CBO Projections: 1/3 of USA Opts-Out. Saints win Super Bowl. Splitsville for Brad and Angelina.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The CBO, or any other outfit making projections about dynamics with a million moving parts, has to make assumptions. Fair enough.

And the CBO can make assumptions about rational or semi-rational economic activity... "what percentage of people will chose to pay $20 extra for benefit Z?"

But the CBO has no basis I know of for projecting that states representing one third of the US population will opt-out of the Senate plan.

Projecting the purely political and irrational actions of wing-nuts in state legislatures is real flip-a-coin, Ouija board, "magic eight-ball" stuff.

Seems like an ideal case for running a series of projections at 0%, 10%, 20% etc., rather than predicting a particular opt-out result. Perhaps that is too much work? Takes too long? I don't know.

I doubt that even 5% of the population would ever be opted out so, in my view of things, the CBO is arbitrarily scoring the Senate bill as less effective than it would be based on political prognostication.

CBO Says Higher Premiums Under Senate Public Option, 'Opt-Out' Clause Would Impact One-Third Of Consumers

The CBO has posted its first analysis of the Senate's health care bill, which you can access
here.

As advertised, the bill reduces the deficit considerably in both the near- and long-term, while expanding coverage to 94 percent of Americans. By 2019, 25 million people would be buying insurance through a health insurance exchange.

However, it's not all roses. For instance, based on an assessment of the political popularity of the public option, the CBO has concluded that enough states will "opt out" to prevent a full third of consumers from purchasing government insurance.

"CBO's analysis took into account the probability that some states would opt not to allow the public plan to be offered to their residents. Rather than trying to judge which states might opt out, CBO applied a probability recognizing that public opinion is divided regarding the desirability of a public plan and that some states might have difficulty enacting legislation to opt out. Overall, CBO's assessment was that about two-thirds of the population would be expected to have a public plan available in their state."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/cbo-says-higher-premiums-under-senate-public-option.php?ref=fpblg

[Zynx]

1. CBO is doing the best it can with limited information available.

Policy analysts often have very limited information and thus have to make assumptions based on their own best guesses. For them, it pays to be conservative in their estimations of benefits.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Yes, but in this case a range would be both honest and *useful*

Every senator has keen political instincts--probably keener than those of number-crunchers.

The CBO is projecting a political question in a way that makes their work less useful.

We would all like to know what happens to the plan in different opt-out scenarios because that is key to assessing the utility of the plan.

The CBO should, in this case, say that under different political scenarios that are beyond their ken, X, Y or Z would happen.

Let me put it this way... predicting the politicized opt-out behaviors of state legislatures is a lot trickier than predicting the next presidential election, but if the CBO said, "We project that policy X will remain in place through 2016 because Obama will crush Mike Huckabee in the 2012 election" it would raise eye-brows.

[Zynx]

3. At the end of the day, they have to come up with one single number for the purpose

of the rules. They undoubtedly have estimates of possible ranges elsewhere. However, when scoring a bill it has to have a single definitive cost to it. They may post confidence intervals, but the bottom line for assessing its impact on the budget has to be a single number.

[karynnj]

4. They can use what they know about the legislatures in various states

For example, take my state, NJ. The legislature is controlled by Democrats in both Houses. Both of our Senators favor the public option. NJ is highly unlikely to opt out.

Now, I know less about other states, but I would bet that it is not unlikely that GA, SC, TX etc might opt out. The one thing that might make them more likely to stay in is that they can define their own public option.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. A note to the unrecc'rs...

It is sometimes comical to watch people trying to take a stand without knowing what they are commenting on.

The unrecc'g crew think like religious fanatics and often have trouble seeing beyond the most naked binary question. (Ironic for folks who profess a keen understanding of chess.)

"The latest CBO report is viewed as favorable for our team." True. It is. Reid is happy with the report.

"The OP criticizes an aspect of the report and we have already tagged the report as double-plus-good."

"Thus the OP is against our team."

The OP argues that the CBO report should be EVEN MORE FAVORABLE FOR OUR TEAM because it makes a wholly arbitrary political prediction that is NEGATIVE for the bill.

1/3 is a HUGE number of opted-out Americans. The coverage and cost cutting efficacy of the bill is tied to all sorts of aspects of national participation.

The Bill is BETTER than the CBO is saying.

[BlooInBloo]

6. It would be helpful if they made an alternate projection...

With the added assumption of a couple-year-long incubation period, during which states could not (yet) opt-out.

[ncteechur]

7. I don't want to cover republicans, I am pulling for the Saints this year, and I don't give a shit

about Brad and Angelina