About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post's Connolly baselessly put "estimates" of Obama's health-care plan at "$1 trillion each year" for "some time"

March 05, 2009 3:10 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Discussing President Obama's health-care plan on MSNBC Live, The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly baselessly asserted that "estimates" for the plan put the cost at "$1 trillion each year." However, Connolly wrote in a Post article on the plan that its estimated total -- not yearly -- cost is at least $1 trillion, while other outlets have reported that the plan is expected to cost more than $1 trillion "over 10 years."

21 Comments

Discussing President Obama's proposed health-care plan on the March 5 edition of MSNBC Live, Washington Post national staff writer Ceci Connolly baselessly asserted that "estimates" for the plan put the cost at "$1 trillion each year," saying, "Well, the plan is -- and it's an ambitious one, and it would take some time -- but the idea is that by coming up with some money, estimates are $1 trillion each year, you would be able to cover many more of those 46 million uninsured Americans." However, in a February 26 Washington Post article, Connolly suggested that the plan's estimated total -- not yearly -- cost is at least $1 trillion, writing, "President Obama is proposing to begin a vast expansion of the U.S. health-care system by creating a $634 billion reserve fund over the next decade, launching an overhaul that most experts project will ultimately cost at least $1 trillion."

Other news outlets have similarly reported that the plan is expected to cost more than $1 trillion "over 10 years," with The Wall Street Journal reporting on March 3 that "[e]stimates put the full cost of Mr. Obama's health plan at more than $1 trillion over 10 years," and the Associated Press writing on February 26 that "Obama's plan would set aside $634 billion over 10 years in a major effort to cover all Americans -- a goal that could cost more than $1 trillion."

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the March 5 edition of MSNBC Live:

TAMRON HALL (anchor): And right now the government spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care and at least 46 million people right now still uninsured. The president's ultimate goal is for all Americans to have health care, but the prescription to fix a broken system is a bitter pill for some to swallow. The administration plans to ask for sacrifices for the greater good.

Ceci Connolly is a national reporter for The Washington Post. Ceci, thanks for joining us.

CONNOLLY: Good morning.

HALL: You had a great article on some of the so-called winners and losers in this, and you wrote. "Under the president's plan, hospitals, doctors, drug makers, insurance companies, and wealthy seniors -- all of whom will be represented at this summit -- would sacrifice. But if the system was calibrated properly, no one would lose too much." Explain more on that.

CONNOLLY: Well, Tamron, thanks for having me.

HALL: Sure.

CONNOLLY: What we are seeing in the opening gambit by President Obama -- and which we'll hear more about at this summit at the White House later today -- is that he is looking for some cuts in government spending to each of those major stakeholders that you talk about: doctors, hospitals, drug makers, et cetera.

But rather than really trying to deliver any sort of devastating blow to any one of those industries, he's very carefully calibrated it so that each would just give a little bit. It's a strategy to get everyone at the bargaining table and keep them at the bargaining table as long as possible.

HALL: Well, Ceci, in your article and as we just pointed out, the number of Americans estimated to not have health insurance: 46 million people out there. How could this possibly help all of those folks?

CONNOLLY: Well, the plan is -- and it's an ambitious one, and it would take some time -- but the idea is that by coming up with some money, estimates are $1 trillion each year, you would be able to cover many more of those 46 million uninsured Americans.

Then if you think about this long term, once those individuals start getting insurance, start going in for regular checkups, getting proper screenings, that sort of thing, you hope that they'd be in better health. They wouldn't be showing up at the emergency room in a very dire condition. So --

HALL: Right.

CONNOLLY: -- over the long term, you should see people in better health not costing as much money.

HALL: All right, Ceci, thank you very much. And again, the big news, at least right now, Senator Ted Kennedy will in fact return to Washington and attend that forum. Thanks, Ceci.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by JLyons (March 05, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
         
      The media will do anything they can to smear and take down the President's Healthcare plan.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jwcoop715110 (March 05, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
         
      Clearly, you can take the girl outta fixed noise, but ya can't take the fixed noise outta the girl.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 05, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
           

        This is almost as goofy as that stupid "cost per job" stat, where the media monkeys divided the money going to creating jobs by the number of jobs and compared that to a yearly salary.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (March 05, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
             

          Shouldn't they wait and read the plan before they comment on it, or is this gonna be just like the stimulus bill where they spend the whole time complaining about it and then whine about not having enough time to read it when it gets passed?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (March 05, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
               

            I heard the bill provides for free abortions for salt marsh harvest mice...and ACORN is getting $10 billion to operate late-term abortion clinics. And you have to make an appointment for an emergency room visit...and it takes two weeks!  ;>)

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 05, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
                 

              And they'll all have to ride the "mag-lev" train from Disneyland to THE BROTHEL!

              http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/04/fox-extends-gops-fantasyland-railway/

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 05, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
                   

                That is amazing, Ol' Ben. They have to keep embellishing their already ridiculous lies like increasing dosages of stoopid as they build up a tolerance. And yet another example of the "small animal = funny" for the Beavis & Butthead party.

                Our media and other Republicans seem to be drifting further away from reality every day. Scary,  the level of self-hypnosis necessary to be a member of the far right loony brigade these days.

