Conservatives lying about ObamaCare costs

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report projecting the costs of ObamaCare over the next 10 years. In 2010, 10 year projections ran from 2010 to 2019, which included 4 years of minimal spending as the exchanges, subsidies and expanded Medicaid which all get up and running in 2014. The new projection runs from 2012 through 2022 (11 years total), with only 2 of those years, 2012/2013, being before the 2014 start date. Not surprisingly, the headline cost of the new projection is significantly higher, given the additional years of actual ObamaCare, as opposed to cheap years before the programs actually start.

The total projected cost in the new analysis (.pdf, Table 2) is $1.76 trillion. In 2010 (.pdf, Table 4), the cost was $940 billion. Here's a graph I made from the CBO numbers that includes every year included in both analyses:

The blue 2010 projection includes those two tiny bars for 2010 and 2011, along with the rest of the decade from 2012-2019. The red 2012 projection includes the same 2012-2019 stretch along with those three big bars for 2020-2022. 91% of the entire cost difference between the two projections is entirely attributable to the different years included in the analyses.

To get a true sense for how the new projection changes the expected costs, let's focus in on the years included in both analyses:

The total costs for these years included in both analyses increased from $933 billion in 2010 to $1.01 trillion in 2012, an increase of $77 billion, or 8.3% of the originally projected cost for these years. Most of this increase is due to more people being poor as a result of the recession and slow recovery and needing government help to afford insurance.

Conservatives have greeted the new report not with reasonable but answerable concerns that the cost has gone up by 8.3%, but to say that "costs have almost doubled". There are multiple writers from multiple organizations making this claim. Even Rep. Tom Price, the #4-ranked GOP house leader, parrots the claim.

This claim is amazingly dishonest. It is comparing apples (2010-2019, 10 years, including 4 with minimal costs) to oranges (2012-2022, 11 years, including only 2 with minimal costs) and asserts that we were somehow misled during the initial passage.

Our system only works if voters are given the information to make decisions on the issues of the day. If one side or the other is willing to make ridiculous assertions like this, the whole thing doesn't work. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of ObamaCare. The "costs have doubled!" lie isn't one of them.

Trayvon Martin

I've been finding myself wrapped up in the story of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old boy from Florida who was killed in a struggle with a neighborhood watchman while he was getting snacks down the street from his house, with the shooter not arrested even though he admitted to police he pulled the trigger. Here's the wikipedia page, and here's a summary by CNN of all the info gained from 911 calls and the police report.

So far as I can tell, the undisputed facts of the case are that the shooter, George Zimmerman, pursued Martin because he looked "suspicious" despite having no police authority and having witnessed nothing even approximating criminal behavior, Martin attempted to run away, Martin was an A/B student with no criminal history who was unarmed and had no drugs or stolen property on him, Zimmerman outweighs Martin by 100 pounds, and that Zimmerman shot an unarmed man in the chest.

For Zimmerman's account to make sense, Martin would have had to go out of his way to attack Zimmerman despite Martin knowing, of course, that he had no weapons, drugs or other illegal items in his possession and had done nothing illegal. He would have had to do this despite initially, per Zimmerman's 911 call, running away. Why would he turn and fight a much larger man, instead of running back to his friend's house to enjoy some Skittles and iced tea?

Much is being made of the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, which expands one's right to self-defense. It says that one "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Given the facts of the case as thus far presented, it seems clear that Zimmerman at least needs to be arrested. I'm all for innocent until proven guilty. But at the very least, even with the most pro-gun reading of Stand Your Ground, there are multiple reasons to doubt that Zimmerman had a reasonable belief that he was in danger from an unarmed man who was trying to run away and whom he admits chasing despite witnessing nothing illegal. This is something to be determined at a public trial.

Any self-respecting Republican

Transcript of Romney interview

How could a Republican vote for a candidate for commander-in-chief who would respond to questions on a current American war like Mitt Romney did this weekend on Fox News. In only 3 responses, he manages to criticize Obama for having a withdrawal date, suggest the date may need to be moved up, and deny the ability to take a "stand" on the war until he can get more info. We've been there a decade, during most of which he was running for President. That he would claim ignorance on the subject as a way to avoid taking a firm position on what might be a war fought under his leadership demonstrates the man's utter lack of political courage.

Setting a top

The last few years have been defined politically by the Republican Party's breakneck run to the right. While Mitt Romney was considered the "conservative alternative" to the eventual nominee, John McCain. He has continued moving to the right in the intervening four years, but he now finds himself portrayed as a "Massachusetts moderate". The rightward move hasn't been limited to Republicans, such as Obama adopting McCain's "all of the above" energy policy.

