So I saw the following Tweet from George Stephanopoulos earlier-
CBO has scored IMAC proposal to control health care costs. Only 2 billion in savings over ten years. Could slow debate even more
Now IMAC stands for Independent Medicare Advisory Council. It is a group of medical professionals who would be charged with eliminating waste and making Medicare more efficient.
I was both disappointed and irritated when I first saw the tweet.
So I dug a little further.
Then I saw this Politico story
http://www.politico.com/...
I thought that the framing was typical Politico. Right-wing talking points cloaked with a thin veneer of impartiality. They then end the story with a grim outlook for healthcare reform largely laid at the feet of the Democrats. It finishes with Boehner saying
Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford.
Political mother's milk for conservatives.
So then I dug up the report from the CBO
http://cbo.gov/...
First of all, IMAC doesn't even go into effect until 2015. So the two billion cited by Stephanopoulos and Politico comes entirely from 2016-2019.
Later in the report however
Looking beyond 2019, a much stronger IMAC-type proposal could reap
considerably more savings, depending on which specific features identified above were included and how those features were crafted in legislation. In particular, if the legislation were to provide IMAC with broad authority, establish ambitious but feasible savings targets, and create a clear fall-back mechanism for instituting across-the-board reductions in net Medicare outlays, CBO believes the council would identify steps that could eventually achieve annual savings equal to several percent of Medicare spending.
Sounds considerably better but no media outlets have highlighted the above section of the report.
Shortly after the CBO report comes out, Orzg pushes back
http://www.whitehouse.gov/...
Money quote
The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. . .Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term. In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset.
So (big surprise), the media has run with a story that is at best incomplete and at worst completely misleading. My guess is that this is going to be a big talking point for conservatives on the Sunday morning shows tomorrow. It almost seems as if major media outlets are trying to scuttle healthcare reform.
Finally, as I was surfing for more info, I saw this rare Saturday piece from Ezra Klein. He makes several of the same points as are made above but probably more eloquently.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...
Will anyone read or cite the additional information above to push back against what is sure to be a conservative talking point this week? Or is it too wonky?
PS- I don't diary too much but I wanted to get this out there. I didn't see it mentioned in any of the slinkerwink, mcjoan, or nyceve pieces. And sorry if there are formatting errors or faux pas.