe Lieberman, who is the independent from Connecticut, was on Fox News Sunday yesterday. And he had an interesting take about the public option. Let's take a listen.
LIEBERMAN [video clip]: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote, because I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we are fighting our way out of today.
EMANUEL: And you may ask yourself at home, why is Joe Lieberman such a big deal? He is only one of 100 senators. Well, if Joe Lieberman agrees to join the Republicans on a filibuster, then guess what? Health care reform could be stuck in mud, if you will, and not go forward in the U.S. Senate -- guys.
DOOCY: Joe-mentum.
[...]
EMANUEL: Senator Joe Lieberman's already saying that he will hold up health care if the government-run public option is in there, arguing another massive entitlement could rack up major debt, sending the country into a recession worse than the one we're currently in, guys.
But CBO has shown that a public option reduces or has no impact on the deficit
CBO estimated federal budget deficit reductions of $109 billion during first decade. CBO found that the health care reform bill that passed the House on November 7, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), "would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period."
CBO said public option in HELP bill "did not have a substantial effect on the cost" projections for the bill. According to a July 2 analysis of the Senate HELP Committee bill, the bill "includes provisions regarding a 'public plan,' but those provisions did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates -- and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges."
Bills with public option require its costs to be covered by premiums, not federal funds
House, Senate health committee bills require premiums to cover costs of public plan. Although the Senate has not released the text of its compromise bill, both the House bill and the Senate HELP Committee bill require their public options to charge premiums sufficient to cover administrative costs as well as the cost of enrollees' benefits. The Senate Finance Committee bill did not include a public option.
From the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962:
SEC. 322. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS. --
(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option --
(A) in a manner that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 213 for Exchange-participating health benefits plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of --
(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.
From the Affordable Health Choices Act as passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee:
5) PREMIUMS. --
(A) PREMIUMS SUFFICIENT TO COVER COSTS. -- The Secretary shall set premium rates in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs (including claims and administrative costs) using methods in general use by qualified health plans.
Bills' tax revenues are used to cover expansion of coverage, with or without public option
Senate Finance bill with no public option requires tax on high-cost plans to cover expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for lower- and middle-income Americans purchasing insurance. According to CBO's analysis of the Senate Finance Committee bill, the revenues from the excise tax and penalty payments, along with the savings from Medicare, would pay for the expansion of the Medicaid program and the subsidies to help certain lower- and middle-income Americans purchase private insurance through the exchanges.
House bill requires tax on high-income Americans to cover expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for lower- and middle-income Americans purchasing insurance. CBO's November 6 cost estimate of H.R. 3962 indicates that expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies for some families to purchase insurance through the exchanges would cost roughly $891 billion over 10 years. This cost is offset, in part, by revenues from a surtax on high-income Americans as well as savings from Medicare and other federal health programs. From CBO:
The estimate includes a projected net cost of $891 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,052 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion to their total cost.
Over the 2010-2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $427 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $574 billion over that period.
CBO score of Senate HELP bill shows bulk of cost is for subsidies for lower- and middle-income Americans purchasing insurance. CBO's July 2 analysis of the Senate HELP Committee's bill, which includes a public option, shows that the subsidies to help certain low- and middle-income Americans purchase insurance through the exchange would cost around $723 billion.
Numerous media outlets reported Lieberman's claims
Media outlets run with Lieberman's baseless claims. The Associated Press, Politico, CNN.com, NBC News' First Read blog, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal have all uncritically reported Lieberman's stated rationale for saying he would join a filibuster of the Senate health care bill if it included an opt-out public option. By contrast, in an October 27 post to CBS News' Political Hotsheet blog, Stephanie Condon wrote: "Lieberman has said he opposes a public option because of the potential burden it could place on taxpayers. However, Democrats have crafted a public option that would be financed by premiums rather than federal funds."
They only do what Fixed News tells them to do.
http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25218
FEP insurance would be a better and more competitive public option but we will never see that from the federal government why because it is good insurance!!
Medicaid is crap, Medicare is better but it will still bankrupt doctors unless you do something about malpractice insurance!
Single-payer will remove the middle man and reduce cost but the public option is a good compromise.
Check your facts: Anyone who tells you tort reform is the magic bullet for ALL health care costs is wrong.
