CBO - "Show Me the Money"?

The new Democrat device to obscure the abysmal ObamaCare from Americans is a false premise about concerns with CBO analysis. They are insisting that Republicans are rejecting CBO analysis because they just don't like the result.

The largest problem with CBO numbers are inherent in any CBO analysis and the context of that analysis. Even the CBO would acknowledge these limitations. This problem is related to the untested assumptions and the long-term nature of the projections. They are particularly important here because the huge size of the health care sector (1/7th of the US economy) and the very long term nature of the alleged impacts.

As one commenter said about the CBO analysis of Obamacare:

"They don't pass the smell test."

Key business decision analysis rarely places reliance on projections that extend more than 5-10 years. The analytical problems include:

• The projected deficit reductions are over long periods of times and rely on many unreliable assumptions on impacts.
• The CBO estimates do not include all the provisions because the "fix bill" has not been described or analyzed. In fact, no one has even seen the fix bill or know the interaction of its provisions against the Senate Bill whatever may be included in it.
• The projected impacts presume a few years of costs in the 10 year horizon, and full 10 year taxes. Therefore analytical apples and oranges.
• The projections simply mush together service cuts (Medicare - HMO programs), tax increases (different in each bill) and alleged cost curve impacts.
• The stated deficit reduction in the first 10 years presume cuts, taxes and savings, while not comparing those to the entire health care bill for the full 10 years or the increased costs over the 10 years, both to the economy, and to the federal government.
• Many of the alleged cost curve savings make many presumptions about the impact while ignoring the small effect and limited basis for the assumption. Many of the cost curve changes are quite modest changes.
• Not discussed in the CBO savings are the full impact of the costs in insurance premiums. There is reasonable concern that insurance costs could increase substantially due to the incentive for adverse selection due to the modest penalty for choosing to be uninsured versus the benefit of "must carry".
• A very important limitation of the CBO analysis is that it seems to hide a new entitlement program that is all cost. Rarely do we discuss the specific and likely underestimated costs of the federal government subsidies of health insurance for those "in need". This cost is likely to be higher for many reasons and will not be offset by hopeful assumptions.
• The CBO analysis does not compare the costs/savings against other alternatives that might be more effective with much less analystical risk and much less cost. Any analysis has uncertainty.

The snuck out the $200 billion medicare doctor fix of the health bill and are running it through the jobs bill... so much for CBO integrity.