Medicare analyst threatened by White House

The Washington Times ^ | March 13, 2004

[steve50]

I missed that lie--do you mean about the Council of Foreign Relations?

Campaign Finance Reform, pretty big lie to miss.

[OneTimeLurker]

The Bushbots go marching one by one hurrah hurrah.

[Nick Danger]

This issue, and this president aside, when have you known the gubermint to ever overcalculate the cost of a federally run program?

They almost can't overestimate, because of the "use it or lose it" provisions concerning appropriated funds. The number the Congress picks is always going to be the floor, because bureaucrats are never rewarded for accomplishing the objective at a lower cost. A bureaucrat who gets the job done for 70% of the estimated cost is "rewarded" by having his budget cut next year. That's perverse. We should be giving especially-efficient bureaucrats more responsibility over more stuff. Instead the system causes more empire to form around the biggest money-wasters and the least efficient managers.

Nixon once tried to "impound" appropriated funds, saying that he didn't need to spend that much to get the job done. The Supreme Court ruled that a President does not have that choice. He must spend what the Congress appropriates.

This acts like a ratchet under what federal programs cost. We will never see an "overestimate" on what a program will cost until we change those things.

[Mike4Freedom]

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THEM???

The question is why did you believe the Bush administration estimate of $400 bilion? When has the cost estimate of any government give-away program ever been accurate even with 50%? The original medicare estimate was off by a factor of 10.

The point is that the medicare drug benefit is unconstitutional under the tenth amendment, it is robbing from Peter to buy Paul's vote, it does not fix the problem of high drug costs and it proves that GWB is anything but a conservative. All these statements are true, no matter what the cost comes out to be. It just adds one more charge to the indictment that the administration orchestrated a phony story to get it passed. Not the only time they did that, is it?

[Lion in Winter]

I like the plan just fine. I agree with the administration figues.

So, what.

Conservative? Bush is a heck MORE conservative than kerry.

I am for Bush and I agree with his politics. SUITS me just fine.

[Mike4Freedom]

Conservative? Bush is a heck MORE conservative than kerry.

A well reasoned reply! Bush is right no matter how silly his reasons, and violating the constitution is OK if it is your guy doing it!

Bush does not fit any definition of conservative that I ever heard. Of course, neither does Kerry. We are damned whichever of them wins the election. Thinking people really have no choice left but the Libertarian candidate. It is not a wasted vote since the two big guys are both totally unacceptable. There is just no lesser evil this time.

[Lion in Winter]

I would no more WASTE my vote on a loser libertine/libertarian candidate that I would vote on a commie for a LIBERAL kerry.

Please do yourself a favor, do not waste anymore time replying to me... because I for one, DO NOT want to read anymore of your ANTI-BUSH rhetoric.

[Landru]

"I don't have an opinion on this because I think this stuff happens in all presidential administrations..."

We agree on this stuff almost being a SOP for all administrations, but...if #33 wasn't an opin, than what was it?
Just curious to hear what you'd call it, is all.

"...but I am curious to know on what basis you would fire this guy?"

Well the termination would be based upon my saying he's a gonner & that's all the reason I'd need *if* I were the Big Kahuna.

The CEO -- of any corporation -- doesn't just expect, they demand a certain level of confidentiality from the rank & file employee, period.
Personally I don't think government workers should be held to any lesser standard than those of the private sector; and, in some cases -- where *politicization* of an issue is imminant? -- even held to a higher standard.

I'll just bet you'll strongly disagree with my POV, though.
Opting instead for the total chaos a low level bureaucrat could create if they were to run helter skelter spewing god knows what to ( fill in the blank, Risa ) in an effort to make "a" point?
(If I'm wrong about that please except my apologies, in advance.)

"What if you were his supervisor, and he was telling the truth. Would you squelch the truth?"

I'd *counsel* the employee to weigh & consider the ramifications -- political or otherwise -- to their career.
That's what I would do. (Incidentally that's exactly what I'm doing right now with a valued friend of mine who's dealing with a *similar* -- albeit not as monumental as calling a sitting POTUS a cheating, lying fraud -- matter of conscious. But I digress...)

Nevertheless if this person insisted they were compelled to go public with what they think is the "truth"?
Fine.

All I could do is report to my immediate superior & let the chips fall where they may; but, the individual could never say they hadn't been spoken to, either.

...& forewarned *is* forearmed, eh?

[Mike4Freedom]

Please do yourself a favor, do not waste anymore time replying to me... because I for one, DO NOT want to read anymore of your ANTI-BUSH rhetoric.

OK, go and stick your head in the sand. I will try not to disturb your restful sleep till we all pay the consequences.

[antiRepublicrat]

Why is this one guy in possession of the 'real cost'?

Probably because he's Medicare's actuary. It was his one and only job, and he'd been doing it for nine years.

