ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter

Dems preview details of health bill

Posted: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:01 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: ,

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a hint at what their proposed package of reconciliation fixes legislation will look like. She said the full bill should be posted online within the hour:

How would it be paid for:
- Cuts in "Medicare waste, fraud and abuse" totaling $500 billion
- Eliminating part of the Senate's proposed excise tax to include only a "Rolls Royce" excise tax on the most expensive, upper echelon health plans.
- A Medicare fee on "unearned income."

Some other "fixes":
- More "affordability" for the middle class
- Some members didn't like what they saw as state inequities (like the "special deals"). Instead, Pelosi said theree would be Medicaid reimbursements that are fairer to the rest of the states, including rewarding "do-gooder states," who have been out front making changes
- More insurance accountability
- Help primary care doctors who handle Medicaid cases
- Close the Medicare "donut hole"

Pelosi called the "self-executing" rule a "non-issue" and used in "regular" order and pointed to any number of times Republicans have used it -- though for nothing this large.

"We have played on their turf for so long," Pelosi said, adding, "Now they're going to be playing on the turf of the American people."

She continued, "We feel very strong in terms of where we are ... in terms of how we proceed" as well as the numbers provided by the CBO report.

She said Sunday's potential passage of health care "will sit comfortably with Social Security and Medicare.... This is history, and this is progress."

Here's the CBO's letter to Pelosi, per NBC's Shawna Thomas:

Please note that in the first page of the letter the CBO cautions that estimates presented are preliminary because the agency has not "thoroughly examined the reconiliation proposal to verify its consistency witht he previous draft." Also I did not copy and paste the tables into this hot note. those can be found at the link below:

