Below is a release from U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-Baton Rouge) calling for hearings to investigate what appears to be a growing scandal surrounding the question of whether the Obama administration was aware of the projected effects of the Obamacare legislation on the economy and health costs. Monday the American Spectator broke the story of a report by Medicare’s Office Of The Actuary which indicated higher costs and economic damage would be the effect of Obamacare actually circulating within the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department, and while that report was hotly disputed the Spectator stands by its source.
The question obviously then becomes, what did the President know, and when did he know it, about a bad bill which hurts American taxpayers and the economy?
In a letter to Education & Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA), Louisiana Congressman Bill Cassidy, along with every other Republican member of the Education & Labor Committee, called for hearings on a recent report from independent economists at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the President’s health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Said Cassidy, “The CMS report is a damning indictment of the President’s bill. Health care costs will go up; Medicare will be raided; millions of Americans will lose access to their current coverage; and the federal deficit will soar.”
The letter concludes, “Although it is unfortunate that the findings of the CMS Actuary were not available prior to the final vote on the PPACA, the information remains no less important today. Accordingly, we respectfully request that you invite Mr. Foster to testify before the Committee to provide Members with the opportunity to fully understand the implications of his analysis.”
The CMS report found that under the President’s bill:
“…we estimate that overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion (0.9 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019.” (page 4)
“We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 14 million…” (page 7)
“…a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchanges. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage…” (page 7)
“…providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).” (page 10)
“It is important to note that the estimated savings shown in this memorandum for one category of Medicare provisions may be unrealistic…Although this policy could be monitored over time to avoid such an outcome, changes would likely result in smaller actual savings than shown here for these provisions.” (pages 9 and 10)