In case anyone is interested, here is the CBO analysis everyone is claiming says premium costs will go up or go down. You can see for yourself who is lying and who isn’t. Or, who is maybe not lying but instead is reporting the numbers in a way that seems to favor the lie.

For example, The Note claims the CBO analysis says “The net effect of those three factors: Premiums would be 10 to 13 percent higher for the average policyholders.”

This is deceptive The 10 to 13 percent figure applies only to non-group policies. Since the overwhelming majority of people are in group plans, the “average policyholder” is in a group policy. The same analysis shows group policy costs to remain about the same, give or take one percentage point.

Someone not reading carefully, such as Jammie Wearing Fool, might easily take away from the Note that the cost of most people’s insurance policy’s will go up. Not so.

Further, the increase for non-group policy costs comes from the assumption that people will choose to purchase more comprehensive policies. As Ezra explains,

CBO expects prices in the individual market to rise by 10 or 12 percent, an expectation driven entirely by predictions that individuals will purchase policies that are much more comprehensive, and thus somewhat more expensive, then the insurance they can afford now. … as the CBO explains on page five, part of the increase in the type of insurance being purchased is the result of “people’s decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies.” In other words, the change is driven by the subsidies, not offset by them.

However, if you keep the non-group policy you already have, the premium cost should go down.

The much anticipated health care summit is today, from 10 am to 4 pm EST. I don’t plan to live blog the whole thing but will be monitoring it on the TeeVee and may post if something strikes me as significant — like, releasing tigers.

I haven’t seen it, but Ben Dimiero of Media Matters says rightie media is furiously promoting a Breitbart TV video that shows Democrats in 2005 criticizing the “nuclear option.” Well, I’ll let him explain it —

The “nuclear option” was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.

Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation – notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren’t quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly “dirty” process when they used it to pass President Bush’s tax cuts. Multiple times. …

…In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the “nuclear option” in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.

This is absurd.

The Democrats in the video are railing against the “nuclear option” as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video “laughable” and “unbelievable.” I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.

To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of “deficits” to mean “freedom,” then put together a reel of conservatives attacking “freedom.”

It would be about as honest.