March 18, 2010
Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue
effects of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act
of 2010; that amendment (hereafter called "the reconciliation proposal") was made public
on March 18, 2010. The estimate is presented in three ways:
? An estimate of the budgetary effects of the reconciliation proposal, in combination
with the effects of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA), as passed by the Senate;1
? An estimate of the incremental effects of the reconciliation proposal, over and
above the effects of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself;
? An estimate of the budgetary impact of the reconciliation proposal under the
assumption that H.R. 3590 is not enacted (that is, an estimate of the bill's impact
relative to current law as of today).
Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its
release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its
consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a
review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and
refinement of the budgetary projections.
The reconciliation proposal includes provisions related to health care and revenues, many
of which would amend H.R. 3590. It also includes amendments to the Higher Education
Act of 1965, which authorizes most federal programs involving postsecondary education.
1An estimate by CBO and JCT of the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate was
provided in a letter to the Honorable Harry Reid on March 11, 2010. That estimate is available at www.cbo.gov (and
JCT's detailed table of revenue effects is available at www.jct.gov).
Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Page 2
CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation-H.R. 3590 and the
reconciliation proposal- would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138
billion over the 2010-2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue
(see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5). Approximately $85
billion of that reduction would be on-budget; other effects related to Social Security
revenues and spending as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as
off-budget. CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation
on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.
CBO and JCT previously estimated that enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net
reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period, of which about
$65 billion would be on-budget. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation
proposal-assuming that H.R. 3590 had already been enacted-would be the difference
between the estimate of the combined effect and the previous estimate for the Senatepassed
bill, H.R. 3590. That incremental effect is an estimated net reduction in federal
deficits of $20 billion over the 2010-2019 period over and above the savings from
enacting H.R. 3590 by itself; almost all of that reduction would be on-budget (see the
bottom panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).2
The budgetary impact of the reconciliation proposal if H.R. 3590 is not also enacted
would be different. Although estimates on that basis have been completed for most of the
provisions of the reconciliation proposal, CBO does not yet have such an estimate for all
of its provisions. By CBO's estimate, the provisions that have been analyzed so far would
reduce deficits by $82 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 6).
Details on the budgetary effects of the health and revenue provisions of the reconciliation
proposal, along with its effects combined with H.R. 3590, are provided in Tables 1, 2,
and 3:
? Table 1 summarizes the effect on the deficit of the health and revenue provisions
of the reconciliation proposal combined with H.R. 3590; it also shows the net
incremental effect of those provisions of the reconciliation proposal over and
above the impact of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself.
? For the two pieces of legislation combined, Table 2 provides estimates of the
changes in the number of nonelderly people in the United States who would have
health insurance and presents the primary budgetary effects of the provisions
related to health insurance coverage.
2 The reconciliation proposal would require the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer amounts from the on-budget
general fund to the off-budget Social Security trust funds to offset any reduction in the balances of those trust funds
that would result from other provisions of the proposal. As a result, the off-budget changes estimated for that
proposal represent only its effect on outlays of the Postal Service.
Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Page 3
? For the two pieces of legislation combined, Table 3 displays detailed estimates of
the costs or savings from the health provisions that are not related to health
insurance coverage (primarily involving the Medicare program) and from certain
of the revenue provisions that are not related to insurance coverage. The table does
not include the effect on revenues of title IX, a set of tax provisions whose impact
is reported separately by JCT.
Tables 4 and 5 show the incremental budgetary effects of the reconciliation proposal
(except for title IX), over and above the effects of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself:
? Table 4 presents the incremental effects of the health and revenue provisions of
the reconciliation proposal---that is, the difference between the effects of the two
pieces of legislation combined and the effects of H.R. 3590 by itself (as shown in
CBO's March 11 letter to Senator Reid).
? Table 5 summarizes the incremental effects of the health, revenue, and education
provisions of the reconciliation proposal, also assuming that H.R. 3590 has been
enacted. (The impact of the health and revenue provisions is shown in more detail
in Table 4.)
Table 6 shows the estimated effect of enacting the reconciliation proposal relative to
current law---that is, assuming that H.R. 3590 is not enacted. That table does not include
some effects that have not yet been estimated.
Effects of the Legislation Beyond the First 10 Years
Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget
projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the
budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have
requested CBO's analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the
nation's health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO has developed a rough
outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the
legislation into broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad
categories is likely to increase over time. Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed
by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to
those projected under current law-with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad
range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product
(GDP).3 The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of
uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO's 10-year budget estimates.
3 For a more extensive explanation of that analysis, see Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Harry
Reid regarding the longer-term effects of the manager's amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (December 20, 2009).
Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Page 4
Using that same analytic approach, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the
reconciliation bill would also be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade
relative to those projected under current law-with a total effect during that decade that is
in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The incremental effect of enacting the
reconciliation bill (over and above the effect of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself) would thus
be to further reduce federal budget deficits in that decade, with a total effect that is in a
broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP.
Relative to H.R. 3590, the reconciliation proposal would make a number of changes that
would affect its longer-term impact on the budget. In particular, it would increase the
subsidies offered in the new insurance exchanges and would reduce the impact of an
excise tax on health insurance plans with premiums above certain thresholds. An
important component of the longer-term analysis is that, beginning in 2019, the
reconciliation proposal would change the annual indexing provisions so that the premium
subsidies offered through the exchanges would grow more slowly; over time, the
spending on exchange subsidies would therefore fall back toward the level under H.R.
3590 by itself. Another key component of the longer-term analysis is that, beginning in
2020, the reconciliation proposal would index the thresholds for the high-premium excise
tax to the rate of general inflation rather than to inflation plus one percentage point.
CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the uncertainties
surrounding them are magnified even more. However, in view of the projected net
savings during the decade following the 10-year budget window, CBO anticipates that
the reconciliation proposal would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to
those under current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions would
continue to be fully implemented.
Congressional rules governing the consideration of reconciliation bills also require an
assessment of their budgetary impact separately by title. The effects of the reconciliation
proposal over the 2010-2019 period are shown in Table 5, assuming that H.R. 3590 is
also enacted). CBO's analysis of the longer-term effects, by title, is as follows:
? Most of the changes to H.R. 3590 that have significant budgetary effects would be
made by title I of the reconciliation proposal, so the conclusions about the longerterm
impact for the proposal as a whole-that it would reduce deficits, relative to
H.R. 3590-also apply to that title.
? The changes regarding health care contained in title II have a smaller budgetary
impact than those in title I, and would by themselves increase budget deficits
somewhat. That title also contains the proposal's education provisions, which
CBO estimates would reduce future deficits. In CBO's estimation, the savings
generated by the education provisions would continue to outweigh the costs
Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Page 5
related to health care stemming from title II, so that the title as a whole would
continue to reduce the budget deficit in future years.
CBO has not yet completed an assessment of the impact for the longer term of enacting
the reconciliation proposal by itself.
I hope this analysis is helpful for the Congress's deliberations. If you have any questions,
please contact me or CBO staff. The primary staff contacts for this analysis are Philip
Ellis and Holly Harvey.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf
Director
Enclosures
cc: Honorable John A. Boehner
Republican Leader
Honorable John M. Spratt Jr.
Chairman
Committee on the Budget
Honorable Paul Ryan
Ranking Member
Honorable Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
Honorable Mitch McConnell
Senate Republican Leader
Honorable Kent Conrad
Chairman
Senate Committee on the Budget
Honorable Judd Gregg
Ranking Member

