Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Senate bill more generous than Finance bill

That, at least, is the early impression of most wonks I've talked to. The subsidies hold steady or are very slightly reduced on the low end, but they become more generous than the Finance Committee's proposal as you travel up the income ladder.

There are two main reasons for this. First, the bill spends a bit more on subsidies than the Finance Committee spent. For instance, in 2019, the Senate Finance bill spent $98 billion on subsidies, while the Senate bill spends $106 billion. That doesn't sound like much in one year, but extended to the 10-year window where we normally talk about health care and it's a difference of $80 billion.

The second piece gets to that 10-year window more directly: The bill shifted implementation to 2014, as opposed to 2013, which means its money only has to stretch from 2014 to 2019, not from 2013 to 2019. That means the bill has a bit more money to play with once it does get off the ground.

By Ezra Klein  |  November 19, 2009; 9:22 AM ET
Categories:  Health Reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The filibuster is popular
Next: The CBO puts $900 billion in perspective

Comments

Implementation shifted to 2014 huh? Nice....how about shifting it to 2020 maybe then we could get CBO to say its free!

Posted by: zeppelin003 | November 19, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

When to the taxes begin? Is it being front loaded? Here in Vermont we front-loaded the program and now the budgetary cushion that created is almost gone meaning really tough choices ahead at perhaps the worst possible time for our economy.

Posted by: cfuller1 | November 19, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

So today's GOP line of attack is that the CBO estimate is bunk because it scores 10 years of revenue against only 6 years of implementation. I long ago learned to assume that any declarative statements they make are the polar opposite of reality, so I would appreciate a post that breaks down the actual facts behind this spin.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | November 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

So is it fair to say that as absurd as his process was, Baccus actually did a pretty good job getting a bill together?

Posted by: TWAndrews | November 20, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company