You probably heard about that new report from the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank) that was released Monday to the child-like glee of the Bush campaign. On the other hand, you may not have heard about some of the more interesting details of said report.
Bush twice during the day cited what he called an “independent study” that concluded Kerry’s health plan would cost the taxpayers $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
The study is from the American Enterprise Institute, a Bush-friendly think tank; Vice President Cheney’s wife, Lynne, was a scholar there, and one of their daughters, Liz, is a fellow. Bush aides were crowing about the study in conversations with reporters before it appeared on the conservative group’s Web site.
That’s right, a think tank at which two Cheneys work (along with Newt Gingrich, David Frum, James Glassman, Kevin Hassett, R. Glenn Hubbard, Leon Kass, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Lawrence Linsey, John Lott, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Richard Perle, and Fred Thompson) is considered “independent” by Bush. He either doesn’t know what the word means, or he’s trying to deceive his audiences.
But far more importantly, the White House should have taken a closer look at the AEI report before Bush and his aides started boasting of its conclusions. Yes, the not-so-independent document concluded that Kerry’s health care plan would cost more than advertised, which BC04 is happy to talk about, but that wasn’t the only interesting conclusion.
The AEI analysts estimated widely different costs and impacts for the two proposals…. The Kerry plan would newly insure 27.3 million Americans. The Bush plan would newly insure 6.7 million.
If the Bush campaign thinks this is good news, it really hasn’t thought this one through.
For months, the White House has insisted that Bush’s health care “plan” would expand access to up to 10 million uninsured Americans.
If the Republican-controlled Congress enacted President Bush’s entire health care agenda, as many as 10 million people who lack health insurance would be covered at a cost of $102 billion over the next decade, according to his campaign aides.
Of course, no reasonable person thinks the campaign officials are telling the truth, because they’re not.
Projections by the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, academics and the campaign’s Web site suggest that under the best circumstances, Bush’s plans for health care would extend coverage to no more than 6 million people over the next decade and possibly as few as 2 million.
And now the new report, which the Bush campaign loves and plans to incorporate into its campaign advertisements, agrees that Bush’s plan doesn’t do what the president says it will do. Bush says his plan will help 10 million; AEI says there’s no way that’s true.
That’s not all. Bush has insisted, with spasm-like consistency, that his plan to crack down on medical liability lawsuits would make health care cheaper in the U.S. The AEI rejected this part of Bush’s plan, too.
[I]n that same report (pg. 8-9) AEI concludes that limiting medical malpractice lawsuits would have “no significant effect” on health care costs.
In other words, Bush and Cheney are running around touting a conservative think tank’s report that explains in some detail why Bush and Cheney are mistaken about their own health care plan.
Only George W. Bush would flaunt a report that says he’s wrong.
I know Bush isn’t big on reading, but wouldn’t it have been smart to have someone on his staff take a look at the AEI’s conclusions before telling everyone how great it is? Or maybe some staffer did read it, but the campaign assumed they could deceive people without getting caught?