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Pelosi called the "self-executing" rule a "non-issue"

Yeah right, if you just dropped in from Mars.
Pelosi called the "self-executing" rule a "non-issue" and used in "regular" order and pointed to any number of times Republicans have used it -- though for nothing this large.

"We have played on their turf for so long," Pelosi said, adding, "Now they're going to be playing on the turf of the American people."

In other words she doesn't have the votes to do it the usual way so they are doing whatever way it takes. And justifying it because the Republicans did it has been frowned upon since grade school. Anyone ever have a teacher or parent say "just because SoAndSo does it, doesn't mean you do it too"? Aren't liberals and the left always touting how independent and free thinking they are?

I think some of us that wanted to believe in the changes this President would bring to the political world are a bit disappointed in "the process". As i posted earlier, these savings(Medicare and other places) better materialize or passing this legislation will result in the single most expensive entitlement program this nation can't afford.
How it would be paid for:

- Force 30 million people to buy something they don't want or can't afford.

Obama forcing people without insurance to buy insurance is like solving the homelessness problem by forcing people without homes to buy homes.
Representative Paul Ryan said there was no official cost estimate. Speaker Pelosi presented a letter that there would be a reduction of 138 billion dollars over a ten year period.

Now explain to me how the Democrats "jumbed the gun".
Remember, all these numbers are estimates.

FR: Beware of Republican talking points.

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation-H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal-would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138 billion over the 2010-2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue..."

I have no issue with the professionalism and objectivity of the CBO analysts who prepare these things. I work with folks like that all the time, and my experience is these kind of folks are good, capable people who do their best.

My problem is they have an impossible task, and no one -- no one -- should take their estimates as being anything more than an educated guess. It might be their best guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. Only when reality unfolds in the coming years will we really know the fiscal impact of HCR. The government has a long history of underestimating program costs. And by time we know alll that, it will be too late.
Many thanks have to go too Nancy P,Harry Reid and there staff,and the members of the House and Senate,you will always be remembered for your courage in the face of screaming wingers and bagger's and there gun toting fear mongers.And I'm sure John Bohner is so proud of his Ohio Baggers who ridiculed a person who didn't agree with there position on HC reform,they belittled this guy,who was sitting ion the street,and the punk that through money at the guy can thank his stars he wasn't in the presents of say a crazy MF like me,who would have taken your dollars and shoved them where your brains reside,and I don't mean between your ears,we already know there isn;t much matter where it matters.
"the savings generated by the education provision would continue to outweigh the cost"
What are these education provision savings?
The explanation on "how this is paid for" "and other fixes" read like jibberish!
"We have played on their turf for so long," Pelosi said, adding, "Now they're going to be playing on the turf of the American people."