Less than 1% of US healthcare costs can be attributed to litigation. Some specialists (eg OB/GYN, cardiologists) have very high premiums. There is defensive medicine, but not 30% of all spending. But 75% of US healthcare spending is for 4 chronic illnesses that are barely affected by litigation.
Private insurance is charging 20-30% vigorish for the privilege of taking your money- about $300-450 billion this year, $3-4.5 TRILLION over the next 10 years. I don't see them adding any value as I work on my reimbursement analysis.
My medical surgical device firm pay about 0.8% to 1% medmal insurance, in line with most averages. I think we're being ripped off by the insurers as I've sat in court for mesothelioma cases.
We as a nation would be well served to look to other countries where they view the nation's health as NATIONAL SECURITY rather than how many useless nukes and jets we have.
I suggest everyone read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" where he clearly states that the wealth of a nation is directly related to the health of the nation. I can support that type of capitalism (and I am an entrepreneur).
Also insurance companies don't make 10% and 20% annual profits. If they did you would have a good argument against the ins co's.
Insurance isn't the solution, it's the problem. Insurance is a middle man between you and your doctor. They pay and you don't worry or think about it and don't shop around for best medical values. HR3962 just substitutes the government for some insurance companies. That won't reduce costs. Eliminating ins co's and gov from the doctor patient transaction entirely will reduce cost. That can be done without any government control and universal coverage can be achieved and all the moral issues of illegals and abortions are disappeared. No one in congress wants to go this route because they want control of the money -- YOUR money.
Our congress is full of people with limited imagination and we will all suffer from the consequences of their desire to control the money.
For my part, I will be going to jail when I don't buy insurance and won't pay the fine. I suspect there will be others that think like me.
Only in Fantasyworld. Where is that place anyway?
I will be going to jail when I don't buy insurance and won't pay the fine
The irony is that by being a ward of the state, you will get free government-run health care.
Again, IT'S AN OPTION!! You'll be free to continue to purchase your over-priced, under-covered health coverage that subsidizes HMO profits and CEO salaries.
Get rid of the middle man and HC costs go down. Guarantee everyone HC and middle man is disappeared, government isn't deciding what you can have and system will become self sustaining.
HR3962 will evolve into single payer, then single provider and then rationing. A tax payer revolt will bring the entire system down. HR3962 is not a solution, it is a problem and will grow bigger and more obvious over time. Republicans will neuter it and then you'll have nothing.
Wrong again. The government HAS NO PROFIT MOTIVE. Big difference. Make a note of it.
State ins commissioners and litigation.
Hah!! That's a good one. Try getting a hearing with the state ins. commission. And if you're poor, try hiring a lawyer.
If you were King for a day, how would you set up the health care system.
PROFITS OVER PEOPLE!!
Ergo, your free bumper sticker.
Care to answer NY Rep. Weiner's question: What do the insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
Think of this, you get three years to collect money for a program before it ever goes into affect. The next 6 years it comes under budget, wow I sure would hope so if your able to gather money for 3 years to just pay for 6. So, what happens after 10 years, well the CBO does not answer that question.
Lieberman lied about the public option being expected to increase the deficit! That's the issue here.
The reason why these programs will run out of money is simple; there are more people taking from the system than people who are putting in. Its a simple ratio that is overlooked by many. Simply because there isn't a supply of something does not mean that there is an inefficiency in the system.
I find the whole "the government doesn't do anything correctly" argument as a wholly idiotic one, because people who use it cherry-pick the situations in which they want to use it. The government is only as good as the people who are elected to it, and it can function a lot more efficiently when we stop skirting issues and recognize what we need to do. Stop complaining about spending on health care, and start complaining about spending on two frivolous wars.
You can't hurt the rich they will be glad to sit on their money, and they will be glad to leave the country if we force them!
Randy
Just to be fair, Clinton raided it as well, but most of the damage was done by Republican presidents.
And it tees me off that they don't acknowledge that the growth of entitlements is the real crisis issue, and the Republican bill does nothing to reduce those entitlements.
If something like this Dem-offered healthcare reform isn't done, entitlements will swallow the rest of the federal budget.
Uhhhh, what do you think "this Dem offered healthcare" is going to be...found money?? Brilliant, just friggin brilliant mary59.
Those savings are found money.
Or, the 43-year old man who had to join the Army in order to provide health care for his family.
Since these saving don't have a tangible dollar amount, the nutjobs can't fathom these as "real" savings.
The bankruptcy data has been out for a while, something like 60% of all of them are related to health care costs.
