Senior Republicans have embraced the now-discredited insurance industry funded study on premium increases in the Senate Finance Committee’s health bill. While careful to not directly connect the study to the insurance industry, Republicans cite the study’s claim that premiums will increase by $4,000 and disingenuously argue that the Congressional Budget Office agrees with the insurance industry’s conclusions:

- Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): CBO, and Milliman and PriceWaterhouse all agree that insurance premiums for families in America will go up.

- Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): I would like to go back to some of the discussion of the PriceWaterhouse Coopers study that was released and which has been criticized because it was paid for by the insurance industry…it would be a cruel outcome indeed if in fact, unintentionaly we actually increased their health insurance costs.

- Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY): And a recent study suggests that American families will pay more than $4,000 in 2019 because of this bill.

Watch it:

As Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf pointed out, the budget office did not conclude that premiums would increase under reform. “There are a variety of forces working on affecting private insurance premiums and the amounts that people would pay for health insurance and some of the changes in the proposal would tend to push down those premiums and some would tend to push up those premiums. And because there are so many conflicting forces, we have not been able to assess the impact on premiums,” Elmendorf said.

The insurance industry was correct to argue that a weak individual mandate would increase premiums — the final Senate bill needs to improve on the Finance bill’s affordability measures. But the industry’s very selective analysis undermines its conclusions and exposes the study as an industry attempt to protect the bottom line. An actual analysis of Congressional Budget Office data has concluded that premiums in the exchange would be lower than they are in the none group market today.

This morning, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the only Republican to vote for health care reform, revealed that she opposed the individual mandate:

I oppose the individual mandate and I have made changes in the committee with Senator Schumer and I hope we revisit that issue as I said yesterday on the floor. It’s not about punishing and penalizing people, it’s about our responsibility to deliver affordable health care.

Watch it:

Snowe has previously complained about the bill’s lax affordability measures and has introduced numerous amendments to exclude more Americans from the requirement. However, until today, she has indicated that she could support an individual requirement if coverage became more affordable. “I understand the rationality behind the individual mandate,” Snowe said during the committee’s mark-up hearings. “Certainly we shouldn’t pay for those who don’t have health insurance.”

Snowe’s status as the only Republican to vote for health care reform will likely bolster her position at the bargaining table and give her greater influence in shaping the final legislation. Democrats will have to maintain Snowe’s vote as reform moves froward. POLITICO’s Live Pulse quotes a senior Democratic leadership aid as saying, “As the sole Republican to vote for the bill in committee, of course, Sen. Snowe will have a key role to play,” although she may not have a permanent seat on the committee that merges the Finance bill with the HELP bill.

Still, if Snowe — who has called affordability her “first and foremost goal” going forward — has decided that it’s easier to remove the mandate than fight for better affordability measures, some policy makers may be inclined to heed her concern in order to retain her vote and the bill’s ‘bipartisan’ flavor. That, of course, could lead to disastrous policy consequences.