Asymmetrical Information

Are democrats outraged because of the cost or because they think they were lied about the cost? There is a difference. In any case I think growing GOP resistance is a bigger issue for Bush than any Dem outrage.

Dems are willing to talk of tax hikes. Bush and the GOP live in a never-never land where they can continue to raise spending and cut taxes.

Jane:

1. I believe it's "Democrats are outraged. Outraged!" Or maybe, "OUTRAGED!"

2. I haven't closely followed healthcare policy for a while, but I believe Dems can fairly make at least three claims:

(a) For the same cost (IIRC, Dem plans rated about $700 bil.), their plan provided more;

(b) Dem plans allowed for govt. bargaining, which meant that Pubs removed a market force that could push costs down;

(c) Pubs (or more accurately, the Administration), by threatening to fire the HCFA Chief Actuary if he provided better information to Congress, went to extraordinary lengths to disguise the cost of the plan. Accordingly, Congress (and the public by proxy) could not properly attempt to balance the costs of the Admin.'s plan as against other claims (and the consequent benefits) on our resources.

As I said, I haven't really been following this much (and I find myself unwilling to start now), so feel free to spank my comments as harshly as necessary.

Tim, that rather assumes that the cost for the Democratic plan would have remained the same, which is exactly what I am pointing out would be most unlikely; whatever cost pressures are affecting the republican plan, would also have affected the Democratic one to the same, if not a larger extent.

I understand that the Dems are claiming to be outraged that the Pubs lied. However, it seems to me that to whatever extent the Pubs really lied, so did the Dems (AFAIK, the games with start and end dates and so forth were bipartisan.) Given that they want a prescription drug bill, and the only way to pass one was probably to lie about how much it cost, why are they mad now? I understand that they are screaming for partisan advantage, which is perfectly understandable. But they also seem to be actually outraged, which I find totally bizarre, given that the choice seems to have been drug plan with lies, or no drug plan and no lies. Surely they (unlike me) find choice A preferable?

I don't know if they are truly outraged or are saying they are for political advantage. A bit of both, maybe?

I think there is a growing mistrust of anything this administration says, certainly on fiscal issues. Here's but one example:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2113274/

I am intrigued by Jane's view that well everybody was lying, as far as she knows. That seems like the kind of statement one might want to back up.

It also raises the interesting question:
Are there any lies that would be big enough for me to be outraged about? Would it be ok for Bush to say we actually are running a surplus?

Is there really any question that Bush has pushed the limits on this kind of thing (expiring tax cuts, supplemental appropriations, comparing deficits to a high, internal forecast...)? Does it serve us well to simply say everyone does it?

Tom

OK, Jane, what's with this "programme" stuff? Blogging from Europe?

Well Tom and Tim, everybody does do it. I suggest that few Reublicans or Liberatrians that I remember commenting on it ever bought the figures. Similarly they have never bought the cost of any program. Why? I am not here to "back it up" as you are quite capable of researching it yourself, but check out the debates and discussions on every entitlement, health care, education or anti-poverty program since 1960. Typically the costs in the long run exceed the stated costs not by 20%, not 50%, not 100%, but by factors of five and ten. The Democratic proposals on prescription drugs were just as laughable in their numbers as Bush's if not more so. Kerry's Health plan numbers were an even bigger joke and the real numbers undoubtedly would have been higher than even more realistic projections over time as the inherent cost pressures of benefit programs began to kick in. I'll give you a projection and it is probably conservative. The Bush program will eventually cost at least three times what even a realistic number produced now would be. The Democratic proposal would have probably exceeded even what the real numbers of their plan should have been by a multiple of four or five.

I think I remember in the sixties projections that we could end poverty in this country for 13 billion, a lifetime cost! If that number is wrong the real number was just as ridiculous. How many hundreds of billions are we into that project now? Even adjusted for inflation it is staggering. Medicare itself has vastly exceeded its projected cost. So spare me the outrage unless you want to castigate Clinton, Johnson, Carter and the entire democratic legislative branch of the last 50 years just as vociferously. If not I suggest we just lament Bush isn't any better. This has been going on for a long time.

Lance,

So in the end there is nothing Bush can do with budget numbers that I can be outraged about.

And no I am not aware of Clinton doing anything like

1) Muzzling the chief actuary on Medicare

2) Bush's tricks with expiring taxes (the estate tax ends in 2010 pops up in 2011 - no that's not too mislead - it's really the best policy)

3) Excluding enormous forseeable costs from his budget forecast

Bush has given us the most dishonest budgets of my time - it's depressing what right-wingers will do to escape blame.

Tom

If Congress is surprised by the increase of the perscription drug benefit almost doubling in one year, did they really know what they were voting on?

If they were 'mislead' by Bush, don't they have their own financial scoring system they can use?

If they cannot plan costs better, or can be mislead by the President, do we really want them in charge every the healthcare of every American over 65?

Jane, your reiteration that "cost pressures" will not change no matter how (or by whom) this program is structured seems absurd, in light of the obvious benefits that accrue to Canada when they are able to negotiate prices in large lots. Even should an entity like the Veteran's Administration be allowed this "luxury", the price savings would be considerable. How much moreso, if it were the Medicaid program managers who were allowed to pool their purchasing power? I suppose we'd better not put the poor actuary in jeopardy with such a question... much less the CBO... ^..^

Comments are Closed.