He writes that in order to cite the CBO criticism of the Democrats' health care reform proposals, one
must do some combination of the following:
a) Support, as the CBO says you should, the eradication of the tax exclusion that protects employer-based health-care insurance;
b) Support, as Lewin and Commonwealth say you should, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare's rates;
c) Support, as the Office of Management and Budget and every health-care wonk in town says you should, one of the various policies floating around to give MedPAC authority to continually reform and modernize Medicare;
d) Support some form of aggressive cost-sharing that would make people extremely angry because it will save money by reducing their access to health-care services;
e) Support comparative effectiveness review that can judge not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of various treatments, and give the federal government authority to use that data when deciding reimbursement rates.
I pick (a), (d), and (e)*. What do I win?
Oops, there's some fine print. Ezra's rules apply to "Politicians." I'm not eligible.
*Bear in mind that with aggressive cost-sharing, the decisions about reimbursement rates will be driven more by consumers and less by government.