Romney now finds himself locked in a protracted struggle for the Republican nomination with Rick Santorum. In 2010, GOP voters nominated a series of poorly organized, extremely conservative candidates for major office like Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell and Sharron "2nd amendment remedies" Angle because they were the most conservative candidates in the primaries, even if they had huge shortcomings as candidates. Candidates who failed to toe the hard-right line were beaten in primaries, and incumbents learned that being perceived as a compromiser would lead to a primary challenge.

In this environment, Romney finds himself matched against Rick Santorum, who pretty much defines hardcore conservativism, at least in the pre-Tea Party era. Without Santorum's glaring weaknesses as a candidate, Santorum would run away with the nomination. This is an electorate that nominated Angle and O'Donnell, after all.

That Romney appears on the way to winning the nomination represents GOP voters setting a limit to how much they value extreme conservativism. While they still appear to prefer Santorum's principles, they recognize that a guy who can't even file complete delegate slates in big primary states won't be able to beat Obama. This is a level of political awareness they didn't seem to have in 2010 where their extreme candidates cost them control of the Senate.

So while Romney is clearly a superior and more-electable candidate, he has to fight Santorum on the latter's ideological turf. Despite being the more moderate candidate, he is winning. In the Tea Party version of the GOP. So it's not surprising that he's not storming his way to victory; that he's winning at all is impressive, given the makeup of the electorate.

Santorum v porn

According to Rick Santorum's website:

Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

Yikes...

Why is Romney not destroying this guy?

Tomorrow, why Romney is not destroying this guy.

Fantastic article on Romney's abortion record

This article, which appeared on Slate.com last month, is the most thorough and illuminating exploration of a candidate's position, and character, I've ever read. It explores Mitt Romney's progression from pro-choice Senate and governor candidate to a governor who supported federal funding for stem-cell research to a governor who vetoed any abortion bill whether pro-life or pro-choice to a strongly pro-life presidential candidate. He claimed that he had one view-changing epiphany on the matter in 2004, despite taking positions in 2005 and 2006 which were still pro-choice. He has repeatedly, demonstrably lied about his history on the issue, and the article has all the historical proof to prove it.

It's a very long article, but definitely worth a read. If you're only going to read one thing about a candidate, this should be it.

Weekly debates

Ours is a nation in which 18.7 million people tune in to American Idol, which gets three hours of network air every week. 13.3 million watch the average Monday Night Football game. Millions of people listen to Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow discuss the issues of the day. At the same time, our politicians, including Obama and Romney, spend many of their nights raising funds from rich guys in New York. In a campaign that will be marked by billions spent on attack ads, focus groups and lobbying, the actual direct interaction between the nominees will be limited to something like 3 debates of about 90 minutes each.

Why not have weekly debates between the candidates during the entire campaign? With all the time they spend fundraising and glad-handing the rich, couldn't they find an hour or two a week to talk to the American people? By actually interacting with each other, it will be much more difficult for each side to villify their opponent. Forcing Fox News and MSNBC viewers to regularly hear viewpoints from the other side, with their most articulate representatives sharing their views, would be healthy for our democracy.

It's not like you'd have to muddy the process with corporate sponsors. A couple microphones, a camera, a moderator and a set don't cost very much, and C-SPAN already exists as a commercial-free, widely-available platform to carry the program, or they could be broadcast on a rotating basis by the over-the-air broadcasters as a condition of getting their FCC licenses.

These debates would greatly decrease the effectiveness of political advertisements and, therefore, political money. With millions of viewers watching, candidates could respond to smears and force their opponent to stand behind them or refute them. Buying hundreds of hours' worth of 30-second ads when there are only 4-5 hours of direct interaction makes those ads very important to the outcome. They are reduced to a sideshow if voters get an hour a week to hear the candidates directly discuss the issues.

why would newt get out?

coming to you live from sushi 86 in cleveland, so it's an unformatted, uncapitalized post today. sorry. after losing in both mississippi and alabama, which were probably his best shots at winning any more states, there is mounting pressure for newt gingrich to get out of the race. for newt, however, there is no motivation for him to leave. based on his past history, it's reasonable to assume that after the election newt will return to peddling his influence among those in power. over the next several months, those in power will fall in line behind the nominee, and that nominee will almost certainly be mitt romney. it would therefore behoove newt to be on mitt's good side. what does newt have at this point to offer mitt? by staying in the race until romney gets the nomination, newt will continue to drain anti romney votes from santorum. should romney fall short of a majority, newt would likely have accumulated enough delegates, given the system of proportional allocation of delegates (i.e., you don't have to win a state to get a few delegates) to put mitt over the top. we know that newt, being 68 years old, won't be running again, so his standing with the voters doesn't matter. so unless he thinks santorum will be the nominee, newt has no reason to get out, and in fact benefits romney, and therefore himself, by staying in.