                I've driven right by Dizzyland a couple of times this week, and don't see any groundbreaking going on yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 05, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
                     

                  I think they stopped the low income housing in order to leave room for the station (but you probably have a better idea if they suceeded or not)...

                  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2003680911_webdisneylandhousing25.html

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 05, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
                       

                    You don't want to put the housing too close. One of my buddies got a really cheap apartment right next to D-land when we were about 19. Couldn't believe the steal he got, until the nightly fireworks season started. Not just the noise and lights, but the wind blew all of the smoke directly into his place most nights.I think they leveled that neighborhood.

                    Report Abuse
            • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (March 05, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
                 

              Irony gets "Post of the Day"...

              That's frikkin' funny

              Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 05, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
         

      Quite a difference between $1 trillion over ten years and $1 trillion per year... You would think a real reporter, a real journalist...you know, someone who gets paid to report the news accurately, like a journalist who does this for a living, would be able to get this correct. Or maybe my standards are just unrealistically high...and I am asking way, way too much. ;>)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (March 05, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
         

      And how much do we spend on health care under our current system?

      Over $2 trillion per year.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 05, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
           

        And how much goes for "administrative costs" (i.e. PROFIT) as compared to medicare/medicaid?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (March 05, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
         
      For a list of misleading and false statements by Connolly against Al Gore in 2000, go here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=connolly+gore+site%3Adailyhowler.com&btnG=Google+Search
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Liebuster (March 05, 2009 9:54 pm ET)
         

      First, the tired old figure of 46 million that do not have insurance is a misleading statement.  There are 300 million of us here.  25% of that liberal lie is made up of illegal immigrants. (don't qualify)  People that make enough money but go without it.  People that qualify but simply do not sign up.  On and on.  A miniscule percentage of this number actually needs this.

      What does these folks that do not have insurance have to do with ME?  Why am I responsible for them?  The Constitution says nothing about me having to be responsible for you pal...

      The very reason that we are where we are right now is directly because of government on SO many levels.  So much of our system is NOT private to start with.  So much of what the insurance companies can or cannot do is mandated by government.  States mandate who can do business there.  That is why I personally only have a couple of choices.  Why can I not take the money that the employer spends on me and purchase a catastrophic plan?  The government will not allow that.  There is no competition either.  If you had to pay each time that you went to a doctor, you would not go so often.  You do not have a RIGHT to go to a doctor for every little sniffle.  No one calls their doctor and ask what they are going to charge and shop around! 

      Obama tries to make this sound capitalistic.  You can trade within the system, you buy your insurance within the system, etc.

      If the government is so great in this instance, why do we continuously hear horror stories of our veterans?  If the government treated those appropriately that gave up their health to serve their country, I would not be SO discouraged.  You get Aspirin vs. Plavix when you need a blood thinner for instance.  Ask the veterans how well socialized medicine has worked for them.  Walk into a VA hospital.

      To make it all work for EVERYONE, the government will take the appropriate medicines/treatments away from those that have them just to provide a service to everyone.  They are going to decide what the insurance company covers and cannot cover. You get an insurance card.  It crinkles like an insurance card, looks and feels like one, but it is not the same that you may have now.

      Don't be fooled.  For if this is allowed to go forward Americans will pay a GREAT price.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 06, 2009 1:52 am ET)
           

        <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

        LB, I understand that you worked very hard at that post, and you thought it was important enough to  post on 5 or 6 threads, whether it was relevant to the topic or not, but I'll offer you some helpful, if unsolicited, advice;

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 06, 2009 1:52 am ET)
             

          <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

          The effort you put into the last 90% of the post would have been better spent backing up the first 10%.

          I can't speak for others, but when I see dubious statements presented as "facts" with no support in the first sentence or two, my Bullsh*t detector redlines, and I skip to the next

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 06, 2009 1:53 am ET)
               

            sorry about all that. I had to say you worked hard AT your comment, not ON. The Cyber Nanny is weird.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by thejbomb65 (March 06, 2009 10:18 am ET)
             

          he used the same post in three different article.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (March 06, 2009 3:03 am ET)
           

        "25% of that liberal lie is made up of illegal immigrants."

        WRONG.  Census Bureau data does not distinguish between legal non-citizens and illegal immigrants.

        The percentage of uninsured non-citizens is actually about 21% according to the CB data.  The "liberal lie" is dependent on how they are phrasing it.  If they're saying 46 million American citizens, then it's misleading.  If they're saying 46 million people in the US, then it's true.  There are 9.7 million uninsured non-citizens in this nation, but how many of them are illegal immigrants is officially unknown.

        "What does these folks that do not have insurance have to do with ME? Why am I responsible for them?  The Constitution says nothing about me having to be responsible for you pal..."

        It's not the Constution that's making you responsible, it's the insurance companies and providers.  Uninsured people do not get regular care.  They don't seek out care until the last minute when the need is dire or their condition is terminal.  When they cannot pay for emergency treatment, it results in what's known as "uncompensated care."  The cost of which is passed on to me and you in the form higher medical care costs and higher insurance rates.

        "Why can I not take the money that the employer spends on me and purchase a catastrophic plan?  The government will not allow that. "

        I'm not entirely sure on this one, but I think you're wrong again.   I believe you can always opt out of employer coverage, but it's entirely at your employer's option to compensate you for doing so.  You may have to depend on your evil government to require them compensate you.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.