Peter Suderman @ Reason.com:
When attempting to debunk a common argument, I tend to think it’s usually helpful to understand what that argument is. The nameless editorial writers at the Tampa Bay Times, on the other hand, don’t seem to think that’s necessary.
In an unsigned editorial this weekend, the paper claims to “debunk” arguments about ObamaCare’s effect on the deficit. Here’s how it starts.
One of the chief Republican objections to health care reform is that it will add too much to the deficit and the nation can’t afford it. The problem with this claim is that it’s wrong. The Congressional Budget Office has consistently maintained that the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit by tens of billions of dollars even as it extends health coverage to millions of Americans.
It then goes on to summarize the most recent CBO assessment of the health law’s projected coverage and budgetary effects, as if that were all the evidence one needed to declare with absolute confidence that the law will reduce the deficit.
It’s a remarkable exercise in missing the point: ObamaCare’s critics contend that the CBO’s projections are quite likely to be wrong, and have put forth a number of arguments about why. The TBT editorial doesn’t mention, much less attempt to respond to, a single one of those arguments. The closest it comes is a brief mention of Rep. Tom Price’s (R-Georgia) statement that the law is projected to require $1.7 trillion in spending over the next decade, which is not really an argument about the budget gap at all but a instead statement of the law’s total projected spending without regard to its effect on the budget deficit. Otherwise, it reads as if the editorial’s author does not even know that those arguments exist.
Happily, that can be remedied. The basic problem with the CBO’s method of scoring the health law is that it is required to assume two things: that current law will continue precisely in its current form and that no further changes will be made, and that laws will be implemented exactly as called for by the relevant legislative text. It’s a useful budgetary exercise, but it’s rarely an accurate representation of how legislation works (or doesn’t) over time.
I am an Independent Health Insurance Broker and just received “real” numbers last week. Here is a summary of truth: Currently, for myself and two kids we have an Individual Health Insurance Plan through Cigna that I pay $500 monthly for. (It would cost our family over $700 to join the plan my wife receives through her work with less benefits)
As of 2014 the cost for the comparable plan I currently pay $500 a month for will rise to approximately $1250. This is not a shock value number but one that is actually being filed with the state.
The subsidy that will be available for me based on my current income will cover (at the most) 20% of this cost.
The penalty for not having insurance after the 1st year will total $95 for the entire family for the year.
Since insurance will be available through an exchange without being subject to any pre-existing conditions (this is how the current law is written) then what incentive is there for me to insure any of my family until we get sick? As of 2014, I will not be able to afford the coverage so I will be left without a choice other than to “game” the system. Most middle class families that are in similar situations will also be left without a choice also.
The CBO method of scoring is not taking much of this into account. There is no way to score this because it is unprecedented. As I mentioned prior, the numbers that I am using are ACTUAL numbers and not estimates at this point.