I read about the 43-year old man joining the Army in the New York Times.
So, the answer to your question is no, I'm not forwarding talking points from Mr. Axelrod.
Your point is?
I forgot, you need to get your own talking points.
Hahahahahahah, your really don't get it do you??
Now if you can only look at the million other examples of the government failure to run programs effectively and efficiently you might have some hope. But I realize that some may need just a bit more proof so how about we hand over 300 million peoples healthcare to the same ones that are responsible for just that very program you mentioned above.
What could possibly go wrong?
Wrong again. Another CORPORATE boondoggle.
How much is too much to spend to keep grandma healthy? How much is too much to spend to keep 45,000 people from dying every year?
Don't forget, the government is us. And every time I mail a letter, it only costs 44 cents and seems to always get to its destination in a few days.
That the government funds.
Not as much as it's going to cost when the government is running things. BTW, emotional ploys are pathetic at best.
What you pay and what it cost are two entirely different things. The post office was on track to LOOSE 13 billion dollars this year. They managed to cut that to a 10 billion loss by cutting services on Saturdays. Another pathetic example.
Read carefully. Medicare Advantage took people OFF the non-profit government plan and put them ON the for-profit insurance company plans. Costs more, provides less.
It's amazing that you hate the government so much and that you can't understand the difference between 25-30% overhead/profits for insurance companies and the 3-4% overhead for medicare/va/other government insurance programs. The insurance companies had their chance and they blew it with their greed.
Care to answer NY Rep. Weiner's question: What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
The typical meme from the left is to conflate no government with less government as you so predictably did, not to mention the spelling thing....who cares, I spelled a word wrong. Despite your floundering I will take the time to address your issues.
The insurance industry profit margin is 2-3% on average...where the hell are you getting your figure of 25-30% from, Axelrod or Emanuel...no let me guess, Henry Waxman. The food industry has a high profit margin....are they the next ones to demonize for making a buck?? Hell the beverage industry makes the highest profit margins at 25%...you know, the ones that make the stupid 4 buck a crack bottles of tap water you're probably sipping right now??
The Insurance industries do the same as thing as the government will do, only more effective and efficient. There is plenty of government fiscal history to back that up....look into it.
Fact is that according to the [url= http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf]AMA[/url], Medicare denies more claims than ANY private insurance.
How does that calculus work exactly?
And things have changed in Washington, for the better, as a result of Obama and other Democrats. Have they fully improved? Nope, but that's because of a lack of cooperation and an excess of partisanship from the Republicans.
Threatening someones chairmanship if he doesn't vote a certain way is buisiness as usual in Washington, so things have not changed.
And telling someone that he might lose his chairmanship if he continues to sabotage the aims of the party he's been allowed to caucus with (and therefore he retained a chairmanship he doesn't deserve as an Independent and no longer a Democrat) is perfectly okay with me. I don't think that should change - I think that given his offensive behavior on virtually every topic, he should lose the post. If he were only a maverick on the war, then I wouldn't think that his offenses were great enough.
It's not just one vote. Not even close.
I just don't see how it can be entirely the republican's or independent's fault.
Maybe for the good of the country, Obama will start trying to unite congress instead of playing the blame everybody else card.
Those that are considered "great uniter" are supposed to be able to make other understand and overcome "the failure of others" to unite. Anybody can get like minded people to agree.
I'm not a whiner. But since you seem to think I am, well, that's your problem. About the firing of the prosecutors, there's evidence to show it was done illegally. Got that? They BROKE THE LAW.
The rest of your post is an illogical leap of titanic proportions. Grow up.
I could list about 10 things, 3 or 4 of them pretty reptilian things for him to have participated in. It's not irrelevant to his other actions - it's because of all of his actions.
If it were because of one thing, you'd be right. As it is, your strawman argument was easily knocked down.
I dont think it will keep him up at nite!
Mr. News
It makes my heart heavy knowing there are Americans willing to throw away everything that makes us great for some short term political gain.
I have never seen an attack on the free press from the White House to rival this one. I guess if you can't intellegently debate then get rid of all dissenters.
Instituting Government HC is the dumbest way to solve our nation's health care problems possible. Most people who have read HR3200 or HR3962 know that it is nonsense. That's why all the Democrats in congress voted for it -- they didn't read it.
There are so many successful ways to achieve universal health care without government management, it is sad that
our congress can think of nothing but a dead end road.