Payback can be so sweet. The Republicans crammed things through using the same sort of tactics and so they are hypocritical to suggest that the Democratic controlled Congress should not use the same methods.
I hope it will be challenged as unconstitutional. How can you mandate someone to buy something. Maybe they want to pay as they go.
The younger people are going to feel like their rights are infringed on. I work in payroll where there are 200 employees. Many of the younger employees don't want to or can't afford their part of the premiums. They will make too much to be able to get a government subsidy.
I´m very tired of the cry about people being forced to have healthcare. We are forced to have a driver´s license and no one crys about it. There are plenty of more pratical and helpful requirements. Try driving on the left side of the road. Moreso, I am fed up paying for other people, some being those who can afford health care mooching off my payments and my taxes. They have no right to do that. I suggest that we let them die in the streets and outside the emergency rooms if we don´t want to force them to have insurance. Let the pregnant mothers die, let the kids with broken bones sit there and suffer, let the victims of influenza suffer and die rather than mooch off my healthcare....or....make the requirement, get the care, and pay for it clearly and honestly through a transparent system. Get the law passed, get healthcare now! At the same time I suggest that we cancel all Republican government public servant healthcare and save the money for the rest of us. Let them pay out of their own pockets. Halter should be the first to have his healthcare cut since he is so anxious to prevent 40 million from getting it.
How it would be paid for:

- Force 30 million people to buy something they don't want or can't afford.

Obama forcing people without insurance to buy insurance is like solving the homelessness problem by forcing people without homes to buy homes.

Ty - That's a little simplistic isn't it? Anyone who can't afford it, would be subsidized by the government. And we already pay for anyone who doesn't have insurance. Hospitals and insurance add dollars to our bills to help pay for every person who comes in without insurance.
The government has never demonstrated the ability to run an entitlement program efficiently. and why does it take this health care bill to stop fraud in waste in medicare. You all should of been doing that for the last 20 years. The Bill will saddle generations to come with a unbelievable debt.
How would it be paid for:
- Cuts in "Medicare waste, fraud and abuse" totaling $500 billion

Why is it we must pass this bill to save the $500 billion???? Let's just save the $500 billion.
Mexed, you are not forced to driver. You can choose not to. This taxes you for living. And yes, the bill "forces" people to buy. This would stripe you of more rights than Bush's spying ever did.

New Independent, if someone cannot pay for insurance today, how are they going to pay for the (reduced) premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and the out-of-pocket of the new plan? The bill does not provide free care, just reduced insurance premiums. So yeah, you're forcing someone to buy something that they can't use.

This is what I've learned--Republicans will lie, waste your money, and attack your rights. Democrats will make the republicans look fair, kind, and honest in comparison.
The Reconciled Health Care Bill:

Covers 31 million people who are without health care.

Ends discrimination for pre-existing conditions.

Ends being dropped from insurance if you get sick.

Allows children to remain on parents insurance until age 26.

Cuts waste and extends the solvency of Medicare by over a decade.

Closes the Medicare prescription drug donut hole for seniors.

Provides preventative care for Seniors with no co-pays.

Cuts the Federal Deficit by over a trillion dollars over 20 years.

Makes access to affordable health care a right, not a privilege for most Americans.

Adds preventative and wellness programs.

Establishes community health care centers for improved access.

Establishes consumer protections from health insurance company abuses.

Establishes health care exchanges where individuals can shop for insurance coverage including all plans currently available to members of Congress at group rates.

Provides tax incentives for small business to provide health care coverage to their employees.

And, much more...

This legislation is not perfect, nothing that Congress ever does is. It is a vast improvement over the status quo, which is unsustainable. It needs to be improved and it will be over time. It is a good start and worthy of the support of fair minded and caring people.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of complaining here. Those complaining either don't understand what is in this legislation, don't believe that all Americans should have access to affordable health care or are honorary members of the " I got mine and the hell with you crowd ", in which case, I sincerely hope you never find yourself without yours...
"I´m very tired of the cry about people being forced to have healthcare. We are forced to have a driver´s license and no one crys about it." Hello, you are not forced to have a drivers license....and you are not forced to have auto insurance. You can 1) walk, 2) take the bus, etc.

Forcing this on the american people is unconstitutional period.
"I´m very tired of the cry about people being forced to have healthcare. We are forced to have a driver´s license and no one crys about it." Hello, you are not forced to have a drivers license....and you are not forced to have auto insurance. You can 1) walk, 2) take the bus, etc.

Forcing this on the american people is unconstitutional period.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2231885

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.comxml
myyahoomsn
bloglinesnewsgator
google