Headlines and Health Care

by Brad Peck

"Chamber Of Commerce Solicits Money For Economist Who Will Give Bad Review Of Health Care Bill" screams the headline on The Huffington Post, a scream dutifully echoed by its progressive minions on Twitter and elsewhere. But the best thing about Huffington Post stories is how often they self-rebut, sometimes even in the lead sentence (italics mine throughout):

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is soliciting funds to pay an economist $50,000 to study health care reform legislation and issue (what the lobby presumes) will be a negative review, providing ammunition to shoot down health care reform in the Senate, according to The Washington Post.

Apparently "Chamber of Commerce Expects Negative Review of Health Care Bill by Impartial Economist" just didn't zing. Obviously HuffPo has no interest in non-partisan reporting, so let's go straight to the Washington Post story:

The proposed economic study by the Chamber is the latest example of attempts by advocates and opponents of health-care reform to influence the debate with economic studies whose authenticity is later questioned by their adversaries...A number of economists have expressed concern that the legislation does not pay enough attention to controlling costs of employer-sponsored health insurance. Some analysts argue that taxes on the bill -- like the $40 billion levy on medical device manufacturers -- could cost thousands of jobs. And small-business leaders have said the bill's mandate for them to carry insurance could force them to shed employees...Randy Johnson, the Chamber's senior vice president who handles health-care issues, called the e-mail "inartfully worded" and said the group never intended to suggest that the outcome of the study would be preordained. "It's not saying that we would tell the economist how it should come out. Perhaps it wasn't artfully phrased," Johnson said. "It's based on what we think the economist will come out with. It doesn't mean we know what the economist will come out with." Johnson said the Chamber always intended to be transparent about who funded the study.

So let’s break it down, actual facts style:

• We are soliciting funds for a study of the bill, a comprehensive economic analysis of legislation this massive isn’t cheap.
• A study of job impacts resulting from mandates is NOT a new idea. Now that final bills are emerging from both chambers an updated review is warranted.
• It is highly likely that this bill will increase costs for business and cost jobs. (See testimony)
• If it shows the opposite, so be it.
• The final Senate bill, not yet introduced, may have beneficial effects but it is important that our members understand the impact of the employer mandate and increased taxes.
• The Chamber's position on the final legislation will be determined by an overall analysis of the entire bill.

If you want to contribute to our health care efforts, please click here so that we can get the facts out. And since we are posting on a Washington Post piece, let’s look at another -- here is Robert Samuelson today:

Claims of "fiscal responsibility" for the health-care proposals reflect "assumptions that are totally unrealistic based on past history," says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general and now head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Equally misleading, Obama's top economic advisers assert that the present proposals would slow the growth of overall national health spending. Outside studies disagree. Three studies (two by the consulting firm the Lewin Group for the Peterson Foundation and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency) conclude that various congressional plans would increase national health spending compared with the effect of no legislation. The studies variously estimate that the extra spending, over the next decade, would be $750 billion, $525 billion and $114 billion. The reasoning: Greater use of the health-care system by the newly insured would overwhelm cost-saving measures (bundled payments, comparative effectiveness research, tort reform), which are either weak or experimental. Though these estimates could prove wrong, they are more plausible than the administration's self-serving claims. Its health-care plan is not "comprehensive," as Obama and the New York Times (in its news columns) assert, because it slights cost control. Obama chose to emphasize the politically appealing path of expanding benefits rather than first attending to the harder and more urgent task of controlling spending.