Earlier today, I mentioned a letter sent by stakeholder groups like the AFL-CIO, AARP, the Chamber of Commerce, Pharma, and a few other organizations calling for the Budget Committees to set aside pay-go rules on health reform. That's a lot of firepower for one piece of paper. The Blue Dogs are, even as we speak, fashioning a response. The letter argues that "while the cost savings from improving the efficiency and quality of health care will be significant, many of the anticipated savings will be realized in the long term, and may thus not be evident in a ten year budget window. Moreover, CBO’s current scoring conventions do not recognize many of the savings to be achieved by a restructuring of the health care system." As such, "requiring spending or revenue offsets for the entire cost of health reform within a ten year budget window, as required under a traditional pay-as-you-go rule, will significantly reduce the likelihood of enacting legislation to achieve essential reforms for long-term savings." "We therefore request that the committee develop a more flexible approach to pay-as-you-go for health care reform." In other words, the undersigned organizations -- and there are a lot of them -- fear that a health reform proposal built in accordance with pay-go rules will sacrifice the upfront investments that will lead to long-term savings. Or so they say. Undoubtedly, they also fear a legislative process conducted in accordance with pay-go rules will require savings, and savings will come from their profits and prioities. A world in which you really need to save money is a world in which you're more likely to cut reimbursements for pharmaceuticals, which PhRMA fears, or shortchanges subsidies for low-income workers, which SEIU fears. Anyway, full letter and list of signatories after the fold.