If this is true, and it looks quite plausible, the Bush administration just lost any respect I had for it. He lied to cost-conscious Republican congressmen -- people trying to protect my tax dollar -- in order to push another socialist bill through.

[Nick Danger]

Probably because he's Medicare's actuary. It was his one and only job, and he'd been doing it for nine years.

What has his track record been for forecasting accuracy? The article doesn't say, and I don't know. If he's been at it nine years, then we have no data on how accurate his 10-year forecasts are. In fact no one knows yet whether he's any good at all.

There are stock market analysts who have been assigned to follow General Motors for ten years. Do you think any of them could tell you what GM's average stock price will be for each of the next ten years? I doubt that even they would claim that.

To forecast Medicare, he has to know things that don't have much to do with Medicare. He has to know inflation rates for each of the next ten years; he has to guess how many and what sorts of innovations will be introduced; whether they will be approved, and how long each of them will take to be approved, and what effect each of them will have on average life expectancy. He has to guess the rate at which to discount the out-years to produce a present value, which means he has to forecast interest rates for each of the next ten years as well.

I guarantee that you could give this problem to 50 equally-highly-trained experts in the field, and you will get 50 different answers. They might not even cluster around the mean guess... they could be all over the place.

If humans knew how to accurately predict the future, the stock market would be a cakewalk for everyone. What we see instead is hundreds of 'experts' who devote their lives to understanding these things as well as anyone can. We also know that the Forbes "dart board fund" (they literally throw darts at the Wall Street Journal to pick the stocks that go into it) outperforms the funds run by these experts as often as not.

This article is a hit piece. Its target market is people who imagine that somewhere, there are "experts" who can forecast gigantic random phenomena with more accuracy than a weatherman. About the best humans can really do is say "There's a 95% probability that the final number will be between $250 and $600 billion, and every number in between has an equal probability of being the one that turns up."

If this is true, and it looks quite plausible...

It doesn't look plausible to me at all. Not because this guy is wrong, but because no one can tell whether he's right. Equally experienced forcasters have come up with numbers hundreds of billions different from his. Any one of them has as much chance of being right.

I picked a big company at random -- Exxon -- and looked up the analysts' estimates for per-share earning for this year. That's just this year, not ten years into the future. Among 22 analysts following Exxon, the low estimate is $2.10 a share, and the high estimate is $2.91 — a 39% swing. This is what happens when humans forecast the future. Next year we'll know which of these 22 guys got closest. The year after that we'll find out that this same guy did lousy that year. It's the nature of the beast.

the Bush administration just lost any respect I had for it. He lied to cost-conscious Republican congressmen...

100% emotional pap recited in the hopes that it will land in somebody's head like a meme. There is no basis in fact to claim a "lie," nor can there be, since the future hasn't happened yet. We won't know for ten years who had the best 10-year projection.

[montag813]

Another Clinton appointee?

Has "been the Medicare actuary for NINE YEARS".

YEPPER!

[antiRepublicrat]

What has his track record been for forecasting accuracy?

According to other posts quoting his bio, pretty good. His forecasts have allowed Congress to avert bankruptcy of parts of the program. If I'd trust anybody's numbers, I'd trust his due to his position and experience. Kind of like how we'd trust Linus' Linux opinions over others.

It doesn't look plausible to me at all. Not because this guy is wrong, but because no one can tell whether he's right.

Whether he's actually right or wrong in the end is beside the point. According to the charges, Bush's administration silenced an estimate with the highest credibility because it was politically inconvenient. If several Republican congressmen had known of the administration's own supressed estimate, they would not have signed the bill, and $500+ billion wouldn't be coming out of our taxes.

That is, of course, if the charges of threat and supression are true. I wouldn't put any fabrication past the Dims, especially in an election year.

[Risa]

Landru, Thank you for your response on this issue. I have been absent from my computer for a long time, and I am just now reading your thoughtful response.

You raise a good point with the private employment analogy. I have enough experience with my own business and those of friends and family for whom I consult to understand the importance of confidentiality with respect to trade secrets or business operations. (But if I were doing something illegal or harmful, I don't think I would have the right to expect complicity in illegal activity from employees.)

But the medicare matter was not illegal and was rather harmless, especially compared to the enormous flack that ensued when the employee divulged what he did. I agree with you that government employees should be held to a higher confidentiality standard on account of the chaotic consequences of everyone running around spilling all the politically volatile secrets they know.

As for the part about me not having an opinion--I wasn't very precise in expressing myself--I meant that the medicare matter doesn't influence how I perceive the Bush administration-- I do not judge what they did to be right or wrong, good or bad.

You may have forgotten what this is all about -it's been so long, but your response made me think a lot, and I was grateful for it, and didn't want to just blow it off.

Best,
Risa