CBO: Wyden's Exchanges As Useless As Conrad's Co-ops

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 12:34:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra Klein billed Sen Ron Wyden's exchange concept as "the idea that could save health care reform." Unfortunately for Ezra, who buries the lede, the CBO says it does virtually nothing:

Relative to the Chairman’s mark, the amendment as modeled would reduce the net impact on federal deficits by about $1 billion over 10 years. There would not be substantial effects on the total number of people with insurance coverage or the sources of that coverage, relative to the Chairman’s mark.

(Emphasis supplied.) So, this is the "reform" you have been waiting for. The one that does nothing. Of course, Ezra could take a page from Kent Conrad and ignore the CBO's findings when he does not liek them. Hurray for the JournOList!!

Speaking for me only

< Taking The Tenth Amendment Seriously | Sen. Byrd Rushed To Hospital >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CBO: Wyden's Exchanges As Useless As Conrad's Co-ops | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Meanwhile, back at the House (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 01:00:53 PM EST

the Progressive Caucus is singing "Dump the Blue Dogs."

The latest: The two top House progressives have just fired off a letter to Pelosi that, in effect, urges her to stick with them and to ditch the Blue Dogs when the public option rubber hits the road. Progressives have reiterated not just their support for a robust public option, but their opposition to the Blue Dog's weakened version of it passed out of Energy and Commerce.
...
The two progressives -- Dem Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva -- ask Pelosi for a meeting to discuss these pertinent facts. They write flat out that the version negotiated by Blue Dogs is "unacceptable" to them, because it results in far less savings than the two other versions. C&L

They are fighting for the strongest version of the public option.

This is ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 01:01:54 PM EST

or as Yglesias would say, "substantively I suppose it also means that even a more ambitious, Wydenized version of Baucuscare still isn't going to produce any really dramatic changes in American health care." [emphasis supplied]

Maybe it would've scored better if the amendment also called for a public option to be added to the exchange?

Initially no, but long term (none / 0) (#1)
by Exeter on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 12:55:53 PM EST

it is better reform, imo. As it stands with Obamacare, 200 million Americans would get an option, public or private -- they would be stuck in their employer's insurance. (And this is a complicated subtopic-- many employers, for example, "self insure" for tax reasons and then subcontract thout out to a real health insurance company who really has little incentive to make their customers happy.)

Obviously the bottom line must be that EVERYONE must be allowed into the exchange immediately and NO ONE can be kicked out, but that doesn't seem that hard work out.

Magic 8 Ball analysis? (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 12:57:23 PM EST

Coops work great (none / 0) (#5)
by Exeter on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 03:15:39 PM EST

The problem right now is that there are not enough of them. And this model has worked very, very well in Germany.


: You propose to import the German regulators? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 03:43:34 PM EST

: Heh (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 03:46:09 PM EST

: For chickens maybe . . . ;) (none / 0) (#8)
by nycstray on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 04:38:44 PM EST