Rovian Romney

Karl Rove, the political mind behind George W. Bush's campaigns, was a master of dealing with his candidate's weaknesses and attacking his opponents' biggest strengths. The best example of his approach is attacking John Kerry on his military service record, when Kerry was a decorated veteran and Bush got a coveted spot in the National Guard, far away from Vietnam.

Mitt Romney's campaign took a page from Rove's handbook yesterday by releasing a memo that accuses Obama of trying to "end Medicare as we know it". One of the strongest lines of attack Democrats will have against Republicans is the GOP plan to change Medicare into a voucher system. Romney seeks to blunt this by clouding the issue and creating a false equivalence between Obama's reforms to Medicare under ObamaCare and the Paul Ryan plan to actually end Medicare as we know it.

There's a great discussion of Romney's memo by Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo. Allow me to summarize (and occasionally expand upon) the main points:

Romney asks "Why is President Obama ending Medicare as we know it by allowing it to go bankrupt in less than 15 years?" The plan Romney advocates holds Medicare funding to the same levels as Obama's plan. So if Obama's plan will allow it to go bankrupt in 15 years, so will Romney's. And there's reason to think the cost-cutting measures in ObamaCare will help the program be more fiscally sound.

Romney also accuses the President of trying to "end Medicare as we know it by funding Obamacare through $500 billion in medicare cuts for today’s seniors". This is because ObamaCare results in cost savings for hospitals, which are the largest providers of services to Medicare beneficiaries. If you show up in a hospital needing care but without insurance, most hospitals will provide care free of charge, or at a reduced rate, and make up the difference by overcharging people with insurance, such as Medicare. ObamaCare will result in millions more people having health insurance, so hospitals won't have to overcharge Medicare as much. Medicare can therefore become cheaper without any benefit cuts for seniors. That Republicans were able to ride this line of attack to majorities in Congress is a failure of our political system.

Romney next attacks the Independent Payment Advisory Board as an "unaccoubtable board to ration care for today's seniors." The IPAB is explicitly set up to find cost savings without affecting coverage or quality. Its goal is to find areas of waste, of which I have seen many examples during my training. Medicare and other insurances pay for treatments which are more expensive than other possible treatments without any known advantage to the more expensive treatment. The IPAB seeks to identify these areas of waste, without harming the care provided to seniors. It will in no sense ration care.

Next up, Romney goes after Obama for going after Medicare Advantage, which is a program in which Medicare gives money to private insurers to provide insurance for seniors instead of getting their coverage straight from the government. The government's average cost of Medicare for an average beneficiary is given to the private company, but the company is allowed to cherry-pick which seniors they want to cover. They pick younger, healthier seniors who are cheaper to insure than the average beneficiary and therefore can pocket the difference. Getting rid of this corporate welfare is a good thing and in no sense ends Medicare as we know it, as it results in no cuts in benefits for seniors.

Romney concludes by dinging Obama over not having a permanent solution to the "doc fix", which is needed due to a mistake previously passed by Congress which results in dramatic underpayments for doctors who care for seniors. While it's true that Obama hasn't proposed a better solution than just spending more money and paying doctors what they should be paid, Romney hasn't proposed a better solution, either.

Nothing Obama proposes results in benefit changes for seniors, while Romney advocates a plan that devastates the ability of future seniors to find care. We can't let him get away with trying to portray himself as a defender of a program he intends to destroy.

Part 3 Addendum

I spent a couple hours yesterday fruitlessly trying to find numbers regarding the actual changes in funding that would come about as a result of Romney's plan to overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant program. Finally found an analysis, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, of a similar plan, one by Paul Ryan which has a slightly different but similar formula to determine funding.

To summarize the analysis, had the policy been put into place in 2000, total federal Medicaid funding, which accounts for up to 80% of all Medicaid funding for a state, would have fallen by 29% in 2009. Were the policy put in place in 2013, it would result in a 49% cut in funding by 2030. By the time most of my readership is approaching the nursing home stage of life, where 60% of current residents are on Medicaid, federal funding would be a tiny fraction of what it would be without the Republicans' change.

Again, it is absolutely legitimate to propose changes to Medicaid to help balance the budget. But it is not a change that should be made with only vague calls to "cut, cap and balance" the budget using historical spending rates to justify it, despite those historical spending rates not including those federal programs that millions of Americans are counting on.

Romney is actually on the right track with the idea to give more power to the states to tailor their Medicaid programs to the needs of their people. But Romney betrays his true goal by how he goes about reforming the program. He will lock funding cuts into the law and THEN hope that states can find the savings to provide their citizens with the help they need. The primary principle that he starts building from is that funding will be cut; continuing to provide necessary services is secondary. Were he to instead empower states first, along with financial incentives for states to find savings, and move to cut funding only after states demonstrate improved efficiency, we would know that he cares about the health of Americans more than slashing the budget. But that's not what he's proposing.

It's a very illuminating distinction.