That is just not true. You said “these guy's are dishonest see they agree!” but they never said that. They said they were paid to calculate a particular thing and that's what they did. That other factors could affect the situation, That is not what you said or claim.

They said their job was to analyze part of the bill and did so that is not what you said

“They took one tiny piece of the bill, studiously ignored the rest of it, and wrote an entire paper in order to make the point that the bill is bad. That doesn't strike you as desperately dishonest?”

Here was what PWC said and no it is not what you pretend.
“America’s Health Insurance Plans engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to prepare a report that focused on four components of the Senate Finance Committee proposal:

· Insurance market reforms and consumer protections that would raise health insurance premiums for individuals and families if the reforms are not coupled with an effective coverage requirement.
· An excise tax on employer-sponsored high value health plans.
· Cuts in payment rates in public programs that could increase cost shifting to private sector businesses and consumers.
· New taxes on health sector entities.

The analysis concluded that collectively the four provisions would raise premiums for private health insurance coverage. As the report itself acknowledges, other provisions that are part of health reform proposals were not included in the PwC analysis. The report stated on page 1:

“The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis. We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated”

And I challenge you again to add any facts to the conversation. Maybe discussing if the price will go up, why or why not, factors that may keep the price down, instead you are name calling and distorting reality.

Maybe I wasn't clear. It is not only me (and the Rachel Maddow show) saying that is what Price Waterhouse did. It is what Price Waterhouse said that Price Waterhouse did. Whether you agree or not doesn't really change the fact that the very people who did it do, in fact, agree.

That's what they said they did. You can read about it on this very blog, on a more recent post.

I don't agree that is what they did. I don't agree that Price Waterhouse is some hack partisan firm. And you haven't said crap about the figures just that people should ignore them. Ignore the issues and attack the speaker.

It is beyond obvious that insurance prices will have to go up. When you remove pre-existing condition limitations and won't allow companies to charge those who will use the services more than young healthy individuals then of course the price goes up. Big Shock! Everyone knew this it was just “believed” that people will change what they are currently doing.

So because the price will go up people will end up buying cheaper plans. That's the big inconsistency? BS!
The same plan will cost more! Just because the bill may force people to make cheaper choices doesn't invalidate the study and in fact is what people want to know.

Uh…this is almost too obvious to answer. They took one tiny piece of the bill, studiously ignored the rest of it, and wrote an entire paper in order to make the point that the bill is bad. That doesn't strike you as desperately dishonest?

Aside from the fact that the lib Dems face opposition from the unions to this, not a single lefty has yet to reply (much less successfully) how the Dems cannot avoid being named as hypocrites for wanting to do this (which presents imagery of “leveling” and socialistic Mediocrity for All) at the same time they have routinely wanted or demanded lavish — “Cadillac” — minimum benefit packages, broad collections of various kinds of physical and mental health, dental, etc., benefits, in addition to naive, overly ambitious desires or demands for (and expectations of) routine preventive and maintenance kinds of medicine.

(As I've also noted, the experience with generous minimum benefit packages in many states, which is a large cause of the higher-than-needed costs of much health insurance, already demonstrates the costliness.)

Well, they may not like anything interfering with what they see as their perogative, or with “progress” [sic]. But the timing was abrupt, and while we have to filter out all the left-wing noise in the media, it may have backfired, become bad PR for them (perhaps even for the timing, which they likely chose).

At any rate, I see it, no matter what, as a spur to the House lib Dems not to ease with their extremism, which logically they shouldn't have done, anyway, to maintain the best bargaining position before Senate-House conference negotiations. (If the Baucus bill passes, it's encouragement because it's a form of progress; if the Baucus bill fails, it falls even more on the House to pull harder to the left and they'll be resentful at the bill's failure, anyway, so again, it's encouragement. That's how I see it currently.
)

So? It was correct just “misleading” in that it didn't factor in tax breaks and other things that Dem's are “sure” will happen. The price tag will go up, this doesn't seem to lower the cost of anything just smear it around.

Really sounds like people are pissed because they didn't get out there quick enough to give their version first, to “explain” why the price will go up doesn't mean that it will cost more.

“As the threshold is indexed to CPI-U which has generally been lower than medical trend, it is
expected that many plans that currently have premium rates that are beneath the threshold will ultimately
reach it.”

It's unclear to me if they are saying that this assumption was counted in the numbers, or whether they are saying it is not counted, and are offering it as a justification for no counting the counteracting assumption that high-cost plans would not be modified. At worst they are knowingly not considering a significant factor that would affect their numbers. At best they are making a sloppy calculation that one bad assumption cancels out another.

I do think some of the other points in the report are more straight-forward, but since the credibility (and certainly clarity) of the report has been called into question, those points aren't unfortunately aren't likely to get much attention.

In any case, I think most of the left and the right agree that the finance committee bill doesn't do much to control cost. Were we disagree is how to improve the cost controls.

Well of course. Who doesn't? Public-option advocates sing the praises of health care “for peanuts or completely free.”

The gist of Kathy's post still doesn't hold together: insurers claim current plans will raise costs, insurers are self-interested, therefore current plans will lower costs. Full speed ahead!

Guess what? They've been raising premiums at roughly double the inflation rate for years. If this doesn't give them the excuse they want for premium increases, they'll find another.

Congress should never have crawled into bed with these folks and their lobbyists in the first place. The “healthcare reform” coming through Conress is a lobbyists 'bill, not a people's bill, and now the insurance industry wants even more…having their cake and eating it too. And we get to pay for the cake.

Meanwhile: The Senate panel vote is tomorrow, so enjoy how it goes. Awaiting your remarks then.