From: Ed Lee [mailto:edwinlee@znet.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:35 AM
To: Strader, Nick
Subject: Visit to Greg Walden’s office in Bend last friday
Nick Strader:
Thanks for taking time to discuss the Health Care Reform issue last Friday. You mentioned that there was an analysis of the negative impact of the House bill on jobs, using the same formula used by the President about the stimulus money. You also offered to connect me to that analysis. Thanks. I hope you’ll be able to link me to it in the very near future, as I will study it and post the results on my blog.
As you might remember, I’m a supporter of Health Care Reform and submitted a letter to Congressman Walden asking him to explain why he voted against what appears to be the best interests of his constituents. When I receive a reply to that letter I will also post it on my blog.
I’m a retired entrepreneur and CEO. I was a registered and voting Republican all my adult life until last year… although I did vote against George Bush in 2004 for reasons I outlined in an essay “Why I won’t Vote for George Bush” at http://www.elew.com/Wont%20vote%20for%20Bush.pdf . Should you take the time to review what I have written, you’ll find that I’m serious and methodical about analyzing situations. I’m not out to score points, I’m out to uncover and influence the better choices among an array of imperfect and messy alternatives.
Sincerely, Ed Lee
Reply also on November 16
Ed,
It was a pleasure meeting you last Friday and discussing health care reform with you. Attached are a few documents that might be helpful:
1. Document outlining the potential of losing up to 5 million jobs. The figure was obtained using the formulas devised by Dr. Christina Romer, who is serving as the chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors. Applicable documents that outline Dr. Romer’s formulas (and its application to the stimulus when it was being pitched in January), are cited.
2. The latest nonpartisan actuarial statement from the administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on H.R. 3962.
3. Rep. Walden’s public media statement bill passage
In regards to the CMS study, here are some of their noteworthy findings:
- Costs Increase: “In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures] would increase by $289 billion.” [Page 12]
- Savings Provisions Ineffective: “Most of the provisions of H.R. 3962 that were designed, in part, to reduce the rate of growth in health care costs would have a relatively small savings impact.” [Page 3]
- Seniors’ Care Jeopardized: The Democrats’ bill would cut Medicare by more than one-half trillion dollars ($571 billion), resulting in doctors and other health providers finding “it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).” [Page 8]
- Employees Lose the Coverage They Have: “Some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their—and their employees’—advantage to end their plans” [Page 7]
- Entitlement Expansion: Under the House Democrats’ bill, “about three-fifths” or 60 percent of the uninsured who gain coverage would do so by being dumped into Medicaid. [Page 6]
- Shortage of Doctors and Hospitals: In stating that “consideration should be given to the potential consequences of a significant increase in demand for health care meeting a relatively fixed supply of health care providers and services,” CMS warns that those in need of care may face long wait lines if the House Democrat bill was enacted. [Page 15]
Please let me know if any additional information is necessary.
Thanks, Nick
Links to documents included in Nick’s reply:
Impact of Increased Employer Taxes in Democrats’ Health Bill
(copy stored on my web page because unable to find original link)
Rep. Greg Walden statement on Today’s votes on healthcare reform
(copy stored on my web page because not available on Greg Walden’s web site as of 11/18)
Estimated Financial Effects of ….. H.R. 3962.. as Passed by the House on November 7, 2009
Published Nov. 13 by Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Actuary
Followup email on November 16:
Nick:
Since I will link Greg Walden’s press release of November 7 to my blog and then to comment on it, I’m trying to fact check claims made in that statement.
I have two questions:
1. Where did he come up with the “5.5 million jobs will be lost”…. since the “Jobs Impact statement” estimates 4.9 million jobs, and that’s an estimate based on a set of assumptions, not an assurance of fact? Is there other data or analyses upon which he relied?
2. What I sense from the one pager on jobs lost is that it presumes that the taxes will come out of the economy and disappear, and does not account for:
a) the amount of taxes that constitute a shift in healthcare costs from direct payments to insurance companies by business to government taxes
b) the reduced costs to individuals and families which will leave them with more to spend elsewhere and provide a multiplier that grows the economy.
c) the taxes themselves will go back into the economy and create jobs in healthcare systems with an appropriate multiplier greater than 2!
For the job loss numbers to be credible, the assumptions would have to account for all three things in item 2 above. Any way I can find out if they are included or not?
The reasons I suspect a bias in the analysis is your comment that the same assumptions were used as the President used to justify the stimulus package. However, in the case of the stimulus we simply created money to fund jobs in the present…. stimulating jobs and a multiplier without taxing anyone. That negative impact on jobs will come in the future due to inflation and I’m willing to bet a substantial sum that long term effects were not accounted for.
3. The press release states : the cost of family premium in 2016 will be $15,000…. yet according to Page 5, paragraph 3 of the “Estimated Financial Effects..” that you so kindly sent me… the total “out of pocket costs” for a family in 2013 will be limited to $10,000 and grow no more than the rate of medical cost inflation thereafter. It appears that Greg Walden’s statement flies in the face of the very data you supplied me. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that the family costs will be lower for HR 3962 than for the Republican Alternative if that alternative limited family premiums to $10,000 in 2006. Out of pocket costs exceed premiums now and in the future…by thousands of dollars per year. At first glance the press release seems to have an apples and oranges comparison.
Ed
Note: When I receive a reply to this request, I will post it.
